08/21/2025 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

Town of Mashpee Conservation Commission 16 Great Neck Road North Mashpee, MA 02649 however, maintained that independent review by a qualified professional was essential to ensure every precaution was taken to protect the Coastal Bank. Discussion followed about whether a general contractor's written assurance that no machinery would cross into the bank area would be sufficient or if external evaluation was still required. It was emphasized that the current plans lacked a clearly delineated limit of work line, contributing to confusion. The commission asked that the revised plans clearly show the limit of work along the Coastal Bank and, if possible, adjust it further landward to provide greater protection. Mr. Borselli described where the line would run—parallel to the property boundary and wrapping around the front of the house, marked by a double row of staked hay bales and flags for visibility. He confirmed that all demolition would occur from the landward side and agreed to include this detail in the revised narrative and plans. Commissioners would then decide whether a peer review by the Coastal Zone Management(CZM) office was necessary once the revisions were submitted. 19 Cricket Way—Foundation Design, Flooding Concerns, and Regulatory Requirements Mr. Colombo sought clarification regarding the foundation, explaining that he had visited the site and spoken with the owner earlier in the day. He confirmed that the property contained a full basement with concrete walls and a slab floor. He then referenced Regulation 25, which applies to new filings and incorporates projected 2050 flood exceedance levels. Based on the data, the property has a 50% exceedance probability by 2050 for flood events reaching depths of up to 10 feet. While the structure itself does not fall within the official Coastal A zone, the first 20 feet of the parcel does, making it highly vulnerable to flooding. Mr. Colombo expressed concern about how water entering through FEMA-compliant flood vents would be drained from the foundation area. He noted that similar nearby projects had been required to include cutouts in the slab floor—typically three-foot-square openings filled with crushed stone—to allow water to drain downward, preventing prolonged pooling and reducing the risk of channeling. He asked that the applicant return with a specific plan addressing how floodwater would exit the foundation. Mr. Borselli agreed with the concern and confirmed they could incorporate several cutouts in the new slab, as had been done in previous projects. He noted that while the home was not located directly within the special hazard area, it was very close to it. The architect, who would prepare the revised plans, could specify the number and size of cutouts needed. 19 Cricket Way- Structural Details and Construction Approach Another commissioner questioned how the proposed basement modifications would be executed given that the existing slab and foundation would remain in place. The applicant clarified that the existing foundation walls would be reused but that the old slab would likely be demolished. The lower portion of the basement would be backfilled with clean sand and compacted before installing a new slab at a higher elevation. The cutouts would be integrated into this new slab, allowing for proper drainage through layers of crushed stone into the subgrade. Mr. Colombo confirmed that this addressed his concern,provided the old slab was removed so that trapped water would not accumulate below the new floor. 19 Cricket Way - Landscaping,Nitrogen Loading, and Mitigation Requirements The question was then raised questions about the landscape plan, noting that it failed to specify what would happen to the rest of the property once construction equipment disturbed existing areas. The applicant's team explained that no formal landscaping was planned—the owners preferred a low-maintenance yard with a dirt and crushed stone driveway similar to the existing condition. 20