Laserfiche WebLink
Town of Mashpee Conservation Commission <br /> 16 Great Neck Road North <br /> Mashpee, MA 02649 <br /> Mr. Colombo appreciated the applicant's willingness to increase pier height but objected to minimizing the <br /> DMF letter's importance. He emphasized that DMF's references,particularly repeated footnote five citing John <br /> Logan's Review ofHabitat Impacts from Residential Docks, provide essential guidance and urged <br /> commissioners to read the study for its relevance to habitat protection and best practices. <br /> Ms. Pitt confirmed that the proposed vessela 20-foot Sundance with a six-inch draft—would have <br /> minimal environmental effect, and the applicant agreed to limit dock use to that boat. Mr. Sahl acknowledged <br /> that earlier concerns, especially about boat size, had been addressed and commended the applicant's <br /> cooperation. <br /> Chair Cook concluded that all major issues raised in prior hearings had been resolved. The applicant agreed <br /> to raise the dock eight feet above the salt marsh, include flow-through decking and float stops, and pay a <br /> shellfish mitigation fee, which they described as an investment to support shellfish replenishment and offset <br /> potential environmental impacts. <br /> MOTION: To close an issue with 157 Daniels Island Road with the following <br /> conditions: <br /> 1. To raise it eight feet over the salt marsh <br /> 2. talk about the float stops <br /> 3. The flow through decking <br /> 4. Conditions of both sides <br /> 5. The shellfish mitigation fee <br /> 6. The DMF letter <br /> 7. The time of year when the construction can take place <br /> Motion by: Richard Sahl Seconded by: Sandi Godfrey <br /> Discussion: Ms. Pitt asked whether she was eligible to vote, noting that she had <br /> not been a voting member when the hearing was continued.It was confirmed that <br /> because she had been present during the continuance, she was eligible to vote. <br /> Ms. Thornbrugh expressed concern over the already high number of docks in <br /> the area and the resulting need to evaluate cumulative environmental impacts. <br /> Citing Regulation 24, which prohibits projects that cause "unacceptable <br /> significant or cumulative effects" on wetland values, she referenced the DMF's <br /> expert opinion that certain impacts cannot be entirely avoided. On that basis, she <br /> said she struggled to support the project. <br /> Mr.Colombo expanded on the DMF's repeated reference to footnote five in the <br /> Logan study, noting that the research recommended docks at least 5.7 feet above <br /> mean sea level to protect salt marsh vegetation, and up to 9.7 feet for east-facing <br /> structures.Given the applicant's agreement to raise the pier to eight feet,he found <br /> that aspect acceptable, though he maintained reservations about broader <br /> cumulative impacts. He emphasized that each property and marine setting is <br /> unique and urged the Commission to review both the DMF letter and the Logan <br /> study for future guidance.He also suggested revisiting Regulation 27 to align with <br /> current scientific findings. <br /> Chair Cook acknowledged these concerns but stressed that the applicant's <br /> modifications—raising the pier height, limiting the vessel size, and maintaining <br /> substantial distances from neighboring docks(200 feet on one side and 113 feet on <br /> the other)—had meaningfully improved the design.He observed that the proposal <br /> 3 <br />