|
Town of Mashpee Conservation Commission
<br /> 16 Great Neck Road North
<br /> Mashpee, MA 02649
<br /> MOTION: To continue 29 Jeep Place to June 11, 2026.
<br /> Motion by: Richard Sahl Seconded by: Paul Colombo
<br /> Vote: Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote.
<br /> Steve Cook, Paul Colombo, Richard Sahl, Seana Pitt
<br /> NOI 29 Flat Pond Circle, Brian Gorin & Tina Choe, Trustees. Proposed installation of an
<br /> in-ground pool and associated decking, residential additions, and landscape modifications.
<br /> (Representative: Cape & Islands Engineering, Inc.)
<br /> 43-
<br /> 3422
<br /> Mark Dibb of Cape &Islands Engineering presented the Notice of Intent application on behalf of Brian Gorin and Tina
<br /> Choe, Trustees, for proposed installation of an in-ground pool, associated decking,residential additions, and landscape
<br /> modifications at 29 Flat Pond Circle. Also present were Bernice Waller,landscape architect,Attorney Brian Wall, and the
<br /> applicants.
<br /> Mr. Dibb stated that the existing site contained a single-family residence,with neighboring residences to the north, east,
<br /> and south, and New Seabury open space to the west. He stated that the applicable resource areas included land subject to
<br /> coastal storm flowage,based on flood elevation 14, and a coastal bank by definition due to slope within the flood zone. He
<br /> stated that the coastal bank was not eroding,was not a sediment source, and functioned as a vertical buffer to flood waters
<br /> only. The 75-foot and 150-foot buffer zones were shown on the plan. Mr. Dibb explained that the proposal included
<br /> removal of the existing multi-level rear deck and reconstruction of a slightly smaller deck in the same location,
<br /> construction of a proposed addition on the right side of the dwelling, installation of a pool and dry-laid pervious paver
<br /> patio, and reconstruction/reconfiguration of the lower-level entrance and patio area. He stated that new drywell systems
<br /> were proposed for the addition and lower patio area, and that the existing dwelling was already connected to drywells. He
<br /> also noted that the property was connected to a private sewer system and therefore had essentially no nitrogen load.
<br /> Mr. Dibb stated that the applicant submitted a mitigation table showing required mitigation of 2,591 square feet,with
<br /> 2,599 square feet of mitigation proposed through the landscape plan prepared by Ms. Waller. He also stated that a
<br /> Regulation 31 summary had been provided for proposed lawn and landscape alterations. He acknowledged that a portion
<br /> of the pool and patio was proposed within the 0-to-75-foot buffer zone,but stated that the work would occur within
<br /> existing lawn and landscaped areas and would not harm the values protected by the bylaw.
<br /> Commission discussion focused on the location of the work within the buffer zone, the applicability of ACEC and coastal
<br /> bank regulations,tree removal,mitigation, and whether the pool and patio could be shifted farther from the 50-foot buffer
<br /> line. One commissioner raised concerns regarding Regulation 14, applicable to ACEC properties, stating that the materials
<br /> did not appear to include a waiver request or analysis under that regulation. The commissioner noted that the Town GIS
<br /> appeared to show most of the parcel within the ACEC and cited performance standards requiring no short-term,
<br /> intennediate-term, or long-term adverse effects to protected wetland values through alteration of topography, soil
<br /> structure,plant community composition, hydrologic regime, or water quality.
<br /> Mr. Dibb responded that the ACEC boundary for this area was defined by the flood zone line and that no work, other than
<br /> some plantings,was proposed within the ACEC as delineated on the plan. Discussion followed regarding the difference
<br /> between GIS mapping and the regulatory definition of the ACEC boundary. Conservation staff stated that,if an on-the-
<br /> ground survey had been completed to delineate the ACEC,that would be more reliable than GIS mapping.
<br /> The Chair raised concerns that a significant amount of new hadscape,pool area, and structure was proposed within the
<br /> 75-foot buffer zone and close to the 50-foot buffer line. He asked whether the pool and patio could be moved or reoriented
<br /> farther north to reduce buffer impacts. Mr. Dibb and Ms. Waller stated that the pool location had been selected based on
<br /> 10
<br />
|