Loading...
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.