04/02/2026 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

Town of Mashpee Conservation Commission 16 Great Neck Road North Mashpee, MA 02649 Mr. Sahl and other members discussed the comparative impacts of the proposed boardwalk versus repeated foot traffic across the salt marsh, noting that while the structure represents a significant footprint, it may reduce long-term disturbance associated with repeated access. The Commission also discussed construction methods, including the use of a barge,potential impacts from ice conditions, and the need for mitigation and monitoring during construction. The applicant indicated a willingness to provide restoration of any disturbed salt marsh areas, install erosion controls, and submit weekly monitoring reports during construction. Additional discussion addressed potential conditions, including limiting use of the boardwalk to non- motorized vessels,requiring signage, conducting a pre-construction meeting, and documenting site conditions prior to construction. The Commission determined that written authorization from Willowbend Country Club would be required prior to rendering a decision and that additional details regarding mitigation, erosion control, and construction conditions should be incorporated into the project. MOTION: To continue 61 & 67 Shoestring Bay Road to April 23,2026. Motion by: Seana Pitt Seconded bv: Richard Sahl Vote: Motion passed by unanimous vote. Steve Cook,Paul Colombo, Sandi Godfrey, Richard Sahl ---------------------------------------------------------------------- NOI 31 Nick Trail,31 Nick Trail LLC.Proposed raze the existing single-family dwelling and construct 43- new dwelling. (Representative: Grady Consulting, LLC). 3408 The representative explained that the project involves demolition of the existing structure and reconstruction of a new dwelling within the same footprint,utilizing a portion of the existing foundation and raising the structure to meet floodplain requirements. The site was previously before the Commission for septic system repairs,which were approved by both the Commission and the Board of Health, although the system has not yet been installed. The applicant has also submitted an application to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a pre-existing nonconforming structure. It was noted that the site is fully developed and consists primarily of lawn, with no other resource areas present. Proposed work includes removal of existing decks and a shed, construction of a new patio, and stabilization of the site with erosion controls. Commission members raised several concerns regarding the proposal. Mr. Colombo questioned the use of concurrent Orders of Conditions for both the septic system and dwelling reconstruction and expressed concern regarding floodplain design, including the absence of Morris data flood projections and the adequacy and placement of flood vents. He noted potential future flood depths and the need to ensure proper venting and drainage to prevent water accumulation beneath the structure. Ms. Pitt questioned the rationale for demolition rather than renovation and raised concerns regarding lawn coverage, suggesting that the project should reduce lawn area and incorporate native plantings in accordance with Commission regulations. Ms. Thombrugh raised concerns regarding potential cumulative impacts, impervious surfaces, and site disturbance, noting that reconstruction activities would significantly disturb the lot. She questioned whether the project complies with lawn coverage regulations and suggested incorporating additional vegetation to improve site conditions and flood resilience. Additional discussion addressed site design details, including: • The potential use of pervious pavers for the patio • The need for dry wells or infiltration measures for roof runoff 9