05/07/2026 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

Town of Mashpee Conservation Commission 16 Great Neck Road North Mashpee, MA 02649 and stated that revised calculations indicated nitrogen loading levels within the range typically sought for similar projects. Discussion also addressed projected flood conditions and climate resiliency considerations. Representatives stated that the proposed finished floor elevation had been increased above current FEMA flood elevation requirements and that buoyancy calculations had been completed for the septic system components to address concerns regarding flooding and groundwater saturation.It was further stated that the septic system would continue to function by gravity flow during flood events even if electrical components became inoperable due to loss of power. Representatives stated that coastal floodwaters in the area were expected to recede with tidal conditions rather than remain stagnant for extended periods. Commission members raised extensive concerns regarding cumulative adverse impacts to resource areas,particularly related to nitrogen loading into impaired ACEC waters, floodplain impacts, septic system performance during flood events, and the amount of proposed development within buffer zones and Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage. Questions were raised regarding the reliance on mechanical septic system components, adequacy of emergency protocols during catastrophic flooding, stormwater management calculations, groundwater flow direction, and the use of assumptions within the nitrogen loading analyses. It was also stated that concerns remained regarding placement of fill within the floodplain,the size and placement of the proposed house within buffer areas, and the suitability of proposed landscaping and lawn areas within the coastal environment. Further discussion addressed the proposed retaining wall,restoration of disturbed areas along the roadway shoulder, lack of architectural and construction detail plans, dewatering considerations, construction methodology, and the need for additional information regarding proposed drainage systems and stormwater calculations. Commissioners requested additional submissions including potential alternative septic system analyses, expanded stormwater modeling through multiple stonn frequencies, additional planting and mitigation details, construction sequencing information,wall height and grading details, architectural plans, and revised site staking. Discussion also addressed the procedural posture of the application as a remand from Barnstable Superior Court and the potential need for future deliberation with Town Counsel once supplemental materials were received. MOTION: To continue 190 Monomoscoy Road to June 25, 2026. Motion by: Sandi Godfrey Seconded bv: Seana Pitt Vote: Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote Steve Cook,Paul Colombo, Sandi Godfrey, Seana Pitt ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ AOOC 9 Santuit Lane, R Investments LLC. Proposed house to include a larger deck and a change in the applicant and owner. (Representative: Falmouth Engineering, Inc.) (coat. 3.19) 43- 3320 It was stated that the Commission had approved the original project and issued an Order of Conditions on March 19, 2025,but the original property owner had since sold the property. The current applicant sought approval for several modifications to the proposed house, including construction of a covered side deck facing the roadway and expansion of the rear deck. It was stated that the revised plans had been modified in response to prior Commission comments by maintaining the previously approved setback distance of 25.6 feet from the pond and redesigning the side deck to avoid encroachment into the mitigation planting area. Commission discussion focused on whether the requested changes remained appropriate for review through an Amended Order of Conditions rather than requiring a new Notice of Intent filing. Concerns were raised regarding the extent of the proposed deck expansion, the overall increase in deck square footage, and whether the changes constituted a substantial increase to the previously approved project. Questions were also raised regarding comparison between the original approved footprint and the revised plans, including changes in setbacks, deck size, and impacts to mitigation areas. The applicant's representative stated that the revised rear deck no longer extended closer to the pond than previously approved and explained that the new side deck was intended to create a continuous deck connection around portions of the house. 5