My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01/22/2026 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
>
01/22/2026 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/18/2026 5:30:30 PM
Creation date
2/6/2026 1:21:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
01/22/2026
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Town of Mashpee Conservation Commission <br /> 16 Great Neck Road North <br /> Mashpee, MA 02649 <br /> disturbance within the golf course easement is unavoidable. The revised plans now explicitly identify restoration <br /> areas within the easement,requiring replanting with native shrubs following construction. <br /> Plan Revisions and Site Improvements <br /> Mr. Ball explained that revisions included: <br /> • Addition of retaining wall elevations to better illustrate grade changes and visual impacts; <br /> • Inclusion of all proposed hardscaping (stairs,retaining walls) on the stamped site plan; <br /> • Addition of erosion control details; and <br /> • Clarification of restoration planting within areas disturbed during construction. <br /> Stormwater management improvements include two Coltec recharge systems designed to handle runoff from the <br /> roof and hardscaped areas, representing an effort to mitigate impacts associated with new development. <br /> Septic System and Nitrogen Concerns <br /> Commissioners raised significant questions regarding the proposed IA septic system,particularly whether the <br /> specified treatment unit met the required 19 mg/L nitrogen standard. One commissioner noted that the system <br /> model identified in the plans appeared to be a secondary treatment unit not approved for denitrification, and that a <br /> different model (e.g., DN-rated system) may be required. Additional concerns were raised regarding the nitrogen <br /> loading calculations, including whether assumptions related to driveway surface area and roof runoff were <br /> accurate. <br /> The applicant agreed that clarification from the system designer would be necessary and acknowledged that plan <br /> revisions might be required. <br /> Lawn Coverage and Regulatory Compliance <br /> A major issue discussed was lawn coverage within Conservation Commission jurisdiction. The narrative <br /> indicated that approximately 37% of the regulated area would be lawn, substantially exceeding the 10% <br /> maximum allowed under Regulation 31. Commissioners expressed concern that: <br /> • The percentage appeared inconsistent with what was shown on the plans; <br /> • Accurate calculations were needed; and <br /> • Any lawn area exceeding 10%would require a formal waiver request, including demonstration of <br /> compelling need, alternatives considered, and compensatory mitigation. <br /> While staff acknowledged the unusual context of a wetland bordered by an active golf course, commissioners <br /> emphasized that reduced lawn area minimizes nutrient inputs and cumulative impacts, regardless of surrounding <br /> land uses. <br /> Public Comment <br /> An abutter, Karen Blumberg of 22 Slice Way,provided detailed public comment expressing concerns regarding: <br /> • Stormwater runoff and erosion, given the steep slope between properties; <br /> • Potential dust and disruption during construction; <br /> • Adequacy of erosion controls; <br /> • Loss of privacy and vegetative screening compared to existing conditions; and <br /> • Desire for mature plantings, rather than small container stock, to maintain neighborhood character and <br /> reduce visual and environmental impacts. <br /> Staff suggested that a more detailed planting plan and additional narrative addressing runoff and erosion would be <br /> beneficial when the application returns, and noted that peer review could be considered to address grading and <br /> drainage concerns. <br /> 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.