05/21/2026 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

Town of Mashpee Conservation Commission 16 Great Neck Road North Mashpee, MA 02649 NOI 31 Nick Trail,31 Nick Trail LLC.Proposed raze the existing single-family dwelling and construct new dwelling. (Representative: Grady Consulting, LLC)(cont. 4.2 /4.23 /5.07) 43- 3408 Attorney Brian Wall appeared on behalf of 31 Nick Trail, LLC,together with Scott Fennara of Grady Consulting, regarding the proposed razing of the existing single-family dwelling and construction of a new flood-compliant replacement dwelling at 31 Nick Trail. Attorney Wall stated that the existing dwelling, constructed in 1953,was non-flood compliant and would be replaced with a FEMA-compliant elevated structure with flood vents in substantially the same location. He stated that the replacement dwelling would have a slightly reduced footprint and would not increase the number of bedrooms, which would remain three(3). Attorney Wall stated that the applicable wetland resource area was land subject to coastal storm flowage and that the project complied with Regulation 25 governing previously developed lots in an AE flood zone. He stated that the proposal involved flood-resistant construction consistent with building code requirements,no expansion of the building footprint, and approximately 563 square feet of native plantings,notwithstanding his position that mitigation was not required because the footprint was being reduced. Attorney Wall also addressed nutrient loading under Regulation 30, stating that the applicable nitrogen standard for the residential lot was 19 parts per million and that the proposed project resulted in a nitrogen loading calculation of approximately 15.9 parts per million. He disputed prior discussion suggesting a 10 parts per million standard applied due to the property's location within a Zone lI wellhead protection area, arguing that the Title V denitrification standard cited applied only to qualifying new construction involving septic systems serving four or more bedrooms in nitrogen-sensitive areas, and that the current proposal involved a three-bedroom demolition/replacement project rather than qualifying new construction under Title V. Mr. Fennara summarized revisions made in response to prior Commission comments, including addition of dry wells, significant reduction in lawn area, increased native plantings, conversion of patios to pervious surfaces,reduced impervious coverage, and overall landscaping improvements intended to improve site conditions while elevating the dwelling above the flood zone. Commission discussion focused extensively on burden of proof,nitrogen loading, cumulative effects, and the scope of the Commission's authority under Chapter 172 and the local regulations. One commissioner entered a written rebuttal into the record asserting that the Commission's responsibility was not limited to whether the septic system had previously been approved,but whether the applicant had met the burden of proof under Chapter 172, Section 172.12,to demonstrate protection of groundwater,public and private water supply,water quality,prevention of pollution,land subject to coastal storm flowage, and other protected interests,including cumulative effects. The commissioner stated that while Title V compliance may create a presumption regarding septic impacts,that presumption could be overcome by credible evidence and argued that the applicant had not provided sufficient site-specific evidence demonstrating the absence of unacceptable adverse or cumulative impacts,particularly given the property's Zone II wellhead protection location and the calculated nitrogen loading. The commissioner further asserted that Chapter 172 and the Commission's regulations must be interpreted as an integrated regulatory framework rather than by reliance on isolated performance standards, and cited multiple legal authorities in support of the Commission's authority to apply more stringent local wetlands protections and evaluate cumulative effects. Commissioners discussed the procedural history of the matter,including the previously approved septic upgrade for the existing dwelling. Some commissioners questioned what had materially changed since that approval,noting that the lot, groundwater conditions, and approved septic system remained the same. Others stated that the current filing represented a separate Notice of Intent for a raze-and-replace redevelopment project involving a different applicant,requiring an independent review of the current proposal and the full record before the Commission. 6