My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08/21/2025 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
>
08/21/2025 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/18/2026 5:28:23 PM
Creation date
10/27/2025 10:04:01 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
08/21/2025
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Town of Mashpee Conservation Commission <br /> 16 Great Neck Road North <br /> Mashpee, MA 02649 <br /> backfilling and would elevate the first floor to 13.75 feet—about 2 feet 9 inches above the base flood elevation <br /> of 11. He emphasized that the proposed structure would not encroach closer to the wetland resources than the <br /> existing one, with only a modest deck expansion for outdoor living space. The site already had a recently <br /> installed innovative/alternative (I/A) septic system, so no new septic installation was required. <br /> Mr. Borselli further noted that landscape architect Andrew Garaway of Yarmouth Port Design prepared the <br /> mitigation plan, which provided over 650 square feet of native plantings, far exceeding the required 141 square <br /> feet—about four times more than necessary under Commission regulations. The new home would remain a <br /> three-bedroom structure with roughly equivalent ground coverage, and the application had also been submitted <br /> to the Zoning Board of Appeals by attorney Christopher Corain, with a hearing pending. <br /> 19 Cricket Way—Plan Revisions <br /> He explaining that he had spoken with Mr. McManus in October, and landscape architect Andrew Garaway <br /> had reviewed the plans and provided comments. One issue Mr. McManus raised was that the plan lacked a <br /> limit of work line, which Borselli admitted was an oversight. He assured the Commission that the revised plan <br /> would include a clear limit of work with staked hay bales for erosion control, noting that he knew the <br /> Commission's preferences regarding silt fences. <br /> He also addressed questions about the square footage of the proposed versus existing house. The current <br /> structure is a single-story home with 1,600 square feet on the first floor and an additional 1,300-square-foot <br /> basement used for storage and housing equipment, plus a large shed in the northeast corner of the property. <br /> The shed will be eliminated under the new plan. Altogether, the existing home and outbuildings account for <br /> about 3,200 square feet of total space. The new home will have roughly 1,900 square feet on the first floor and <br /> 1,200 on the second floor, totaling 3,200 square feet, the same as before. The key difference,he said, was that <br /> the new home would replace the noncompliant basement with usable living space for the family, offering a <br /> modern layout more suitable for year-round living. <br /> Mr. Borselli added that architectural plans would be provided, as he now understood that the Commission <br /> required them. These plans would show compliance with FEMA flood regulations, including flood vents and <br /> elevation above the base flood level. The home would remain a three-bedroom residence, consistent with the <br /> existing structure. He then introduced Attorney Wall to discuss the requested waiver. <br /> 19 Cricket Way-Attorney Wall's Waiver Request and Justifications <br /> Attorney Wall explained that, after reviewing the project against the town's regulations, only one provision <br /> could not be meta 75-foot natural vegetated buffer requirement in the town's bylaw (§172-7A(1)). The home <br /> predates the Wetlands Act and local bylaw, meaning no such buffer exists. Therefore, the applicant was <br /> formally requesting a waiver, detailed in his August 4, 2025, letter. <br /> Attorney Wall reviewed the criteria for granting waivers, focusing on three main considerations. <br /> o First, he described the compelling need for the project. The existing house, built in 1972, was intended <br /> as a seasonal cottage and lacks proper insulation, energy efficiency, and flood compliance. Homeowner <br /> Nina Cocomazzi has lived there since 2000 and wishes to remain in the home permanently, aging in <br /> place with accessibility improvements and first-floor living features. Renovating the current structure <br /> would be impractical, he said, making a raise-and-rebuild the only viable option. <br /> o Second, Attorney Wall emphasized the need for flood compliance. The existing home lies below the <br /> floodplain, making it ineligible for flood insurance and vulnerable to future storm events. The new <br /> design would elevate the structure, eliminate the basement, and relocate all mechanicals to habitable <br /> space above flood level—bringing it into full compliance with FEMA and building code standards. <br /> 18 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.