02/19/2026 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes (2)

Home Browse Search

Town of Mashpee Conservation Commission 16 Great Neck Road North Mashpee, MA 02649 outlined, along with a drainage system designed for a 25-year storm and a proposed wildlife passage beneath the driveway. Commissioners raised questions regarding temporary disturbance within the 150-foot vernal pool buffer, understory restoration details, and whether relocating structures closer to the house could reduce impacts. One Commissioner expressed concern about granting a waiver under Regulation 23, citing insufficient compelling need for a recreational pool and potential impacts to vernal pool habitat. Staff noted that waiver decisions require balancing impacts and mitigation benefits. The Commission discussed whether the proposed restoration adequately offsets the scale of disturbance, with differing views expressed. MOTION: To close the hearing and issue an Order of Conditions for 17 and 23 Alma Road, including the following conditions: o A three-year mitigation and monitoring plan; o Consultation with Conservation staff regarding appropriate understory plantings beneath proposed shrubs; o Revision of the plan to show restoration details for the temporary construction access area; o Notation on the plan identifying the material for the walkway between the house and the pool. Motion by: Richard Sahl Seconded by: Steve Cook(for discussion purposes) Discussion: The motion initially failed to receive a second. Pursuant to Robert's Rules of Order, the Chair seconded the motion for purposes of discussion. Commissioners expressed differing views on the waiver request under Regulation 23. Two Commissioners opposed the waiver, citing lack of compelling need and concerns about disturbance within the vernal pool buffer,including impacts to soil,vegetation, and hydrology. Others noted the substantial proposed mitigation—approximately 7,300 square feet—and suggested the project could enhance habitat overall. It was also observed that denial could lead to alternative development with similar or greater impacts. The Chair characterized the proposal as a difficult balance between buffer disturbance and mitigation benefits, and questioned whether a smaller or relocated design could reduce impacts. Discussion concluded without consensus, with Commissioners divided on whether the waiver criteria had been sufficiently met. Vote: Motion failed. Aye: Richard Sahl Nay: Steve Cook,Paul Colombo, Sandi Godfrey Following the failed motion, the Chair invited the applicant to indicate how they wished to proceed. The applicant's representative stated that he would confer with his clients to evaluate potential design modifications or additional mitigation measures that may address the Commission's concerns. He noted that the proposed pool would be seasonal in use,but acknowledged the Commission's feedback regarding waiver criteria and buffer impacts. 6