05/21/2026 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

Town of Mashpee Conservation Commission 16 Great Neck Road North Mashpee, MA 02649 *NOTE: INDIVIDUAL HEARINGS WILL BE LIMITED TO 15 MINUTES IN LENGTH (More complex proposals may be granted additional time, if necessary,by the Chair) NOI 61 & 67 Shoestring Bay Road, 61 Shoestring Bay Road, LLC c/o Glenn Ferguson & Willowbend Country Club, Inc. Proposed boardwalk. (Representative: Cape & Islands Engineering, Inc.) (cont. 4.2/4.23 / 5.7) 43- 3406 Chuck Rowland of Cape & Islands Engineering stated that the application had previously been continued from April 2nd, April 23Yd, and May 7th, and that revised plans had been submitted in response to prior Commission comments. Revisions included additional erosion controls along the coastal bank, proposed two-to-one mitigation for installed posts, and documentation of abutter approval related to the proposed boardwalk. Mr. Rowland explained that the proposal consisted of a three-foot-wide elevated boardwalk intended to provide non-motorized water access, extending from the upland across the salt marsh resource area, with through-flow decking and vertical separation intended to reduce impacts below. Construction was proposed from shore access, with limited barge access for the outermost portion of the work. Commission members raised questions regarding the relationship between this application and a previously reviewed nearby vista pruning proposal,noting that prior discussion had contemplated overlaying the two plans to better evaluate cumulative access impacts and the relationship between the separate access proposals. The applicant stated that it had been his understanding only that this boardwalk would be shown on the vista pruning plans,but agreed to provide the requested overlay. Extensive discussion focused on whether the application met the applicable regulatory standard requiring demonstration that the project would not result in an adverse effect to protected wetland resource areas. Commissioners discussed performance standards applicable to coastal bank, salt marsh, and land subject to coastal storm flowage, including whether the current application adequately demonstrated avoidance of short- term, intermediate-term, and long-term adverse effects. Questions were raised regarding applicability of Regulation 25 governing land subject to coastal storm flowage, including whether the proposed structure required a waiver under those provisions. The applicant's engineer argued that water-dependent dock structures were specifically addressed differently under the regulations and should not be treated as prohibited structures requiring a waiver. Conservation staff later specifically referenced Regulation 25, Section 7(E), advising that the provision expressly allowed docks and piers, and therefore indicated that a separate waiver would not be required under that section. Commission members raised concerns regarding direct impacts to the salt marsh resource area, including installation of approximately 32 support posts within the marsh, temporary placement of plywood over marsh vegetation for construction access, and physical disturbance associated with construction activities. Questions were raised as to whether temporary mitigation or post-construction restoration would adequately address the fact that physical disturbance itself may still constitute an adverse effect under the applicable performance standards. Particular attention was given to the proposed access design, including the inclusion of two ladder access points. Commissioners questioned whether the interior ladder, combined with tidal conditions at the site, would result in repeated foot traffic through the salt marsh or adjacent muck areas by users attempting to launch kayaks or otherwise access navigable water during lower tide conditions. Concern was expressed that such 4