HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Selectmen Agenda November 2, 2011 Packet_201402061638090217NANTUCKET HISTORICAL COMMISSION
October 24, 2011
To: The Board of Selectmen
Re: The Nantucket Historic District Landmark Nomination
Dear Sirs and Madam,
Our Commission has reviewed this document at great length and study and offers
the following pros and cons pertaining to the broadened proposal for our currently
accepted island-wide historical designation, the Nantucket Historic District National
Historic Landmark nomination:
1. Nantucket is already designated, island-wide, as a National Historic
Landmark.
2. The current historical designation covers houses and other buildings through
the whaling industry. While excellent, and a recognized honor to be
designated, the structures covered are only those going back over 111 years,
as 1900 is the stopping point. While the designated time period is significant,
it leaves a large period of the island’s history un-recognized (such as the
‘Sconset Casino, built in 1901, which currently has no historic protection or
designation whatsoever).
3. With the demise of the whaling industry, our island evolved into a resort, and
thus that evolution needs to be noted and recognized in the island’s history,
and, where necessary, preserved.
4. The proposed expanded time frame would give protection to houses and
buildings up to 1950, plus certain land uses such as agriculture, cranberry
bogs, and conservation land. It would not affect every building or house built
before 1950, only those that history and time has proved significant. It
recognizes the architecture and evolution of a Seaside Resort Industry.
5. It would add more protection to architecture past Greek Revival; late
Victorian, 20th century Colonial and Georgian Revival and including early
20th century American movements such as the Bungalow/Craftsman. The
designation would give more tools to the various Commissions in making
decisions; give them backing for their decision, and teeth should they have to
go to bat for a building. This would be true of the Board of Selectmen as
well.
6. While the local controls are more stringent than this proposed
document/designation, buildings that fall into the significant, or contributing
category, could be better protected from massive renovation or demolition,
even in the face of a high-powered attorney.
7. While this document doesn’t demand any actions by any Commission, it
allows the various Commissions to better exercise judgment regarding
projects that come before them, i.e., if a building came up for significant
renovation or demolition that was in the broadened time period, and our own
HDC felt the building was not deemed worthy of saving, the HDC would not
in any way be affected or coerced by this document in coming to their
decision.
8. If the public feels the HDC is taking something too stringently, not being
responsive to the community at large, their accountability will be dealt with in
the voting booth. We have a checks and balance system in place.
9. The expanded designation gives more protection against state or federal
actions, such as taking a part of our conservation land for a nuclear power
plant (an extreme example).
10. The expanded designation gives the potential to more home/building owners
for substantial tax credits for historic buildings, and the potential for more
structures to be eligible for a historic restriction.
Though it does not command or demand anyone to do that.
11. The multi-year study and work that has brought this document to the
Selectmen’s table was done with the support of CPC funds, and voted for by
Nantucketers at Town Meeting.
12. This broadened- protection document is a National honor for the island. It
will help to continue our status as one of the most desirable resort destinations
in the world.
13. The historic aspect of Nantucket is its biggest draw for tourism. This
Commission sees no down side to this expanded designation, only positives.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Deborah Timmermann, Chair
Nantucket Historical Commission
MMAARRIINNEE && CCOOAASSTTAALL RREESSOOUURRCCEESS DDEEPPAARRTTMMEENNTT
TTOOWWNN OOFF NNAANNTTUUCCKKEETT
3344 WWAASSHHIINNGGTTOONN SSTTRREEEETT ((550088)) 222288--77226611
NNAANNTTUUCCKKEETT,, MMAA 0022555544 FFAAXX:: ((550088)) 332255--55338888
MEMO
To: Board of Selectmen
Town Manager
Assistant Town Manager
From: Dave Fronzuto, Marine Superintendent and Jeff Carlson, Natural Resources Coordinator
Date: October 27, 2011
Re: Coastal Management Principles Update, November 2, 2011
__________________________________________________________________________________
This memo and attachments are to serve as an update in the Town’s development of a set of Coastal
Management Principles (CMP). The workgroup on this project has come to a crossroads in the
development of the CMP and are looking for some guidance from the Board of Selectmen in how they
best feel the workgroup proceed to best serve the entire island. The workgroup initially created an
issue matrix that contained 17 separate coastal management issues. Due to ongoing and completed
Town projects and initiatives the matrix was focused to four issues that need to be addressed. They
are coastal hazards, coastal erosion, public access, and homeland security. During this same time the
Town’s Marine & Coastal Resources Department applied for a StormSmart Grant
(http://www.mass.gov/czm/stormsmart/) with the Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management
(CZM). This grant is to provide the Town two years of technical assistance in developing a multi-
objective management plan. One of the main goals of the StormSmart program is to assist towns’ in
the creation of a multi-objective management plan focusing on the CZM “No Adverse Impact”
principles. It is important to note that currently these principles are focused solely on town-
owned/operated land. I will briefly review each attachment below and present the option that they
provide.
Attachment/Option 1- The workgroup prior to the work on the StormSmart grant chose to start
working on the coastal erosion component of the CMP. The first attachment is the current draft of this
coastal erosion section. As part of the work on the CMP the first option is to work on the entire
document locally, one issue at a time an adopted them through the public hearing process as each issue
is completed to form our final Coastal Management Principles. These can serve as the framework for
any work that maybe done in conjunction with CZM on the StormSmart grant. These issues may see
some significant revisions through the StormSmart process and any other future public hearings.
Attachment/Option 2- Upon receiving the StormSmart grant for the technical assistance the workgroup
can work with Coastal Zone Management on this multi-objective management to address all of the
identified issues in a single block. CZM defines this multi-objective management as “multi-objective
management interweaves No Adverse Impact (NAI) principles into all aspects of community
planning-simultaneously addressing not only land use but also efforts to protect community economic,
cultural, ecological, historic, fiscal, and aesthetic resources. Multi-objective management gathers
interested parties, such as residents, business leaders and local officials, to decide how to manage land
in a community, integrating as many interests as possible-; not just hazard reduction or economic
development.” The “No Adverse Impact” principles are attached as part of the second attachment.
This option will allow for the town to create a living set of principles that the community will have
significant input in creating. This option while taking more time will provide a more community
involved, complete final set of principles.
In addition to the StormSmart grant application the department has applied for an additional grant with
the Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment & Northeast Regional Ocean Council.
•
Through this project, the town seeks to develop a local draft Floodplain Bylaw that will
minimize flood related risks and impacts from both new development and from redevelopment
of properties within coastal floodplains. To help educate decision makers about current and
future risks from coastal flooding, the town seeks to develop updated flood inundation maps
that will identify coastal flood zones for a variety of future sea level rise scenarios. The project
will build upon work that is the town is planning to undertake as part of the CZM StormSmart
community pilot project program and will include:
•
Use of the updated MCZM shoreline change maps to help characterize potential
impacts to coastal wetland resource areas and the developed environment. Assess the
effects of movement in terms of potential impacts to coastal resource areas, such as
coastal beach, coastal dune, barrier beach, ponds as well as developed areas and
infrastructure.
•
Develop a coastal structures “build-out” map, which would indentify and map those
parcels on the island with pre-1978 structures that could legally be considered for
structural armoring under existing regulations. The existing 1992 FEMA flood maps
are inadequate for this planning initiative. Recent LIDAR over flights have been
conducted and will be extremely useful in determining coastal erosion and future flood
inundation.
Develop management recommendations for consideration for inclusion in Nantucket’s
Municipal Harbor Plan and Nantucket’s Coastal Management Principles.
We intend on being at the meeting on November 2, 2011 to answer any questions that the Board has in
regards to the Coastal Management Principles. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Current Issue Matrix
Issue Status Recommend
Water Quality Town Water Quality Initiative underway Reference WQI in CMP to satisfy this issue
Habitat Covered by Town of Nantucket Wetlands
Protection Bylaw Chapter 136 Reference Bylaw in CMP to satisfy this issue
Coastal
Hazards
Erosion
Control
Harbors Harbor Plan covers pertenant issues Reference Harbor Plans in CMP to satisfy this
issue
Public Access
Policy Policy to be developed
To be developed considering One Big Beach,
Roads and Right of Way (if plan pertains to only
town-owned property Chapter 91 license does not
apply and should be considered seperately)
Beach Access
Policy Beach Management Plan completed Reference WQI in CMP to satisfy this issue
Off Shore
Resources
Covered by Commonwealth of
Massachusetts Oceans Management Plan
Reference Oceans Management Plan in CMP to
satisfy this issue
Homeland
Security
Alternative
Energy Policy being developed by NP&EDC Exclude from CMP until input is given from
NP&EDC
Fisheries
Covered by Town of Nantucket Wetlands
Protection Bylaw Chapter 136, Harbor Plan
and Shellfish Management Plan
Reference Bylaw and both plans in CMP to satisfy
this issue
Data
Accessibility Website construction underway Make drafts, updates and final principals available
through town website
Consistency See preparation and review Check against existing plans and initiatives before
final approval of CMP
Recreation
Covered by Town of Nantucket Wetlands
Protection Bylaw Chapter 136 and Beach
Management Plan
Reference Bylaw and BMP in CMP to satisfy this
issue
Aesthetics Covered by Town of Nantucket Wetlands
Protection Bylaw Chapter 136 Reference Bylaw in CMP to satisfy this issue
Integration
with Municipal
Harbor Plan
Issues covered by CMP outside of scope of
Harbor Plan
Reference Harbor Plans in CMP to satisfy this
issue
Policy to be developed
Coastal Management Principals
Issue Matrix Revised June 2011
Policy to be developed
Policy to be developed
Attachment 1/Option 1
Town of Nantucket
Coastal Management Principles
For Town-Owned/Operated Property
Coastal Erosion
The following principles define the Town of Nantucket’s approach to dealing with
coastal erosion:
1. That the Town of Nantucket identifies areas of concern that threaten public
infrastructure or threaten critical habitat including but not limited to endangered
species habitat, town roads and significant public infrastructure. 2. Any person(s) wishing to apply for a coastal erosion project permit on town-
owned land must provide a public benefit statement to the Board of Selectmen for
review prior to filing the application with any federal, state, or local agency.
Public benefit statement is required for the Town of Nantucket to sign any
application as the property owner. 3. Any erosion control measure being proposed on town owned land shall be
permitted by all proper federal, state and local agencies and any proposed project
shall contain the following components prior to the authorization of use for town
owned land:
a. Demonstration of no adverse impact to surrounding properties. b. Demonstration of how the project protects public infrastructure or areas of
public concern.
c. A mitigation protocol for the removal of the erosion control structure
including appropriate funds in perpetuity for removal of the permitted
structure. d. Permanent improvement of public access to the coastal area, such as
permanent easements across private lands to the coastal area.
e. Construction protocols with contact information for all permit holders and
contractors involved with the project.
f. A monitoring and reporting protocol including beach profiling, nourishment volumes and the integrity of the structure.
g. Presentation of the proposed project in a public hearing with the Board of
Selectmen or County Commissioners.
4. Copies of all required federal, state and local permits are to be submitted to the
Board of Selectmen a minimum of 1 month prior to the scheduled public hearing. 5. The Town of Nantucket shall not fund any erosion control structure unless
significant public infrastructure is threatened.
6. No work on any coastal erosion structure shall take place in identified areas of
protected species habitat during periods determined to be inappropriate in
connection with the life cycles of such species.
Attachment 2/Option 2
NAI Building Block Basic Better NAI
NAI Building Blocks
Hazard
Identification
and Mapping
Planning
Regulations
and Development
Standards
Mitigation
Infrastructure
Siting and Design
Emergency
Services
Public Outreach
and Education
Use FEMA Flood Insur-
ance Rate Maps for
land use decisions.
Use land use planning
and zoning through a
community master
plan.
Follow Federal Emer-
gency Management
Agency National Flood
Insurance Program
regulations.
Usecommonpractices,
such as flood proofing
existing structures.
Respond to storm
events as they occur.
After a storm, re-
build/repair to previ-
ous condition.
Create and use
generic hazard re-
sponse plan.
Answer questions and
provide information as
requested by public.
Gatherandusedetailedcoastal
hazarddata(e.g.,historicero-
sionrates,actualobservedex-
tentsoffloodwaters)forland
usedecisions.
Developfloodplainmanagement
plansthatincludestormwater
managementandhazardmitiga-
tionmeasures.Promulgatede-
tailedguidancefocusingon
reducingflooddamage.
Adoptconditionsforsitingnew
development.Regulatecumula-
tive,substantialimprovements.
Reviseregulatorytoolsforad-
dressingerosionalongshore-
linesincluding:relocationof
threatenedbuildings,building
setbacks,beachnourishment
andbio-engineering,andstabi-
lizationoferodedareas.
Elevate or relocate buildings.
Acquire land. Encourage non-
structural methods for shore-
line protection.
Upgradedamagedfacilitiesto
morehazard-resistantstan-
dards.Inventoryhazardrisksof
allpublicbuildings.Insure
buildingsforallhazards(asap-
propriate).Identify,andifpossi-
ble,relocateorprotect“critical
facilities.”
Createandtestcommunity-wide
hazardplansthatinvolveall
localboardsanddepartments.
Periodicallyinformresidentsof
coastalhazards,vulnerability,
andmitigationtechniques
throughpublicworkshops,and
inforumsafterstormrecovery.
Incorporatecoastalhazarddata(e.g.,erosion
rates,vulnerabilityofenvironmentallysensi-
tiveareas,andsea-levelriseratesandim-
pacts)intocommunity-wideplanningmaps
andregulations.
Designspecialareamanagementplansto:
protectstormdamageandfloodcontrolfunc-
tionsofnaturalresources,promotereason-
ablecoastal-dependenteconomicgrowth,
andimproveprotectionoflifeandpropertyin
hazard-proneareas.
Preserve sensitive areas through bylaws
and regulations that may: establish max-
imum densities for development, restrict
structures between the shoreline and the
setback line, mandate vegetative coastal
buffers rather than manmade structures
(bulkheads, seawalls, or groins), mini-
mize impervious cover, and preserve
stream corridor and wetland buffers.
Regulate placement of fill.
Stabilizeshorelineswithvegetation.Prohibit
constructioninespeciallydamage-prone
areas.Preventfillingofwetlandsandother
lowlands.Nourishbeacheswhereappropri-
ate.Protectwatersheds.Monitorcorrective
efforts.Regulateconstructionofshore-
protectionstructures.
Prohibit major public infrastructure in-
vestments in special flood hazard areas.
Ensure that roads, sewer lines, and utility
upgrades don’t encourage development in
hazard-prone areas. Zone to prohibit con-
struction in high-hazard areas. Locate new
critical facilities above 500-year flood-
plain.
Createplanstoensurethatallpeoplewho
wantorneedtobeevacuatedcanbemoved
tosafeshelters,andpost-disasterplansthat
improvecommunityfloodresistance
through:willinglandacquisition,determin-
ingwhichstructuresare“substantiallydam-
aged,”andensuringthatappropriate
reconstructionmeetscoderequirements.Es-
tablishmutualaidagreementswithneigh-
boringcommunities.
Createcomprehensiveeducationandout-
reachprogramsusingexpertiseofstateand
federalagencies(whenneeded)toencour-
agecommunity-wideproactivestormprepa-
ration.Establishcoastalhazarddisclosure
requirementsforpropertysales.