|
Town of Mashpee Conservation Commission
<br /> 16 Great Neck Road North
<br /> Mashpee, MA 02649
<br /> nitrogen loading calculations,with explanation that one set of calculations reflected existing site conditions and another
<br /> reflected proposed conditions incorporating the nitrogen-reducing septic system.
<br /> Significant discussion then focused on unauthorized alterations previously conducted on the coastal bank. It was stated
<br /> that lawn areas, ornamental plantings, landscaping, and other site improvements had been installed on the coastal bank
<br /> without approvals from the Commission or the New Seabury Architectural Oversight Committee. It was further stated
<br /> that vegetation had been removed from the bank and replaced with lawn and ornamental species, substantially altering
<br /> the natural bank conditions. Discussion occurred regarding the need for restoration of the coastal bank and whether
<br /> enforcement action should be initiated in connection with the unauthorized work.
<br /> Concerns were also raised regarding compliance with Regulation 16 governing alterations within 75 feet of a coastal
<br /> bank. It was stated that the proposed patio,porch modifications,new footings, and potential retaining structures near the
<br /> top of the coastal bank may not comply with the regulation. Questions were raised regarding whether rebuilding
<br /> portions of the existing deck could qualify as maintenance of an existing structure versus construction of expanded
<br /> structures and new footings within the protected area. It was further stated that additional structural information and
<br /> house plans would be necessary to fully evaluate the proposal.
<br /> Discussion also addressed whether restoration of the unauthorized coastal bank alterations could be incorporated into
<br /> the pending NOI review or whether a separate enforcement order should be issued. It was stated that restoration of the
<br /> altered coastal bank would still need to occur independently through enforcement action, although restoration details
<br /> could potentially be coordinated alongside the pending application review.
<br /> Following discussion,the applicant requested a continuance to June 11, 2026,in order to prepare revised plans and
<br /> address the Commission's concerns regarding coastal bank impacts, restoration requirements, and structural details
<br /> associated with the proposed improvements.
<br /> MOTION: To continue 14 Littleneck Lane to June 11, 2026.
<br /> Motion by: Sandi Godfrey Seconded by: Paul Colombo
<br /> Vote: Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote.
<br /> Steve Cook,Paul Colombo, Sandi Godfrey, Seana Pitt
<br /> NOI 63 Monahansett Road, Steven H. &Andrea B.Dubbs.Proposed project for an addition to an
<br /> existing single-family home along with a patio area,utility shed,mitigation plantings, and associated
<br /> site work. (Representative: Merrill Engineers and Land Surveyors) 43-
<br /> 3418
<br /> The Commission reviewed a Notice of Intent for 63 Monahansett Road regarding a proposed addition to an existing
<br /> single-family home,patio area,utility shed,mitigation plantings, and associated site work,represented by Merrill
<br /> Engineers and Land Surveyors. The applicant's representative stated that the property currently contains an existing
<br /> single-family dwelling, deck, gravel driveway,lawn, and landscaped areas,with bordering vegetated wetland, coastal
<br /> bank, and Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage located on or within 100 feet of the property. The proposal included
<br /> interior renovations,removal of the existing rear deck, construction of a pile-supported addition, installation of a 9-by-
<br /> 12-foot shed, construction of an impervious paver patio at grade, and approximately 2,300 square feet of mitigation
<br /> plantings. It was further stated that invasive vegetation including burning bush, Japanese holly,bittersweet,greenbrier,
<br /> and grapevine would be removed and replaced with native shrubs and grasses.
<br /> Discussion focused extensively on coastal bank delineation and construction impacts within the coastal bank buffer
<br /> area. Questions were raised regarding the absence of coastal bank cross-sections,transects, and documentation
<br /> supporting the delineation methodology required under DEP guidance. Additional concerns were raised regarding bank
<br /> stability, construction methodology, and whether engineering details demonstrating protection of the coastal bank
<br /> during construction had been provided. The applicant's representative acknowledged that additional information and
<br /> stamped engineering details could be submitted for further review.
<br /> 13
<br />
|