Laserfiche WebLink
Town of Mashpee Conservation Commission <br /> 16 Great Neck Road North <br /> Mashpee, MA 02649 <br /> Ms. Thombrugh further asked whether the project could remain within the same footprint, but <br /> Mr. Santos explained that the small expansion would add native and ornamental plantings for <br /> mitigation. Mr. Colombo then inquired about construction methods and machinery. Bernice <br /> Waller, the project's landscape architect, explained that the pool would not be fully reconstructed <br /> but renovated,with existing "bump-outs"removed to make the pool smaller and accommodate an <br /> automatic safety cover. Only minimal equipment,a small backhoe, or bobcat—would be used. The <br /> limit of work was defined by the red line on the plan following the current clearing edge, and <br /> erosion control details were provided. <br /> Mr. Colombo emphasized the importance of filtration barriers near the slope edge. Mr. Santos <br /> confirmed that details were on the plan and that no significant excavation would occur. Mr. Sahl <br /> noted that during his site visit,he observed a hose discharging into the buffer zone and warned that <br /> this must be prohibited as a boilerplate condition in any approval. <br /> MOTION: For a negative determination at 59 Hunt Circle. <br /> Motion by: Richard Sahl Seconded by: Sandi Godfrey <br /> Vote: Motion passed by unanimous vote. <br /> (Steven Cook, Sarah Thornbrugh, Paul Colombo, Sandi Godfrey, <br /> Seana Pitt, Richard Sahl) <br /> NOI 157 Daniels Island Road, Frank& Christina Varinos. Proposed stairs, fixed pier, ramp and <br /> Floats for Daniels Island Road. (Representative: Down Cape Engineering, Inc.) 43- <br /> (cont. 6.26 /7.24/ 8.21 / 9.18) 3348 <br /> Attorney Adam Brodsky, representing Varinos, stated that his goal was to conclude the hearing and secure <br /> an Order of Conditions for approval. Engineer Danny Gonsalves of Down Cape Engineering presented updated <br /> plans showing through-flow decking across the pier, a modest 20-foot Sundance boat with a one-foot propeller <br /> clearance from the substrate, and float stops ensuring a 2.5-foot separation from the bottom—changes made in <br /> response to earlier Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) concerns. He noted that these revisions aligned with <br /> Barnstable standards and were consistent with more than twenty other licensed Chapter 91 docks in the area. <br /> Attorney Brodsky summarized two points from his October 16 letter: first, that the applicants believed they <br /> were being treated differently from nearby property owners with similar approved docks; and second, that <br /> DMF's letter was advisory, not a finding of noncompliance. He argued there was no credible evidence of <br /> environmental harm or cumulative impact, emphasizing that the local flounder fishery remains healthy despite <br /> numerous existing docks. <br /> Engineer Dan O'Hara, appearing remotely, confirmed compliance and agreed to additional conditions if <br /> required. Addressing prior concerns about sunlight and alignment, he explained that the north-south pier <br /> orientation benefits marsh health and offered to raise the pier to eight feet above the marsh—higher than the <br /> "Logan study" recommendation—by modifying the stairs. He maintained that the project, with flow-through <br /> decking, float stops, and a small vessel, exceeded environmental standards. He also noted that"cumulative <br /> effects"under wetlands law must be supported by specific proof of harm, which was not present here. <br /> 2 <br />