Laserfiche WebLink
�~m������ ���� �&���*%K=������ ������o�������U��°���� �������N��~o�o�°���� <br /> N ���� . . ~~U Mash pee Conservation ��~�. . .� . .U~~~U~~. � <br /> 16 Great Neck Road North <br /> Mashnco, MA02644 <br /> MOTION: Motion ko continue 45 NchoidomRwad to June &&, 2026. <br /> Motion b Sandi Godfrey Seconded by: S*anmPitt <br /> Vote: Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. <br /> Steve Cook,Paul Colombo, Sandi Godfrey, SeumaPitt <br /> NOU 386 MumhpeoNeuk Road,John K.McCabe,Jr. & Tracy PudmUu-McCabe.Proposed residential <br /> additions, landscape modifications, a new sewer connection, and bank stabilization plantings. <br /> (Representative: Cape&Islands Engineering, Lnuj 43- <br /> 3420 <br /> Chair Cook rucuxud himself from the discussion wf the project, mtotingthmthuhud designed the structure <br /> associated with the application.Interim Vice Chair Colombo presided over the hearing and in order to ownodtmto <br /> a quorum,Associate Member Neal K.arowwn would participate and vote on the matter. <br /> The Commission reviewed a Notice of Intent for 386 Mashpee Neck Road submitted by Sean J. McCabe, Jr. and Tracy <br /> PaduluMoCohc regarding proposed rcmidczUiu|additions, landscape modifications, sewer connection preparations, and <br /> bank stabilization plantings, reprcucnicdhyCupoond1o|nndoEucinoori The applicant's representative described the <br /> property as located adjacent to the Mashpee Neck boat ramp area and stated that resource areas on or near the property <br /> included land under ocean, shellfish habitat, salt marsh, coastal bank, and Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage. It <br /> was stated that the project propoaodrernovu|of[hooziwii paved driveway and replacement with u stone driveway and <br /> cobble apron in order to reduce impervious surfaces. The proposal also included reconfiguration and reduction of <br /> ucvcru|existing retaining walls, cop|aconuonT and partial reduction ofexisting deck areas,cornovu1 of deteriorating <br /> chimneys, construction of a covered porch within portions of the existing deck footprint,relocation of stairs, limited <br /> grading adjustments, installation of bank stabilization plantings, and preparation for future connection to municipal <br /> sewer service anticipated bn202Q. <br /> The applicant's representative further stated that the project vvou|droduoo approximately 1,646 square feet of <br /> impervious surfaces, decrease retaining wall lengths by approximately 77 linear feet, and reduce the overall structure <br /> footprint 6v approximately 43 square feet. 0 was also stated that new dry wells were proposed ro collect roof runoff and <br /> that portions of the coastal bank currently consisting of exposed sand and gravel would be restored with native <br /> stabilization plantings{o improve bank stability and pedestrian safety. Discussion also addressed pr jec\odDood <br /> exceedance conditions associated with future sea level rise scenarios,with acknowledgment that portions of the property <br /> remain vulnerable to flooding under projected 2050floodcondiduuu. <br /> Discussion focused on the proposed reconfiguration of deck stairs and their relationship to the coastal bank. Questions <br /> were raised regarding whether the relocated mtoin/would move closer to or farther from the coastal bank and whether <br /> existing or proposed footings vvnu1drcrnuininp|ucc. ltxmxatarcddzsdthcrcvixedotaircoufiguru1iouv/ouldcnovc <br /> portions of the uNim slightly farther from the coastal bank, increasing the setback from approximately eight feet(o <br /> approximately ten feet in certain locations. Additional discussion addressed whether existing footing supports would <br /> remain structurally adequate or require replacement. <br /> Additional discussion addressed flood exceedance values, inconsistencies within the projectnmru1ivo, undupp|ioubUity <br /> of local regulations governing work within velocity flood zones. It was noted that portions of the narrative incorrectly <br /> stated that work would occur outside the flood zone when the property was entirely located within a flood zone. <br /> Additional inconsistencies were identified regarding references to applicable coastal bank regulations. Discussion <br /> further addressed whether the proposed structures and improvements complied with recently adopted Regulation 25 <br /> governing development within velocity zones and whether the proposed additions constituted prohibited expansion of <br /> structures within those ozuua. The applicant's representative maintained that the overall projectreduced existing <br /> structural coverage and improved mhrcondi6onaduapiLodhcuddidonofccnxnncvvpurohc|uu/unLa. <br /> 17 <br />