11/13/2025 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes (2)

Home Browse Search

Town of Mashpee Conservation Commission 16 Great Neck Road North Mashpee, MA 02649 NOI 17 Sand Dollar Lane,Maria MacDonald, Sand Dollar Lane NOM Realty Trust. Proposed Septic System Repair. (Representative:Geo-Cape Environmental Consultants) (10.23) 43- 3373 At the previous hearing, Mr. Harrington presented a Title V upgrade involving an advanced treatment system with a pump chamber and a series of three 500-gallon chambers located beneath the driveway. At that time, the Commission requested that the applicant investigate whether the septic tanks and pump chamber could be relocated to the front yard instead of the rear, where tree removal and work within a sensitive resource area would be required. The Commission also requested that a vegetation mitigation plan be prepared to address impacts from tree removal if the rear-yard design remained necessary. Mitigation Plan and Plumbing Feasibility Review Mr. Harrington reported that a mitigation plan had been fully developed in response to the Commission's directive and had been submitted to staff. The plan incorporates native vegetation and replacement of the birch and oak trees that must be removed to construct the rear-yard leaching area. He also summarized the applicant's efforts to investigate plumbing alternatives because the question of tank relocation depended on feasibility of redirecting the home's interior plumbing, a licensed plumber was required to inspect the basement configuration. Coastal Mechanical ultimately performed the evaluation. Their assessment included: • Reorienting two vertical waste lines descending the front wall from the second floor • Installing a basement ejector pump to handle lower-level plumbing • Running a new vent line up through finished living space and penetrating the cedar shingle roof Mr. Harrington emphasized that Coastal Mechanical was unable to view all concealed plumbing within the front wall, meaning additional demolition would be required to fully understand the scope. More importantly, the estimate provided accounted only for plumbing work—not for removal and reconstruction of finished walls, ceilings, structural elements, or the roof. Because the true cost could not be reliably estimated and is expected to be "exorbitant,"he advised that relocating the tanks to the front yard is not a viable solution. Commissioner Review and Discussion Chair Cook requested clarification regarding the plumber's estimate, recalling a figure of roughly $7,600. Mr. Harrington explained that if the actual cost were $7,600, the applicant would simply proceed—but the true project cost would far exceed that amount when demolition, carpentry, roofing, and restoration of finished space are included. Because of these highly uncertain and significant costs, retaining the original rear-yard location is the only practical solution. Chair Cook also referenced public records showing the home was purchased in 2014 for approximately $195,000 and is currently listed at roughly $1.6 million. He acknowledged, however, that the home still requires extensive renovation and agreed that the issue before the Commission is not a simple cost-benefit question. The mitigation area and proposed work limits were then reviewed. Chair Cook asked Mr. Harrington to confirm the meaning of a red line shown behind the tanks on the plan. Mr. Harrington confirmed it represents the limit of work and the alignment of the siltation and erosion controls. When asked,he confirmed that silt socks will serve as the erosion control method and that these details are clearly shown on page 3 of the Title V plan set. Mr. Sahl asked whether a one-, two-, or three-year mitigation monitoring period would be appropriate. Mr. McManus recommended a two-year period based on the size of the mitigation area and the scope of disturbance. 7