10/09/2025 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

Town of Mashpee Conservation Commission 16 Great Neck Road North Mashpee, MA 02649 included a small jog, creating variation in the structure's shape. The proposed new design, however, eliminated that jog, creating a continuous,rectangular fagade. Ms. Wilworth explained that this change effectively extended the length of the wall facing her property, thereby doubling the length of the narrow alley between their homes—from roughly fourteen feet of parallel wall to nearly the entire side of the house. She said this made it difficult to understand how the project could be described as having "the same footprint." Mr. Bunker clarified that the overall square footage of the footprint was indeed the same, and that the new structure would actually be pushed slightly farther back from Wilsons Grove. He emphasized that while the shape was different, the house was not moving closer to Ms. Wilworth's home. Ms. Wilworth acknowledged that, but reiterated that the extended continuous wall created a longer, narrower alleyway, which heightened her concerns about safety, erosion, and potential construction impacts. She asked that the record reflect this distinction—that although the footprint area was unchanged, the proximity and linear exposure between the two homes would increase significantly. Commission Consensus on Peer Review Direction Chair Cook then sought to establish a consensus among the commissioners on how to proceed with the peer review. He summarized that Ms. Thornbrugh wanted a review focused on the cumulative effects of flooding on the resource area. She confirmed, stating that she wished to examine how the proposed project could affect the floodplain and wetland resources collectively, and to identify possible modifications to reduce any negative impacts. Ms. Pitt agreed, noting that the Commission's purview does not include construction methodology but rather environmental impact. She emphasized that the peer review should therefore assess what happens to the resource area once the project is built, not how it is built. Ms. Godfrey concurred, expressing empathy for the abutters' concerns but agreeing that construction logistics fall outside the Commission's regulatory authority. Discussion of Alternative Design Adjustments Mr. Sahl then raised a technical question regarding the placement of the structural pilings. He asked whether the architect could cantilever the structure slightly, allowing the supporting piers to be moved inward by a foot or two. This, he suggested, could reduce the amount of excavation along the property line while maintaining the same overall footprint. Mr. Bunker, who identified himself as a land surveyor rather than an engineer, replied that he believed such a modification was possible, though the final determination would need to come from the project architect. Chair Cook and several commissioners agreed that this could represent a reasonable compromise that would mitigate abutter concerns by providing additional space between properties. Mr. Larsson reiterated that while construction issues were not within his purview, he supported exploring any adjustments that could enhance safety and neighbor relations. Chair Cook emphasized his preference for consistency with other recently approved Wilsons Grove projects, which had achieved greater separation between homes. He said that moving the pilings inward could make a meaningful difference. Attorney Brodsky agreed to bring the suggestion to the project's architect and structural engineer for evaluation. He added that the proposed design would replace a nonconforming structure with one that fully complies with the Massachusetts Building Code for flood-resistant construction, which he argued would improve the overall function of the floodplain by allowing water to flow beneath the house. While confident that the project would ultimately be found beneficial,he stated that if the Commission wished to obtain a third- party opinion through the Sea Grant program, his clients were open to that approach.