Laserfiche WebLink
Town of Mashpee Conservation Commission <br /> 16 Great Neck Road North <br /> Mashpee, MA 02649 <br /> the septic tank and whether the tank location had been accurately confirmed in the field. Mr. Webby stated <br /> that the proposed additions would likely utilize cantilevered construction and concrete piers, although exact <br /> piling or footing locations had not yet been finalized. Mr. Webby further acknowledged that the septic tank <br /> location had not been physically exposed and confirmed, explaining that existing arborvitae plantings and <br /> deck structures made access difficult. Commissioners expressed concern that the septic system location and <br /> condition should have been verified prior to filing the application, particularly given the possibility that the <br /> septic system may require replacement if found to be noncompliant or in conflict with the proposed structural <br /> supports. <br /> Additional discussion addressed the relationship between the proposed project and zoning, groundwater <br /> protection, and flood zone regulations. Mr. Webby stated that the project had been designed to avoid <br /> increasing structural nonconfoimities by ensuring no net increase in structural footprint despite replacement of <br /> existing decks with enclosed additions. Commissioners referenced Regulation 25 governing development <br /> within velocity flood zones and raised concerns regarding proposed dry wells within a DEP wellhead <br /> protection area. Questions were raised regarding dry well sizing, groundwater separation, stormwater <br /> infiltration capacity, and whether adequate information had been provided to evaluate impacts to groundwater <br /> resources and the aquifer. Mr. Webby stated that the drainage calculations addressed the entire proposed roof <br /> area and that the site contained primarily permeable surfaces with minimal impervious coverage outside the <br /> proposed additions. <br /> Discussion also addressed the proposed removal or relocation of arborvitae plantings adjacent to the <br /> construction area. Mr. Webby stated that the property owners wished to preserve or relocate the trees where <br /> feasible and that relocation elsewhere on the property was being considered if construction activities required <br /> removal. <br /> Commission members further noted that building plans had not been included in the filing materials and <br /> stated that additional information would be necessary before a decision could be made. Concerns were <br /> reiterated regarding piling locations, septic system impacts, groundwater protection, nitrogen loading <br /> calculations, and stormwater management details. It was stated that if future review by the Board of Health or <br /> other permitting authorities determined that septic system replacement was required, the applicant would need <br /> to return to the Commission with an amended filing. <br /> Following discussion, the Commission identified the additional information requested from the applicant, <br /> including: <br /> 1. Building plans. <br /> 2. Nitrogen loading calculations. <br /> 3. Confirmation and field location of the septic tank. <br /> 4. Clarification regarding relocation or replacement of arborvitae plantings. <br /> 5. Supplemental information regarding dry well sizing, capacity, and stormwater runoff calculations. <br /> The applicant requested a continuance to June 11, 2026, in order to prepare the requested materials and locate <br /> the septic system in the field. <br /> 16 <br />