08/06/2026 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

Town of Mashpee Conservation Commission 16 Great Neck Road North Mashpee, MA 02649 Mr. Cook expressed continuing concerns regarding construction methodology, including barge access, the number of pilings, use of plywood, potential damage to the salt marsh and the length of the proposed dock across the marsh. He noted that the Commission had requested cumulative-effects information regarding the number and lengths of other docks and the amount of salt marsh they crossed, but did not believe that information had been adequately provided. He also referenced the DMF letter and the peer reviewer's statement that cumulative effects were not addressed by the peer review. The Commission discussed seven photographs included in the applicant's report. It was noted that some appeared as though they could depict the same pier and float and that the photographs were not identified by specific location, structure length, number of piles or the amount of salt marsh beneath them. Although the applicant had indicated during the hearing that the structures were located somewhere along Shoestring Bay, their specific locations had not been identified. The Commission also noted that Regulation 3 allowed information to be considered out to 300 feet and that the burden to provide the supporting evidence rested with the applicant. The Commission further discussed nearby docks visible from the Simon's Narrows area and noted that none appeared comparable in length to the proposed structure. Discussion addressed the substantial length of the proposed pier across the marsh and the fact that it stopped at the end of the marsh rather than extending into the water. Concerns remained regarding low-tide access and the possibility that users returning outside the appropriate tidal window could leave their kayaks and travel through the marsh. Mr. Cook also discussed the practical difficulties of loading and launching kayaks from the proposed structure without disturbing the marsh. He acknowledged that revisions had included removal of the staircase and addition of a proposed kayak storage rack but stated that loading equipment and entering or exiting a kayak could still result in marsh impacts. He stated that the logistics of repeated use without harm to the marsh had not been adequately addressed and that he had significant reservations regarding the project as a whole. Following deliberation, the Commission was reminded that any motion for denial should specify whether the denial was with or without prejudice. Ms. Pitt moved to deny without prejudice the 61 & 67 Shoestring Bay Road pier application. As Mr. Colombo began discussing an amendment, Mr. Kent noted that Ms. Pitt's pending motion had not yet been seconded. Mr. Colombo then seconded the motion. During discussion, Ms. Pitt stated that her denial was based on the applicant's failure to support no detrimental cumulative effect. Regulation 24 was identified as the cumulative-effects regulation. Mr. Colombo then moved to amend the pending motion to specify the statutory, regulatory and local provisions supporting the denial. He explained that the provisions corresponded with the five findings he had prepared and read into the record. The amendment was seconded by Ms. Pitt. During discussion of the amendment, Mr. Colombo stated that he had considered adding Regulation 25 and believed that it could be included. He stated that the new Regulation 25 governed the project because it involved a new structure exceeding the footprint of the house and was subject to case-by-case review. He noted,however, that there had not been extensive discussion of Regulation 25 during the hearing. Mr. Colombo referenced his prior discussion of the Morris Data Viewer projections for 2030-2050 and his request for information regarding debris 4