Laserfiche WebLink
Town of Mashpee Conservation Commission <br /> 16 Great Neck Road North <br /> Mashpee, MA 02649 <br /> o Third, he noted that the deviation from standards was minimal, as the property's lack of a 75-foot <br /> buffer was pre-existing and would not worsen. The project otherwise complies with all other <br /> performance standards. <br /> o Finally, regarding mitigation, the bylaw requires 141 square feet of plantings, but the applicant is <br /> providing 656 square feet—more than four times the required amount. Landscape architect Andrew <br /> Garaway designed the new buffer area to mimic a natural vegetated edge, improving environmental <br /> conditions compared to the existing site. Wall concluded by stating that the project met all bylaw and <br /> regulatory waiver criteria and requested that the Commission grant the waiver. <br /> 19 Cricket Way- Commissioner Discussion and Request for Expert Review <br /> Ms. Thornbrugh thanked the team for the presentation and clarified that the revised Regulation 25—not the <br /> older"legacy"version—applies to this project, as it governs land subject to coastal storm flowage. She asked <br /> Attorney Wall to ensure his waiver letter reflected the correct regulation, since the earlier draft contained <br /> language about setbacks no longer in effect. Attorney Wall confirmed he had since reviewed the updated <br /> regulation and would revise the letter accordingly before the next hearing. <br /> Ms. Thornburgh then turned to Mr. Borselli, asking about the inclusion of dry wells on the plan. She recalled <br /> him mentioning stormwater management measures during a previous hearing but did not see them on the <br /> submitted drawings. Mr. Borselli confirmed that the updated plans would include dry wells or similar systems <br /> to manage roof runoff, which she welcomed. She described the property as unique and visually striping, with a <br /> coastal bank, revetment wall, and natural sedimentation patterns. Given the home's close proximity—within <br /> single-digit feetto the top of the coastal bank. Ms. Thornbrugh expressed concern about potential impacts <br /> during demolition and reconstruction, particularly regarding erosion and sediment transport. She recommended <br /> obtaining a technical review by a coastal geologist, specifically from either the Massachusetts Office of <br /> Coastal Zone Management(CZM) or the Barnstable County Extension Office, both of which offer free <br /> consultation services. Their experts could evaluate the project's effect on bank stability, construction <br /> methodology, and mitigation measures. Ms. Thornbrugh explained that these state and county reviews could <br /> substitute for a paid peer review and typically have a two-week turnaround, noting that Brian McCormick of <br /> Barnstable County was a qualified geologist who could likely assist. <br /> Both Attorney Wall and Mr. Borselli questioned whether such a review was necessary, given that the project <br /> was minor compared to others on the Cape. Attorney Wall observed that the coastal bank on this site was small <br /> and stable, unlike the steep, eroding banks in towns like Chatham or Orleans, and that no excavation or work <br /> was proposed below the bank. He contended that the construction would not compromise its stability. <br /> Ms. Thornbrugh agreed that the scale was smaller but noted that the regulations apply equally regardless of a <br /> bank's size. She reiterated that her concern was not with the design itself but with ensuring proper review of <br /> construction-phase impacts, such as heavy equipment operating near the top of the bank. <br /> Mr. Borselli concluded that a limit of work barrier would be clearly shown on the revised plan to keep all <br /> machinery and activity away from the bank edge. <br /> 19 Cricket Way—Limit of Work and Coastal Bank Protection <br /> Mr. Borselli expressed confidence that the bank would be adequately preserved under the current plan but <br /> acknowledged that commissioners could decide individually whether peer review was warranted. <br /> It was explained that demolition could be performed entirely from the landward side of the structure. He <br /> noted that modern excavators could remove materials from the back of the property without entering the <br /> Coastal Bank area, eliminating the need for heavy machinery to disturb sensitive zones. A commissioner, <br /> 19 <br />