08/21/2025 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

Town of Mashpee Conservation Commission 16 Great Neck Road North Mashpee, MA 02649 impervious coverage. Ms. Thornbrugh thanked him and noted that such a change would strengthen the environmental merits of the proposal. 19 Uncle Henry's Road—Vegetation Removal and Waiver Revisions Mr. Sahl began by asking whether the deck at 19 Uncle Henry's Road was raised. Mr. Dibb explained that it was slightly elevated, with two steps down, and would remain at the same height, consistent with the home's single-story design. Ms. Pitt echoed Ms. Thombrugh's earlier comments, emphasizing the importance of preserving as much of the property's mature vegetation as possible. Ms. Godfrey agreed, noting that the loss of old-growth trees was a shared concern among the Commissioners. Mr. Colombo then referenced the Conservation Agent's comments, stating that he was also troubled by the amount of vegetation being cleared,particularly since this was not clearly reflected in the project's documentation. He confirmed that while the applicant clarified the waiver requirements—specifically that only the new addition would be built to flood zone compliance—the loss of vegetation remained problematic. Mr. McManus provided clarification on the waiver issue. He explained that the waiver request cited Regulation 25C7C,relating to setbacks from coastal resource areas such as flood zones. However, because the project also involved clearing naturally vegetated areas, a second waiver was required under the regulation's standards. This additional waiver needed to demonstrate a compelling need for disturbing those natural areas, rather than simply pursuing a redesign that could avoid it. He also pointed out inconsistencies in the project narrative: while parts of the waiver language suggested the house was being raised and replaced, other portions described the project only as additions. He requested that the applicants revise the waiver to accurately describe the scope of work and to justify any proposed clearing and expansion of impervious surfaces. Mr. Kent agreed, reiterating that the waiver for clearing naturally vegetated areas was his main concern. Mr. Dibb responded that he and his client would revisit the design, aiming to reduce the hardscape and increase mitigation—potentially at a 2:1 ratio to align with new regulations. He then formally requested a continuance to allow time for revisions. Ms. Thornbrugh asked whether the homeowners were moving in full- time, to which Mr. Dibb confirmed they were. Mr. Colombo then asked whether it would be feasible to make the entire home flood zone compliant by raising it on a new foundation. Mr. Dibb explained that the project had been structured as a non-substantial improvement--under the 50%threshold—to avoid triggering a full compliance requirement. However, he said it was technically possible to raise the structure, and the team would continue to evaluate that option while preparing revised materials. MOTION: To continue to September 4, 2025, with the condition that the building plans be submitted before that meeting. Motion by: Sarah Thornbrugh Seconded by: Richard Sahl Discussion: Mr.McManus asked if building plans would be required to which the Chairman answered yes. Vote: Motion passed by unanimous vote. (Steven Cook, Sarah Thornbrugh, Paul Colombo, Sandi Godfrey, Richard Sahl) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 13