10/09/2025 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

Town of Mashpee Conservation Commission 16 Great Neck Road North Mashpee, MA 02649 than being permanently anchored. Chair Cook expressed concern that a shed not fastened to the ground could float away during a flood event, to which the representative acknowledged that such an outcome was possible. Chair Cook followed up, asking whether the shed's placement on stone was due to the underlying leaching field for the septic system. Mr. Cook confirmed that the location had been chosen for that reason but suggested that it might be possible to install the shed using small helical piles to provide anchoring without disturbing the leaching area. Chair Cook then raised another issue, suggesting that the project might reach a compromise by setting the structure four feet from the property line, similar to other approved projects on Wilsons Grove. Attorney Brodsky responded that the clients were not willing to make that adjustment at this time, though he indicated some openness to future discussion. He reiterated his concerns about involving Coastal Zone Management (CZM), noting that his own prior experiences with Rebecca Haney, a coastal geologist there, had been difficult because she had opposed every coastal project he had handled in recent years. However,he said that if the Commission wished to contact a local coastal expert and could agree on the scope of the review, he would recommend that course of action to his clients. He also said the team could provide additional documentation—such as photographs of the septic leaching field construction—to illustrate how similar work had been safely completed in the past. He reiterated that the project's goal was to secure approval through collaboration, not to push for a premature vote. Request for Continuance and Clarification of Peer Review Scope Attorney Brodsky then formally requested a continuance to allow time to gather and submit all of the new information discussed, including the shed anchoring details and supporting photographs. He explained that he was uncertain about the Commission's current position and did not wish to force a decision that could result in a denial. While he admitted he was not a coastal geologist, he noted that he had read multiple technical reports from the Woods Hole Group and had never seen documented redirection of floodwaters in an A Zone, only in AO and V Zones. He emphasized that his goal was to bring forward relevant local resources if the Commission agreed on a clear scope for peer review. Mr. McManus then clarified the history of the peer review process. He explained that when the Commission first voted to pursue a peer review, it had agreed that the scope was limited to construction methodology specifically,how the project would be built. After the meeting, He confirmed that scope with before sending out the formal request for services. He wanted the record to reflect that the original peer review was not intended to address coastal geology or flood dynamics, but construction procedures. Mr. McManus stated that if the Commission now wished to expand or change that focus, staff would gladly coordinate with the Woods Hole Sea Grant pram, which employs Brian McCormick, a coastal geologist who has assisted the Commission in the past on projects at 19 Cricket Way and 22 Triton Way. He asked only that the Commission provide clear and consistent direction regarding the revised purpose of the peer review. Clarifying the Focus of the Peer Review Mr. Kent responded that he agreed with Mr. McManus's remarks, stressing that the peer review needed to be clearly defined in its purpose. Whether the review would focus on construction stability during flood events or on cumulative effects on the resource area, the scope had to be set precisely to ensure meaningful results. He concluded that if the Commission wanted a coastal geologist to assess the project's broader impacts, that was entirely appropriate—but the direction should be unambiguous. Abutter's Additional Clarification on Footprint and Proximity The abutter, Christina Wilworth,returned to the microphone to clarify her earlier concerns. She referred again to the project drawings, noting that while the applicants kept stating that the footprint remained unchanged, the design plans showed a noticeable difference. On the existing plan, the front of the house