HomeMy WebLinkAbout16 SE48_3115 NCC 11_19_18 Questions Re ConCom Procedures
TO:
The
Nantucket
Conservation
Commission
FROM:
The
Nantucket
Coastal
Conservancy
Coordinating
Team
RE:
SBPF
NOI,
Expansion
of
Temporary
Stabilization
Project,
59-‐119
Baxter
Road,
SE48-‐3015
DATE:
November
19,
2018
The
Nantucket
Coastal
Conservancy
is
a
non-‐profit
community
organization
whose
mission
is
to
protect
and
preserve
Nantucket’s
coastal
resources
through
education,
research
and
advocacy,
ensuring
that
future
generations
have
the
opportunity
to
use
and
enjoy
them.
The
application
before
you
is
to
expand
the
current
947-‐foot
geotube
seawall
that
was
installed,
and
permitted,
as
a
temporary
measure
under
an
Emergency
Order
on
the
public
beach
below
the
bluff
in
Sconset
in
the
winter
of
2013
and
2014.
The
applicant
is
seeking
to
expand
the
seawall
to
2,873
feet,
in
effect
tripling
it
in
length.
At
the
time
of
the
installation
of
the
seawall,
the
northern
section
of
Baxter
Road
and
related
infrastructure
were
threatened
by
erosion.
The
reason
the
geotube
installation
was
represented
—
and
permitted
—
as
temporary
was
to
give
the
Town
time
to
obtain
alternative
access
to
the
homes
in
the
area,
as
well
as
to
Sankaty
Lighthouse.
It
is
our
understanding
that
that
the
Town
now
has
“shovel-‐ready”
plans
for
alternative
access,
should
it
be
needed.
Of
particular
concern
to
us
is
the
stretch
of
formerly
pristine
public
beach
below
the
bluff
in
Sconset
that
is
legacy
to
the
inhabitants
of
Nantucket
from
the
Proprietors
and
on
which
the
proponents
intend
to
construct
the
expansion.
As
we
all
know,
seawalls
degrade
and
eventually
destroy
any
beach
on
which
they
are
built.
The
science
in
this
regard
is
irrefutable.
We
have
been
following
this
series
of
public
hearings,
as
well
as
those
held
previously,
and,
at
this
point
in
the
process,
would
like
to
submit
some
comments
to
seek
clarification
about
the
procedures
being
followed
by
the
Commission.
CONSERVATON
COMMISSION
PROCEDURES
1.
First
and
foremost,
we
strongly
recommend
that
the
Commission
proceed
to
engage
independent
professionals
to
review
various
sections
of
this
Notice
of
Intent,
as
well
as
the
additional
testimony
provided
by
the
applicant
and
its
consultants.
Further,
it
appears
that
the
Town
has
required
that
the
applicants
pay
for
any
research/review
by
independent
parties
that
the
Town
believes
is
necessary.
Expert
assistance
is
essential
because
of:
the
highly
technical
nature
of
the
submission;
the
complexity,
size,
and
scope
of
the
proposed
project;
the
extent
of
possible
adverse
impacts;
and
the
fact
that
the
seawall
is
to
be
constructed,
in
large
part,
on
a
public
beach
held
in
trust
by
the
Town.
The
Commissioners,
as
well
as
members
of
the
public,
MEMORANDUM
TO
THE
CONCOM
RE
PROCEDURES
2
should
have
the
opportunity
to
learn
from
such
experts,
to
question
them
and
to
fully
understand
all
aspects
of
the
proposed
project.
There
is
plenty
of
time
within
the
public-‐
hearing
process
to
engage
such
experts,
and
we
urge
the
Commission
to
do
so
as
expeditiously
as
possible.
It
is
simply
unfeasible
to
expect
a
small
and
very
busy
staff,
volunteer
Commissioners
with
full-‐time
jobs,
non-‐profit
organizations
with
limited
resources
and
members
of
the
public
to
fully
assess
this
proposed
project.
2.
We
would
like
the
submissions
made
during
the
regular
permitting
process
for
the
current
seawall,
as
well
as
the
submissions
made
during
the
original
emergency-‐order
permitting
process
for
the
current
seawall,
become
part
of
the
record
of
these
proceedings.
How
do
we
do
that?
3.
We
assume
that,
during
the
period
of
the
public
hearings
for
the
expansion,
any
and
all
communications
with
the
Commission
by
the
applicants
or
by
anyone
related
to
or
speaking
on
behalf
of
the
Siasconset
Beach
Preservation
Fund
[SBPF]
(including
any
property
owners
or
their
family
members
in
the
project
area)
have
been
through
the
staff
of
the
Natural
Resources
Office
and
not
one-‐on-‐one
with
any
individual
Commissioner.
Is
this
correct?
May
we
assume
that
this
has
been
the
fact
since
the
public
hearings
opened
on
September
17?
We
raise
this
issue
because
in
the
past,
this
has
not
been
the
case.
4.
We
assume
that
individual
Commissioners
have
filed
disclosures
relating
to
any
business
or
personal
relationships
that
they
may
have
with
any
of
the
principals,
members
of,
or
representatives
of
SBPF.
Thank
you.
—
For
the
Nantucket
Coastal
Conservancy
Coordinating
Team:
Elin
Anderwald,
Burton
Balkind,
Peter
Brace,
Barbara
Bund,
Joyce
Berreut,
Sunny
Daily,
Susan
Landmann,
Susan
McFarland,
Catherine
Nickerson,
Maureen
Phillips,
Linda
Spery,
Liz
Trillos,
Mary
Wawro,
Karen
Werner
and
D.
Anne
Atherton.