08/21/2025 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

Town of Mashpee Conservation Commission 16 Great Neck Road North Mashpee, MA 02649 However, commissioners reminded the applicant that because the entire property lies within the 75-foot buffer zone, a planting plan was required to meet lawn and mitigation standards. Mr. McManus also noted that no nitrogen-loading calculation sheet had been submitted, as required under Regulation 38. Mr. Borselli said he believed it was unnecessary since the septic system was not being altered but agreed to provide the calculation for the record. Commissioners clarified that nitrogen-loading data was required for all projects, regardless of whether they were on sewer or septic. 19 Cricket Way-Foundation Retention and Cost Considerations The Chair questioned the rationale for retaining the existing foundation given the extensive work required to meet updated flood and wind-loading standards. He expressed concern that once construction began, the owners might find it necessary—or more cost-effective—to replace the foundation entirely, forcing the project to return to the Commission for modification. The homeowner, Ms. Cocomazzi, explained that the decision to keep the foundation was both cost-driven and environmentally motivated. The owners believed that staying within the existing footprint would minimize disturbance to the site and therefore designed the project accordingly. While acknowledging that the structure would be filled and elevated, the applicant maintained that the foundation would remain structurally viable for reuse. The Chair reiterated his concern that, without detailed building plans, the Commission could not fully evaluate whether the retained foundation would meet all required standards. It was agreed that updated architectural plans must be submitted before final approval to avoid later complications. The applicant's representative stated that the architect, who could not attend the meeting, would provide those plans and confirm that the approach was the most practical and cost-effective option. There was a brief procedural discussion on whether a formal vote was required to request a peer review. Mr. McManus explained that such a review could be made a condition in the motion and incorporated into the continuance. The applicant's representative requested confirmation on whether to pursue a peer review or CZM consultation, noting that the applicant hoped to close the hearing at the next scheduled meeting. Mr. Kent, with the applicant's permission will reach out to both entities. MOTION: To continue to September 18, 2025. Motion by: Sarah Thornbrugh Seconded by: Richard Sahl Vote: Motion passed by unanimous vote. (Steven Cook, Sarah Thornbrugh, Paul Colombo, Sandi Godfrey, Richard Sahl) MOTION: To have a brief recess. Motion by: Sarah Thornbrugh Seconded by: Richard Sahl Vote: Motion passed unanimously. JSteven Cook, Sarah Thornbrugh, Paul Colombo, Sandi Godfrey) 21