Laserfiche WebLink
Town of Mashpee Conservation Commission <br /> 16 Great Neck Road North <br /> Mashpee, MA 02649 <br /> • Commissioners turned their attention to the condition of the coastal bank at 34 Triton Way and <br /> whether stabilization measures could be implemented. It was explained that the applicants had <br /> previously received approval to rebuild the collapsed revetment wall but lacked a Chapter 91 <br /> license at that time. That issue has since been resolved, with both Conservation Commission <br /> approval and a Chapter 91 license in place. <br /> • A peer review by the Woods Hole Group had evaluated two options for stabilization at the top of <br /> the bank: a concrete wall or a vegetated buffer. The Commission had not yet chosen between the <br /> two approaches, though members expressed hope a decision might be reached soon. Photos of <br /> the site showed severe erosion. It was confirmed that the bank had continued collapsing since <br /> March of this year, exacerbating concerns. <br /> • Commissioners then raised questions about mitigation calculations. Mr. Santos explained that the <br /> requirement was 5,620 square feet and that the landscape plan provided over 6,100 square feet of <br /> new plantings, including lawn conversions and understory vegetation. He agreed to make the <br /> figures more prominent on the plan for clarity. Erosion control measures were also discussed; the <br /> plan specified a silt fence, but it was recommended to replace it with hay bales, including along <br /> the street side due to the site's topography. <br /> • It was confirmed that approximately 29 trees would be removed but emphasized that the <br /> mitigation plan would compensate for these losses and more. Nitrogen loading analysis was also <br /> presented, showing a reduction from 12.82 ppm to 3.98 ppm under the proposed system, a <br /> significant improvement. It highlighted the need for the Commission to discuss the potential <br /> demolition of the existing house to allow construction access for the revetment wall, <br /> recommending that the matter be considered for administrative approval due to the absence of <br /> alternative access routes. <br /> • The Commission reviewed the Woods Hole Group peer report, which aligned with their <br /> skepticism regarding the proposed concrete wall.Members agreed to pursue a plan for a vegetated <br /> buffer at the top of the bank but were directed to contact the applicants and representatives to <br /> begin drafting plans. Commissioners emphasized that stabilization could not occur until after the <br /> revetment wall was rebuilt but agreed it was important to move forward with design work now. <br /> • The discussion then returned to whether the Commission could grant administrative approval for <br /> demolition of the house to create construction access. The urgency of stabilizing the bank, <br /> warning that continued erosion could damage multiple resource areas, increase sediment loading, <br /> and require additional fill. However, commissioners raised legal concerns: if the house were <br /> demolished before full approval of the project, could the owners lose their right to rebuild? The <br /> applicant's representative confirmed this was a concern and explained they had already filed with <br /> the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), though a hearing had not yet been scheduled. <br /> • The house blocked access for heavy equipment,making demolition unavoidable before revetment <br /> construction. Commissioners debated possible pathways forward, including conditioning <br /> demolition as part of the current application,approving it administratively,or requiring it to return <br /> for a subsequent hearing. The applicant noted a demolition contract was already lined up for <br /> October and urged timely approval to avoid further delays. <br /> • The Commission recognized the difficulty of the situation: stabilization required house removal, <br /> but removing the house raised regulatory risks for the applicant. Members agreed that a path <br /> forward would need to carefully balance urgent stabilization with legal protections for the owner's <br /> rebuilding rights. <br /> • Commissioners questioned how future sand nourishment could occur at 34 Triton Way, given <br /> limited access to the site.It was explained that replenishment would require a new Notice of Intent <br /> and that,without water access, trucks might need to navigate around the side of the house or sand <br />