10/09/2025 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

Town of Mashpee Conservation Commission 16 Great Neck Road North Mashpee, MA 02649 (ZBA). Mr. Bunker explained that the ZBA would not begin its hearing process until the Conservation Commission had completed its review and issued a determination. Ms. Pitt sought to confirm the property line setbacks and overall building footprint. She asked whether the proposed structure would reduce the distance between houses. The representative confirmed that the 2.3-foot side setback would remain unchanged, matching the current spacing between the Neild's' home and the abutting property. At the front, a small porch area is 2.2 feet from the line, also consistent with existing conditions. He added that the overall building footprint would slightly decrease—from 1,132 square feet to 1,089though a second story would be added. Ms. Pitt clarified that her concern was not the height but rather how the structure's placement could affect surface water flow. Attorney Brodsky responded that the project would reduce land alteration because elevating the home on pilings minimizes the amount of ground area disturbed. He explained that unlike a traditional foundation, which alters the entire footprint of land beneath it, a pier system only disturbs small areas where the pilings are installed, thereby improving floodplain function. She affirmed her understanding that the footprint was decreasing by about 2%, which the representative confirmed. She noted that while building in tight coastal lots is challenging, such projects are possible with skilled contractors, though they are less common in this region. Waiver and Technical Clarifications Ms. Godfrey inquired about whether the applicants had submitted a waiver request for"land subject to coastal storm flowage."Attorney Brodsky confirmed that a waiver under Regulation 25 had been submitted at the previous hearing, though some commissioners had not yet located it in the electronic record. Ms. Thombrugh emphasized that her concern remained the cumulative impact of repeated redevelopment along Wilsons Grove. She reminded the Commission and the public that Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management(CZM) does, in fact, provide peer review and technical support for conservation commissions. She explained that CZM's experts, including coastal geologists,possess specialized understanding of floodplain function and coastal storm impacts, especially regarding sea level rise, storm surge, and built- environment alterations. She referenced materials from the CZM manual and a presentation given earlier in the year by Rebecca Haney, a coastal geologist with decades of experience. Ms. Haney had provided detailed guidance on how floodplain protections function and how their effectiveness can change as sea levels rise. Ms. Thornbrugh suggested that consulting CZM experts could provide accurate, science-based analysis of projects like this one and help ensure the Commission's decisions are informed by the most current technical data. Discussion on Need for Coastal Geologist Peer Review Ms. Thornbrugh elaborated on her earlier comments, clarifying that while she was not a climatologist or coastal geologist, she had researched the issue of coastal flooding and noted that the scientific community had moved away from the simplistic "bathtub model" of flooding. She explained that this model fails to account for the complex physics and hydrodynamics of how coastal flooding actually behaves. Because of these complexities, she believed it was necessary to obtain input from subject matter experts such as coastal geologists who understand the evolution of modern flood science. Ms. Thornbrugh concluded that, based on the information currently available, she did not yet have enough evidence to determine that the proposed project would not cause unacceptable, significant, or cumulative effects on wetland values as defined under Regulation 24. She emphasized that a peer review from a qualified coastal geologist was essential before she could confidently render a decision on the permit. Discussion of Shed Anchoring and Setback Compromise Following her remarks, Chair Cook thanked Ms. Thornbrugh and transitioned to a few final project-related questions,beginning with the proposed storage shed. He asked how the shed would be fastened to the ground. Mr. Bunker explained that the shed would likely sit on concrete blocks, similar to most typical sheds, rather