Laserfiche WebLink
Town of Mashpee Conservation Commission <br /> 16 Great Neck Road North <br /> Mashpee, MA 02649 <br /> In response to prior comments regarding impervious surfaces, the applicant revised the patio design to improve <br /> infiltration. <br /> The proposal now includes: <br /> • Use of a permeable grout system to allow water to infiltrate between pavers; and <br /> • replacement of larger pavers with smaller pavers, increasing total grout area and infiltration <br /> capacity. <br /> The applicant stated that this change results in an improvement over existing conditions with respect to groundwater <br /> recharge, which had previously been identified as an area where no net benefit was being achieved. <br /> Mitigation and Waiver Discussion <br /> Mitigation remained the central unresolved issue. The applicant acknowledged that: <br /> • The project does not meet the required mitigation area under the regulations. <br /> • Approximately 4,481 square feet of mitigation is required, while only 1,340 square feet is being provided, <br /> leaving the project more than 3,000 square feet short. <br /> Even with full mitigation planting in the available backyard area,the regulatory requirement cannot be met due to site <br /> constraints. <br /> The applicant confirmed that a waiver is still being requested, and emphasized that they believe the project, as revised, <br /> protects inland bank interests by increasing habitat, stabilizing soils, improving infiltration, and reducing impacts when <br /> considered as a percentage of the lot area. <br /> Several commissioners expressed concern that: <br /> • Installation of a swimming pool does not constitute a compelling need to justify a significant waiver; <br /> • Lawn, while semi-pervious, may be preferable to patios—even permeable ones—from a resource protection <br /> standpoint; and <br /> • The mitigation shortfall is substantial. <br /> Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) Filing Issue <br /> Commissioners raised concerns that no ZBA application has been filed, despite the project requiring zoning relief. The <br /> applicant stated that they were advised by zoning staff to seek Conservation Commission input first before filing. <br /> Commissioners noted that the Conservation Regulations require all applicable permits to be at least applied for an <br /> application to be considered complete. <br /> Staff explained that,procedurally, the Commission could: <br /> • Continue the hearing to allow the applicant to file with ZBA; or <br /> • Potentially issue an Order of Conditions conditioned on ZBA approval, with no work authorized until zoning <br /> relief is granted. <br /> Commissioners expressed discomfort proceeding without written confirmation from the ZBA regarding their direction <br /> to the applicant. <br /> Excavation and Construction Concerns <br /> Questions were raised regarding excavation methods given the tight site conditions. The applicant indicated that <br /> excavation would likely be performed with a mini-excavator, and that bank protection measures would be <br /> addressed through a pre-construction meeting and field review with the agent. Staff noted that the inland bank is <br /> vegetated and stable, and did not anticipate destabilization if proper controls are in place. <br /> MOTION: Motion to accept the request to continue 49 The Heights to February 19, 2026. <br /> 4 <br />