Willowbend seeks variance to Mashpee flow‑neutral bylaw; DEP review, residents urge denial

Willowbend developer representatives told the Mashpee Sewer Commission on June 18 that a planned 12‑unit, four‑bedroom cottage development and the connection of an off‑site four‑bedroom house to the private Willowbend wastewater treatment plant would not exceed plant capacity and would reduce nitrogen loading after remediation.

Kevin Klene of Stantec Consulting, speaking for Southworth Mashpee Properties, said the plant’s permitted flow is 113,000 gallons per day and that the maximum 90‑day flow observed was under 54,000 gpd. He said the project removes an existing five‑bedroom septic system, ties in two additional septic homes, and restores about 5.3 acres of cranberry bogs; on that basis the applicant’s calculations show a nitrogen load decline from about 193.6 pounds per year to about 100.6 pounds per year. "MassDEP has reviewed that and ... they agree that yes, there's capacity and yes, it's a net decrease in nitrogen," Klene said.

Attorney Jack Malini clarified the request and scope, saying the application seeks a variance for 48 new bedrooms and that the referenced additional four‑bedroom house is an existing unit to be connected. He said the bylaw’s application to a large, privately‑served parcel such as Willowbend is unclear and argued that the plant serves a broad area so the usual per‑parcel bedroom calculations are not straightforward.

Town Manager Ronnie Collins urged caution. He said the flow‑neutral bylaw was a condition of the town’s access to 0% SRF financing for wastewater projects and warned that a broad or incorrect interpretation of variances could jeopardize low‑interest funding and expose the town to "millions" in costs. "Failure to comply with the spirit and intent of the flow neutral bylaw could place the town financially at risk," Collins said.

Several residents and technical commenters urged denial. Public commenters argued the variance would "open the floodgates" to denser development on sewered lots, change community character and place new loads on town infrastructure. Speakers raised doubts about using bog remediation as mitigation, questioned whether site‑specific bog data exist, and cautioned that MassDEP’s willingness to consider mitigation credit does not relieve the commission from applying the bylaw consistently.

Applicants said the bog work would be bonded and monitored. The project team estimated the bog restoration at about $750,000 and said the planning‑board negotiations also included a roughly $400,000 cash mitigation component. Engineer Matthew Eddie (Baxi Engineering and Surveying) said bog restoration typically shows visible progress within a year and substantial restoration in two to three years; he and applicant counsel said the mitigation would be monitored with wells and sampling.

Town staff and consultants reported receiving late correspondence from MassDEP and a GHD memo; staff summarized GHD’s review as showing a paper‑calculated net nitrogen benefit (GHD: approximately 51.3 lb removed annually on one accounting). Commissioners said legal and implementation questions remain (how and when the town could assign credit in its 20‑year plan, whether bog remediation payments or bonds are sufficient, sequencing of construction and mitigation and potential effects on SRF eligibility).

Because of outstanding technical, legal and procedural questions, the commission voted unanimously to continue the public hearing to July 16, 2026, to allow time for the town attorney to review the new documents and for applicants to provide additional materials.

What happens next: the commission will review the additional submittals, any town‑attorney guidance and the DEP/GHD correspondence at the July 16 meeting before taking further action on the variance request.