Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout40 SE48_3115 NCC Anlternative Analysis comments 03_11_19       ALTERNATIVE  ANALYSIS:  FIVE  MAIN  POINTS       !  Five  years  ago,  the  Nantucket  Conservation  Commission   found  that  there  were  feasible  alternatives  to  the  current   947-­‐foot  geotube  revetment  installed  on  the  public  beach   below  the  bluff  in  Sconset  to  abate  an  emergency.       !  Today  there  are  even  more  feasible  alternatives  to   quadrupling  the  current  geotube  seawall  to  the  length  of   nearly  thirteen  100-­‐yard  football  fields,  destroying  four   acres  of  natural  beach  habitat,  and  hard-­‐armoring  7%  of   the  natural  eastern  shoreline  of  Nantucket.1     !      In  fact,  there  are  four  (4)  feasible  relocation  alternatives.       !  The  applicant  has  not  provided  the  required  analysis  of   feasible  alternatives  or  the  performance  of  nearby  soft   installations.  The  analysis  of  alternatives  in  the  NOI  for  the   expansion  filed  by  the  applicants  in  January  of  2018  is   cursory,  at  best,  and  incomplete.  It  contains  no  relocation   alternatives.       !  The  situation  now  is  very  different  from  the  situation  five   years  ago.  There  is  no  emergency  today.         1  Calculations:  One  football  field  is  300  feet  (100  yards,  not  including  end  zones).  300  x  3,820  (the  length  of  the   expanded  seawall)  is  12.7  100-­‐yard  football  fields.  With  a  depth  of  45  feet,  the  total  area  covered  by  the  expanded   revetment  would  be  45x3820  or  171,900  square  feet.  One  acre  is  43,560  square  feet.  So,  the  expanded  revetment   would  be  sitting  on  3.95  acres  of  beach  habitat.      ALTERNATIVE  ANALYSIS:  MORE  DETAIL       !  Five  years  ago,  the  Nantucket  Conservation  Commission  found  that  there  were  feasible  alternatives  to   the  current  947-­‐foot  geotube  revetment  installed  on  the  public  beach  below  the  bluff  in  Sconset  to  abate   an  emergency.       !  Today  there  are  even  more  feasible  alternatives  to  quadrupling  the  current  geotube  seawall  to  the  length   of  thirteen  football  fields,  destroying  four  acres  of  beach  habitat,  and  hard-­‐armoring  7%  of  the  natural   eastern  shoreline  of  Nantucket.     !      In  fact,  there  are  four  (4)  relocation  alternatives  that  are  feasible:     Relocation  alternative  #1:  There  are  property  owners  on  the  east  side  of  Baxter  Road,  north  of  Bayberry,   who  own  vacant  lots  on  the  west  side  of  Baxter  Road  to  which  they  could  move  their  houses.  According  to   Town  records,  these  property  owners  are  two  SBPF  principals.  Are  there  others  within  the  project  area?     Relocation  alternative  #2:  As  demonstrated  by  the  previous  owner  of  109  Baxter  Road,  threatened   structures  could  be  moved  landward  out  of  harm’s  way  into  the  road  layout.  The  Town  has  indicated  that  it   is  willing  to  provide  an  easement  for  this  purpose,  as  was  done  for  Mr.  DiAngelis,  the  previous  owner  of   109.  Shortly  after  Mr.  DiAngelis  moved  his  house,  he  sold  it.     Relocation  alternative  #3:  The  Baxter  Road  layout  is  60  feet  wide.  Only  20  feet  of  it  is  paved;  there  are  20-­‐   foot  buffers  on  either  side.  The  road  could  be  relocated  landward  into  the  western-­‐most  portion  of  the   layout,  providing  40  feet  of  land  for  leasing  to  owners  on  the  eastern  side  of  the  road  so  that  they  can   relocate  their  homes  landward  out  of  harm’s  way.       Relocation  alternative  #4:  The  Town  now  has  shovel-­‐ready  plans  to  provide  alternative  access  to  homes  in   the  area  of  northern  Baxter  Road,  the  most  threatened  section  of  the  road.  While  the  owners  don’t  want  to   use  this  alternative,  it  nonetheless  exists  as  a  viable  option.  NOTE:  Primary  source  documents,  such  as  the   Amended  MOU,  indicate  that  the  availability  of  this  access  is  NOT  predicated  upon  permitting  of  the   geotubes,  neither  the  current  947-­‐foot  revetment,  nor  the  expansion.     !  The  applicant  has  not  provided  the  required  analysis  of  alternatives  or  the  performance  of  nearby  soft   structures.  The  analysis  of  alternatives  in  the  NOI  for  the  expansion  filed  by  the  applicants  in  January  of   2018  is  cursory,  at  best,  and  incomplete.  It  contains  no  relocation  alternatives.       It  is  also  illustrative  to  review  what  the  applicants  said  about  geotubes  in  their  NOI,  filed  in  2013,  for  a  rock   revetment  as  compared  with  what  they  said  about  geotubes  in  their  NOI,  filed  in  2014,  for  the  current   geotube  seawall.       We  believe  that  the  Commission  should  consider  and  make  public  analyses  of  how  the  current  soft   installations,  which  have  been  in  place  just  south  of  the  geotubes,  have  performed  during  the  same  time   the  geotubes  have  been  installed.  The  side-­‐by-­‐side  presence  of  these  alternatives  provides  an  opportunity   for  a  data-­‐based  comparison.         !  Any  objective,  cost-­‐benefit  environmental  (and  financial)  analysis  of  alternatives  will  indicate  that   relocation  is  the  most  preferred  alternative.  It  involves  only  a  one-­‐time  move  with  a  certain  outcome,  a   known  cost,  no  mitigation,  no  maintenance,  no  monitoring  in  perpetuity,  little  or  no  environmental  harm  to   protected  resources  —  and  it  preserves  the  public  beach  below  the  bluff,  a  legacy  to  the  inhabitants  of   Nantucket  from  the  Proprietors.  The  Sconset  Trust  demonstrated  the  success  of  this  alternative  by   relocating  the  historic  Sankaty  Head  Lighthouse  landward  out  of  harm’s  way  in  2007:  a  one-­‐time,  successful   move  applauded,  and  funded,  by  the  community.       !  The  situation  now  is  very  different  from  the  situation  five  years  ago.  There  is  no  emergency  today.               APPENDIX     ALTERNATIVE  ANALYSIS  DOCUMENTATION       ·∙  Relocation  Alternative  #1:  Property  Cards  (2  pages):  80  and   76  Baxter  Road;  Vacant  Lots  in  Project  Area  on  West  Side  of   Baxter  Road  North  of  Bayberry     ·∙  Relocation  Alternative  #2:  Easement  documents  (26  pages)   for  109  Baxter  Road  provided  by  Town  Administration.     ·∙  Relocation  Alternative  #4:  Plans  for  Alternative  Access;  TON   Coastal  Erosion  and  Response  Planning  for  Baxter  Road   Utilities,  Prepared  for  ATM2019  (33  pages)       ·∙  Alternative  Analysis  Pages  (2)  from  NOI  Filed  by  SBPF  in   January  2018  for  Expansion  of  Geotubes     ·∙  SBPF  Statement  re  Geotubes  in  Alternative  Analysis   Submitted  in  2013  for  Rock  Revetment  (2  pages)       ·∙  Photo  by  Susan  Landmann  of  Soft  Installations  Located  to  the   South  of  Geotube  Revetment,  February  2019.     ·∙  Photo,  Relocation  Marker  for  Sankaty  Head  Lighthouse,  2007.     ·∙  Now  and  Then  Chart:  2013  and  2018       3/9/2019 Vision Government Solutions http://gis.vgsi.com/nantucketma/Parcel.aspx?Pid=2767 1/3 Location 80 BAXTER RD Mblu 49/ / 40/ / Acct#00002767 Owner POSNER JOSHUA & RUDDEN EILEEN Assessment $552,100 PID 2767 Building Count 1 Owner POSNER JOSHUA & RUDDEN EILEEN Co­Owner Address 32 ARLINGTON ST  CAMBRIDGE, MA 02140 Sale Price $0 Certificate Book & Page C0017/ 538 Sale Date 10/01/1996 Instrument 99   80 BAXTER RD   Current Value Assessment Valuation Year Improvements Land Total 2019 $0 $552,100 $552,100   Owner of Record   Ownership History Ownership History Owner Sale Price Certificate Book & Page Instrument Sale Date POSNER JOSHUA & RUDDEN EILEEN $0  C0017/ 538 99 10/01/1996 POSNER JOSHUA $237,290  C0017/ 537 1J 10/01/1996 POSNER JOSHUA & DAVID $115,000  C0010/ 627 1J 01/31/1996 POSNER BRUCE G JOSHUA & DAVID $0  C0010/ 627  07/01/1983 Year Built: Living Area:0 Replacement Cost:$0 Building Percent Good: Replacement Cost  Less Depreciation:   $0 Building Attributes Legend Building Photo Building Photo (http://images.vgsi.com/photos/NantucketMAPhotos//default.jpg) Building Layout (http://images.vgsi.com/photos/NantucketMAPhotos//Sketches/2 Building Sub­Areas (sq ft) Building Information Building 1 : Section 1   3/9/2019 Vision Government Solutions http://gis.vgsi.com/nantucketma/Parcel.aspx?Pid=2769 1/3 Location 76 BAXTER RD Mblu 49/ / 42/ / Acct#00002769 Owner WEYMAR CAROLINE S TR Assessment $13,200 PID 2769 Building Count 1 Owner WEYMAR CAROLINE S TR Co­Owner BAXTER REALTY TRUST Address 57 CONSTITUTION HILL WEST  PRINCETON, NJ 08540 Sale Price $375,000 Certificate Book & Page 00370/ 293 Sale Date 08/23/1991 Instrument 1N   76 BAXTER RD   Current Value Assessment Valuation Year Improvements Land Total 2019 $0 $13,200 $13,200   Owner of Record   Ownership History Ownership History Owner Sale Price Certificate Book & Page Instrument Sale Date WEYMAR CAROLINE S TR $375,000  00370/ 293 1N 08/23/1991 THE FOUNDATION OF THE UNIVERSI $0  00351/ 153 99 09/17/1990 Year Built: Living Area:0 Replacement Cost:$0 Building Percent Good: Replacement Cost  Less Depreciation:   $0 Building Attributes Field Description Style Vacant Land Model Legend Building Photo Building Photo (http://images.vgsi.com/photos/NantucketMAPhotos//default.jpg) Building Layout (http://images.vgsi.com/photos/NantucketMAPhotos//Sketches/2 Building Sub­Areas (sq ft)   No Data for Building Sub­Areas    Building Information Building 1 : Section 1   LICENSE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this ~y of \ j}e((2 /Jfk , 2013, by and between the County of Nantucket, a body politic and corporate and a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, acting by and through its Board of County Commissioners, having an address of Town & County Building, 16 Broad Street, Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554(the "Licensor") and John P. DeAngelis and Susan D. DeAngelis, the owners of property located at 109 Baxter Road, Nantucket, Massachusetts (the "Property") by virtue of a Deed filed for registration with the Nantucket County Registry District of the Land Court as Document No. 90730 as noted on Ce1iificate of Title No. 19675 (the "Licensee"): WHEREAS, LICENSOR is the owner of the land in the layout of Baxter Road as shown on Exhibit A by virtue of an Order of Taking dated October 29, 1975, filed with said Registry District of the Land Court as Document No. 16534 ("Roadway"); WHEREAS, due to the eroding coastal bank threatening the safety and structural integrity of the structures on bluff-side of Baxter Road, the Licensee's dwelling is in imminent danger; and WHEREAS, the Licensee has received approval from the Nantucket Zoning Board of Appeals pursuant to a Decision filed with Nantucket Registry District of the Land Comi to re-locate the dwelling entirely within the Licensee's property and as close as five (5) feet from the front yard lot line as shown on the attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Licensee has now asked the Licensor for pe1mission to site the dwelling within the unimproved portion of the roadway layout of Baxter Road, upon and over a portion of the layout of the Roadway, as more particularly shown on the plan attached hereto and marked Exhibit B (the "Licensed Premises"); and WHEREAS, Licensor has agreed, under certain conditions as more particularly set fo1ih herein, to allow a portion of the dwelling to be sited upon and over the Licensed Premises. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants herein made, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Licensor hereby permits Licensee, its contractors, agents, invitees, permittees and licensees, a non-exclusive right to enter upon and locate, maintain, and repair the dwelling on the Licensed Premises, at their sole cost and expense in accordance with the plan Licensee had submitted to the Building Inspector of the Town of Nantucket which is attached hereto as Exhibit B, and all federal state and local laws, regulations, ordinances and by-laws. Such entry and use shall be exercised from the date of the execution of this License and shall continue until Licensor grants a permanent easement authorized by Town Plan-It No.Dept./Request FY20 Rqst.CapCom Rec. Appendix A – Capital Requests by Account & Department (w/Request Descriptions) ADMIN-20-004 Town Wide Document Management Solution [cont. Pilot]$.1M $.1M ADMIN-20-005 Coastal Resiliency Plan $.55M $.55M Initial funding for critical project addressing island-wide erosion impact begun in FY18. Milone &  MacBroom is retained for consulting services and have conducted two public forums.  A major workshop  on January 8, 2019 brought together over 55 stakeholders to map-out next steps.  State grant secured to  help with public outreach needed to develop the Plan. TON has been awarded up to $200,000 in the  State’s recently issued economic bond bill, earmarked for this. There is likely a local match but provisions  of the bill are not yet disseminated.   ADMIN-20-006 Baxter Road Relocation $.5M $.5M Estimates for a scope and rough budget for the Baxter Rd erosion utility relocation plan to relocate the  existing roadway and public utilities to a more secure alignment to protect from imminent threat of  coastal bluff erosion provided by Weston & Sampson. This is a rough ‘ballpark’ costs for  planning/preliminary design and final design of the roadway relocation(s) and associated evaluation  (with new water and sewer lines).ADMIN-20-007 Meeting Room Trailer $.45M $.45MLoss of 4FG Training Room has made it apparent that TON needs more permanent, functional meeting  space that can accommodate up to 30 people with dedicated NCTV equipment and that meets all ADA  requirements.  Based on a site visit of the Central Fire Station at 131 Pleasant Street with SMRT Architects  it is recommended that a modular trailer be located at this location adjacent to the administration portion  of the building due to the high cost of renovating that facility and restrictions of the site (force main,  parking configuration, condition of the station).  lADMIN-20-008 Central Fire Station Reuse $.25M $.25MTown Administration reviewed multiple options for reuse of fire station at 131 Pleasant Street (from  selling to tearing down & building a senior center to housing, etc.) and presented a recommendation to  the Select Board.  Based on a quick review by SMRT, costs to renovate the structure for meeting space or  another use triggers code that is cost-prohibitive; however moving another department to the facility is  efficient and cost-effective. approval. ADMIN-20-009 Strategic Planning [Transferred to Operating]$.15M $.M ADMIN-20-010 Senior Center Relocation Study $.15M $.15M Feasibility study & prelim site design for relocation of existing Senior Center to a new location. GENERAL FUND SUBTOTAL:$43.43M $36.39M Appendix A-3 of 4 Dept. Plan-It No.Request CapCom Rec. DPW-TRANS TRAN-17-001 Sidewalk Improvement Program $1.M DPW-TRANS TRAN-19-2 Parking Improvements - 2FG & Town Pier $1.M DPW-TRANS TRAN-19-4 Fairgrounds Area Roadways (Waitt Drive)$1.5M DPW-TRANS TRAN-20-010 Wauwinet Road Shared Use Path $.35M DPW-TRANS TRAN-21-002 Tom Nevers Bike Path $.33M POLICE/MARINE PUBL-19-001 Harbormaster Industry Road Layup Yard & Workshop $.5M POLICE/MARINE PUBL-20-011 Maintenance Seasonal Housing Building $.95M TOWN ADMIN ADMIN-20-010 Senior Center Relocation Study $.15M TOWN ADMIN ADMIN-20-006 Baxter Road Relocation $.5M Total Borrowing: $6.28M DPW-Fleet DPW-18-01 Loader $.25M DPW-Fleet DPW-18-04 DPW Directors Vehicles $.05M DPW-Fleet DPW-19-01 Trash Compactor Truck $.14M DPW-Fleet DPW-19-05 Vehicle Lifts $.05M FIRE FIRE-17-001 Replace Engine #7 $.45M FIRE FIRE-19-4 SCBAs Replacement $.09M Total Capital Exclusion: $1.03M DPW-TRANS TRAN-17-005 Surfside Area Roads Reconstruction (Lovers Lane, Monohanssett and Okorowaw)$6.29M DPW-TRANS TRAN-19-3 Orange St. Bike Path $2.51M DPW-TRANS TRAN-20-TBD1 Newtown/Fairgrounds/Old South Improvements $5.2M POLICE/MARINE PUBL-20-010 Public Safety Auxiliary Building $3.M TOWN ADMIN ADMIN-20-002 Town Pier Supplemental Funding $5.M Total Debt Exclusion: $22.M DPW-ADMIN DPW-18-12 GIS Data Integration $.15M DPW-FACS FAC-19-004 Public Bathrooms Upgrades $.25M DPW-FACS FAC-19-005 Annual Facility Roof Repairs $.15M DPW-FACS FAC-19-006 Annual Facility ADA Accessibility Upgrades $.05M DPW-FACS FAC-19-007 Annual Facility Utility Updates $.15M DPW-FACS FAC-19-008 Annual Facility Site Paving Updates $.25M DPW-FACS FAC-19-009 Annual Facility Equipment Replacements $.1M DPW-FACS FAC-19-010 Annual Facility Lighting Updates $.05M DPW-TRANS TRAN-17-006 Road Improvements/Maintenance $1.M DPW-TRANS TRAN-19-002 Multi-Use Path Maintenance $.25M DPW-TRANS TRAN-19-010 Cobblestone Improvements/Maintenance $.25M DPW-TRANS TRAN-20-016 Decommissioning Fire Cisterns $.05M IS/GIS ADMIN-17-001 Network Infrastructure $.25M IS/GIS ADMIN-18-001 Replace Town Computers & Printers $.05M SCHOOL NPS-18-006 Backus Lane Playing Fields Phase III $.26M TOWN ADMIN ADMIN-20-001 Seasonal Employee Housing Feasibility Study $.3M TOWN ADMIN ADMIN-20-003 Traffic Modeling $.15M TOWN ADMIN ADMIN-20-004 Town Wide Document Management Solution [cont. Pilot]$.1M TOWN ADMIN ADMIN-20-005 Coastal Resiliency Plan $.55M Borrowing Appendix B – Capital Requests by Fund-type & Funding Source Capital Exclusion Debt Exclusion Free Cash GENERAL FUND 2 1 3 4 Appendix B-1 of 3 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR ALTERNATIVE ACCESS TO NORTH END OF BAXTER ROAD This MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (“MOU”) is dated this ___ day of ___________, 2015 between Patrick Ryan, as Trustee of the Ryan Nantucket Realty Trust under a Declaration of Trust dated February 6, 2008, filed with Nantucket Registry District of the Land Court as Document No. 123092 (“Ryan”), Ann Furrow (“Furrow”), the Sankaty Head Golf Club, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation (“Sankaty”), the Sconset Trust, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation (the “Trust”), Siasconset Beach Preservation Fund, Inc. (“SBPF”), and the Town of Nantucket, a Massachusetts municipal corporation acting by and through its Board of Selectmen (the “Town”). WHEREAS, Ryan, Furrow, Sankaty and the Trust, propose to provide limited access as described herein (in the event Baxter Road becomes impassable as a result of advancing coastal erosion) to themselves and to those owners of certain private property located on Baxter Road, all as more specifically identified in Exhibit A, attached hereto (the “Baxter Neighbors”), situated between the property of 86 Baxter Road Nominee Trust at 86 Baxter Road (“the 86 Baxter Land”) and Jay W. Wertheimer, Trustee of Eight-Five Baxter Road Nominee Trust of 85 Baxter Road (the “Wertheimer Land”), north to the Trust property at 122 Baxter Road (the “Lighthouse Property”); and WHEREAS, the Town proposes to be responsible for the initial construction of the alternate access as described below upon the terms set forth herein. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and in consideration of other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 1. Ryan and Furrow Easement - Ryan and Furrow shall grant a ten foot (10’) wide gravel access within a twenty foot (20’) wide easement between the Ryan property at 110 Baxter Road and the Furrow property at 112 Baxter Road (the “Ryan/Furrow Access”) to Baxter Road over their respective land shown on a plan attached hereto as Exhibit B. 2. Sankaty Easements - Sankaty shall grant over its land at 125 Sankaty Road: (a) a twenty foot (20’) wide asphalt access within a forty foot (40’) wide easement, with possible temporary construction easements shown on a plan attached hereto as Exhibit B;(the “Sankaty Access”); and (b) a ten foot (10’) wide gravel easement on the Sankaty land running north from the Sankaty Access to the property of Richard S. Mackay, as Trustee of Richard S. Mackay 2002 Revocable Trust, and Linda M. A. Mackay, as Trustee of Linda M. A. Mackay 2002 Revocable Trust at 120 Baxter Road (“Mackay”), transitioning to a four foot (4’) gravel pedestrian path to the Lighthouse Property (the “Lighthouse Access”), for: (i) Access to the Furrow and Mackay properties and those of Stephen B. Cohen at 116 Baxter Road (“Cohen”), and Rick Hinchey, as Trustee of 114 Baxter Road Nominee Trust, at 114 Baxter Road (“Hinchey”); and (ii) Pedestrian and bicycle access to the Lighthouse Property. 1 (c) Limited access easement to the Trust over existing driveways on its properties to the Lighthouse Property for emergency and routine maintenance purposes. (d) An easement for a parking area for six (6) vehicles for use by members of the public who are visiting the Lighthouse Property (the “Sankaty Parking”). (e) An easement for a small turn-around at the point where the Alternative Access transitions from twenty feet (20’) wide to ten feet (10’). Appropriate signage and 4”x4” timber posts shall be placed at such juncture to discourage parking and travel beyond that point. The proposed Sankaty Access, Ryan/Furrow Access, Lighthouse Access, and Sankaty Parking are more particularly shown on the plan attached hereto as Exhibit B and are collectively referred to herein as the “Alternative Access.” 3. Easements to Town - In consideration of the payments made by the Town pursuant to this MOU, Sankaty, Ryan, and Furrow shall grant appropriate easements for the Alternative Access to the Town for its emergency or other official vehicles, the Wannacomet Water Company, and other public utilities for the installation, repair, maintenance, and replacement of underground utility services, as well as a temporary construction easement to construct the Alternative Access. In addition Sankaty shall grant to the Town an easement for public way purposes along the Sankaty Access which easement shall include a turnaround for the transition point. In consideration of the voluntary easement in the Ryan/Furrow Access granted to the Town and in lieu of damages, the Town shall, subject to appropriation, pay appropriate damages of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000.00) to Ryan and Furrow each(for a total of $500,000.00). The payment to Ryan and Furrow shall not be paid by the Town until such time as Baxter Road has been determined to be unsafe for vehicular passage as set forth in Paragraph 4 below, the appropriation by Town Meeting has been approved and all easements referenced in this MOU have been granted by all parties. All of such signed easements shall be held in escrow and not recorded or otherwise acted upon until such time as such payment has been made in full, and the appropriation for the construction set forth in Paragraph 4 below has been irrevocably and unconditionally made and approved. Simultaneously with the execution of this MOU all of the Baxter Neighbors as set forth on Exhibit A who own property on the east side of Baxter Road shall execute a One Big Beach Easement to the Town over their respective properties in a form substantially similar to that which is attached hereto as Exhibit C. It shall be SBPF’s, and not Ryan or Furrow’s, obligation to secure the easements from the applicable property owners. 4. Conditions and Control of Alternative Access - Access over the Alternative Access is intended as an avenue of last resort, to be used only when all reasonable efforts to save Baxter Road in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements have failed. To that end, the Alternative Access will be made available when, in the opinion of a majority of three (3) licensed Massachusetts civil engineers, one designated by the Town, one designated by the other parties hereto, and one designated by such two designated engineers Baxter Road is no longer safe for passage due to coastal erosion. Such condition shall not be construed to preclude the Town’s ability to exercise municipal authority over any public safety emergency. The Town shall reserve an easement over Baxter Road for pedestrian access. Such access shall be permitted if Baxter Road is deemed safe for pedestrian traffic by the Town Manager in consultation with the Department of Public Works Director, the Police Chief, and the Fire Chief. Except for the Sankaty Access, the Alternative Access shall remain private. The Town shall, subject to appropriation, be responsible for the initial construction of the Alternative Access (the “Project”), and thereafter the owners association referred to below shall be responsible for 2 routine maintenance and upkeep of the Alternative Access except for the Sankaty Access which shall be the responsibility of the Town when it is accepted as a public way. Subject to the conditions and limitations set forth herein and as necessary for emergency personnel (police, fire, EMT’S, ambulances, and other medical personnel), the Lighthouse Access shall be used solely for (a) vehicular and pedestrian access by Furrow, Mackay, Cohen, and Hinchey as appurtenant to their properties, and (b) pedestrian access, only, by the public and by the Trust, as appurtenant to the Lighthouse Property, and the Ryan/Furrow Access shall be used solely for vehicular and pedestrian access by Ryan, Furrow, and the Baxter Neighbors, and, under certain limited conditions set forth below, or for vehicular access only by the Trust; provided further, however, that with respect to the Baxter Neighbors, those Baxter Neighbors owning only vacant land as set forth in Exhibit A shall be entitled to use the Ryan/Furrow Access solely for the limited purpose of management and protection of such vacant land and for no other purpose, including, but not limited to, construction (other than such construction as is related to protection of such vacant land), public access, or occupancy. Included in such right of access are the guests and invitees of those having the right of access. Access over the Ryan/Furrow Access shall be controlled by appropriate signage at the westerly ends of both the Sankaty Access and the Ryan/Furrow Access; provided, however, that if the public routinely trespasses over the Ryan Furrow Access, other methods of limiting access, such as an unlocked gate, may be implemented. The Trust’s use of the Ryan/Furrow Access shall be limited as follows: (a) The Ryan/Furrow Access will be fully open to members of the public visiting the Lighthouse Property only on Father's Day Sunday and the Saturday of Columbus Day weekend. There shall be no access to members of the public visiting the Lighthouse Property over the Ryan/Furrow Access on any other days. (b) No buses will be allowed to use the Ryan/Furrow Access. Tour vans having a maximum capacity of sixteen passengers (including the driver) may use the Ryan/Furrow Access only on the two open days noted above. (c) The Trust may use the Ryan/Furrow Access when the Trust deems necessary in its sole discretion, including for emergency vehicles and personnel, but in no event for public access except as expressly herein provided. 5. Association - As a prerequisite to using the Alternative Access, those having the right of access shall enter into and become part of an owners association (the “Association”). The Association shall set reasonable rules and regulations for the use of the Alternative Access, including, but not limited to, coordinating services, such as utilities, landscaping, and deliveries, so as to minimize the number of vehicle trips on the Ryan/Furrow Access and shall assess and collect fees and charges for the routine maintenance and upkeep of the Alternative Access and appropriate insurance thereon. The members of the Association shall indemnify and hold Ryan, Furrow, and Sankaty harmless against any and all loss or damage arising from their use of the Alternative Access, and Ryan, Furrow, and Sankaty shall have no obligation to pay any Association fees and charges. The Town and/or County shall, subject to all statutory requirements, take whatever steps are necessary to abandon that portion of Baxter Road from the breach but no further south than the 86 Baxter Land and the Wertheimer Land, north to its northern terminus at the Lighthouse Property and shall convey such abandoned roadway to the Association, subject to a pedestrian easement for the public. In the event that the Alternative Access is not constructed for any reason or additional measures are required to provide access to any residents of Baxter Road, nothing herein shall be construed as imposing a limitation on the statutory authority of the Town to lay out and construct additional roadways, including the authority of the Town to acquire rights in such roadways 3 pursuant to eminent domain. The Town agrees that if the Alternative Access is constructed in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, the Town or County of Nantucket shall not exercise the power of eminent domain with respect to the Ryan Furrow Access. 6. Betterment Assessments – Ryan and Furrow understand that the Town intends to assess a betterment upon all applicable lots benefiting from the Alternative Access, depending upon the location of any breach in Baxter Road or the location of the failure or closure of the roadway to vehicular traffic, and that such betterment shall be for the total cost of the Project, including the $500,000 damage payment referenced in paragraph 3, and all other costs as appropriate under G.L. c. 80, but that the Furrow property and the Ryan property shall be excluded from such betterment. 7. Access Agreement - The Access Agreement, the delivery of which shall be facilitated by the best efforts of SBPF prior to construction of the Alternative Access, shall be in recordable form, which shall be recorded with the Nantucket County Registry of Deeds and the Nantucket Registry District of the Land Court by the owners of the properties assessed pursuant to Paragraph 6 herein, and shall provide that each lot owner assessed under Paragraph 6 herein shall agree to pay the betterment assessments as described above and not to contest with the Town the validity of the betterment to be assessed upon each of the Baxter Road Properties for the Project; not to contest the validity of any re-assessment of the betterments for the balance(s) due of the betterments for any Baxter Road Property whose home is no longer habitable due to erosion to be shared equally among the remaining Baxter Neighbors; and not to seek an abatement of the assessment, which amount shall be acknowledged to be proportionate to the benefit or advantage that such lots will obtain from the Project. The Town shall apportion the betterment assessments for each of the Baxter Road Properties in equal portions to be repaid for a period not to exceed the maximum term allowable. The Town’s obligations under this MOU are expressly conditioned upon delivery of the fully executed Access Agreement prior to commencement of any activities related to construction of the Alternative Access or payment of the damages specified in paragraph 3. The Access Agreement shall run with the Baxter Road Properties and be enforceable by the Town for a period of thirty (30) years from the date hereof, or until such time as the assessment upon each of the Baxter Road Properties is paid in full without protest, whichever is earlier. The Access Agreement shall also provide that until two years after the recording of an order of taking of the above-referenced easements, or six months after the assessment of the above-referenced betterments, whichever occurs later, the Baxter Neighbors shall not convey all or any part of their respective properties nor convey a mortgage upon the their respective properties, without providing the grantee or mortgagee with a true and complete copy of this MOU and the Access Agreement as signed by the Baxter Neighbor, and said Baxter Neighbor shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Town for any sum of money the Town may be obliged to pay a new owner or mortgagee as an abatement, damages or otherwise relating to said assessment or taking, if said Baxter Neighbor does not provide such copy to a new owner or mortgagee. 8. Additional Access - The parties hereto acknowledge that this MOU may only provide short-term access for a limited few homeowners. All parties remain very concerned and stand ready to work with the Town and the County to find a long-term solution for Baxter Road residents. Ryan is prepared to share engineering and other studies involving, the bluff erosion, the installation of water, sewer, and other utilities, the provision of access for police and fire services, and the overall costs. 4 9. Term of MOU. The term of the MOU shall be the same term as any permit for the bluff protection system referenced in paragraph 4. At the end of the term of the MOU this MOU shall be deemed null and void and the MOU terminated. 10. Waiver of Liability. The Town’s entering into this MOU is not evidence of any admission of liability on the part of the Town in its actions or inactions with respect to the actual or potential erosion of Baxter Road and surrounding properties (“Erosion Related Claims”), and the Baxter Neighbors waive any rights to sue the Town for Erosion Related Claims which may have accrued or arisen prior to execution of this MOU. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereto set their hands and seals as of the day referenced above. SIGNATURES TO FOLLOW cc: Sarah F. Alger Sarah F. Alger PC 2 S Water St. Nantucket, MA 02554 Kevin F. Dale, Attorney Vaughan, Dale, Hunter & Beaudette, P.C. 6 Whaler’s Lane Post Office Box 2669 Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 Steven L. Cohen, Attorney Cohen and Cohen Law, PC 34 Main Street, Second Floor Post Office Box 786 Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 Arthur I. Reade, Jr., Attorney Reade, Gullicksen, Hanley & Gifford, LLP Post Office Box 2669 Nantucket, Massachusetts 02584 5 Andrew V. Vorce, Director of Planning Planning and Land Use Services Two Fairgrounds Road Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 519974/19726/0001 6 EXHIBIT A PROPOSAL FOR ALTERNATIVE ACCESS TO NORTH END OF BAXTER ROAD Baxter Neighbors Improved Property Title Holder Property Address Parcel No. on Assessor’s Map 48 Sconset Trust, Inc. 122 Baxter Road 5 Patrick T. Ryan, as Trustee Ryan Nantucket Realty Trust 110 Baxter Road 37 Ann Furrow 112 Baxter Road 36 William B. and Marilee B. Matteson 106 Baxter Road 39 James E. Walker, III and Deborah C. Walker 104 Baxter Road 40 David S. and Dorothy O. Bailey 100 Baxter Road 42 Donald E. Claudy, as Trustee Baxter Nominee Trust 115 Baxter Road 10 Kyle L. Latshaw and Loretta A. Yoder 113 Baxter Road 11 John P. and Susan D. DeAngelis 109 Baxter Road 12 Janice S, Savery 98 Baxter Road 43 Alexander III and Laura R. Webb 96 Baxter Road 44 Daniel L. Korengold, Trustee of D & M Baxter Road Nominee Trust 92, 94 Baxter Road 45.23 Laurnace J. and Jane S. Guido 90 Baxter Road Map 49, Parcel 5 86 Baxter Nominee Trust 86 Baxter Road Map 49, Parcel 36 Vacant Land Sconset Trust, Inc. 119 Baxter Road 7 Stephen B. Cohen 117 Baxter Road 9 Whitney A. Gifford, as Trustee S.C. Nominee Trust 107A Baxter Road 14 Whitney A. Gifford, as Trustee S.C. Nominee Trust 107 Baxter Road 14.1 William B. and Marilee B. Matteson 105 Baxter Road 15 101 Baxter Road LLC 101 Baxter Road 17 Ann B. Furrow ___Baxter Road 18 Lawrence C. and Margaret McQuade 97 Baxter Road 19 Steven T and Erin F. Freeman 93 Baxter Road 21 Daniel L. Korengold, Trustee of D & M Baxter Road Nominee Trust 91 Baxter Road 45.23 Samuel and Ann Furrow 87 Baxter Road Map 49, Parcel 8 7 Jay W. Wertheimer, Trustee of Eighty Five Baxter Road Nominee Trust 85 Baxter Road Map 49, Parcel 35 8 EXHIBIT B PROPOSAL FOR ALTERNATIVE ACCESS TO NORTH END OF BAXTER ROAD 9 21597/Lighthouse/NOI 3-5 Project Description Epsilon Associates, Inc. back (landward) side of the third tube prior to backfilling the bench. This scour apron has a small 3’ circumference anchor tube attached to it; no excavation into the bank will be required to place the scour apron or anchor tube. 12. The tier 4 geotextile tube will be placed and filled in a manner similar to the tier 3 geotextile tube. 13. The returns will be installed by excavating the initial trench for the lowest tiers and then filling all tiers using the slurry system. 14. Once all geotextile tubes are filled, the entire structure will be covered with pit sand using the excavators and the bulldozer. Construction Access All construction equipment will access the beach from Hoick’s Hollow. All construction vehicles will be fueled in the Hoick’s Hollow parking lot area; non-mobile or less-mobile equipment such as the hydraulic pump will be filled on the beach using a small transfer tank. Template Sand Delivery Sand will be delivered from island pits to the site via dump trucks. The dump trucks will deliver the sand to the sand delivery area(s), where it will be pushed over the edge and onto the geotextile tubes below. Sand delivery locations for the Proposed Project include the existing sand delivery area at the access between 85/87 Baxter Road and two new locations: the access between 105/107 Baxter Road and the access between 71/73 Baxter Road. Vegetation Planting of vegetation will not require equipment on the beach or any access via Hoick’s Hollow. Planting will be accomplished by men working on the face of the bank, with access from the top. To ensure vegetation efforts are successful, a minor addition of sand will be added as needed to prepare the planting bed by smoothing out some of the deeper rills and gullies. 3.5 Alternatives Multiple alternatives were considered during extensive hearings on the Existing Project. These previous analyses are also relevant for the Proposed Project. The following information previously-developed for the Existing Project is not repeated here but is incorporated by reference: 1. An Alternatives Analysis was included as Attachment E to the original Revetment NOI filed with the Commission on July 3, 2013 and is reproduced here as Attachment I. This Alternatives Analysis evaluated the following options: Geotextile Tubes, Beach 21597/Lighthouse/NOI 3-6 Project Description Epsilon Associates, Inc. Nourishment, Dewatering, Breakwater, Groin, Seawall, Drift Fence, Coastal Bank Terraces, Marine Mattress and Gabion System, and Revetment. 2. An analysis of alternatives was provided in the supplemental information for the Notice of Intent for the geotextile tubes in a letter prepared by Milone & MacBroom dated October 25, 2013. This is reproduced here as Attachment J. 3. A review of jute/coir was included throughout the record of the Existing Project, including in the March 14, 2014 Supplemental Information presented to the Commission. This is reproduced here as Attachment K. 4. During the SOC process for the Geotextile Tube Project, the use of jute/coir for the upper portion (third, fourth and/or fifth tiers) of the geotextile tube structure was exhaustively evaluated in a supplemental Alternatives Analysis submitted to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) on October 23, 2014; this document is reproduced here as Attachment L. In its cover letter issuing the SOC (reproduced here as Attachment M), DEP concurred that “the supplemental [alternatives] analysis supported SBPF's need for a fourth tier and returns composed of geotextile” and did not require the use of jute/coir for any part of the Existing Geotextile Tube Project. These Alternatives Analyses have consistently led to a determination that the preferred alternative for the Project area is geotextile tubes (though a revetment is also considered feasible). As explained in the above documents and throughout the record for the Existing Project, the review of jute/coir has consistently demonstrated that, while a coir/jute system may be appropriate in some situations (such as riverine or low-velocity environments), it is not at all sufficient as an alternative for the Project area. Coir and jute are not recommended for any part of the erosion control structure because they completely lack durability to withstand storm conditions experienced regularly at the site, are designed to completely fail and require frequent replacement, and would require a significant time period (estimated at six-eight weeks or more for a single 900 foot tier) for replacement, during which all or part of the sand template would not be available to the littoral system. As has been demonstrated at the Project site, the failure of the coir/jute terraces leaves the bank vulnerable to catastrophic losses during major, successive, or multi-day storms. Because the Project area has little or no ability to absorb additional bank loss, coir/jute are not considered a viable option. Finally, the purported benefits of the use of jute/coir have been shown to be both minimal and compensated for by the substantial mitigation volume. Based on the significant extent of alternatives analyses prepared for the Existing Project, and on ongoing engineering analyses, geotextile tubes have been identified as the preferred alternative for the Proposed Project area due to their ability to provide protection in the high energy environment at Sconset and the ability to mitigate impacts through careful monitoring and mitigation. Submitted to: Nantucket Conservation Commission 2 Bathing Beach Road Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 Submitted by: Siasconset Beach Preservation Fund c/o Jenny Garneau 18 Sasapana Road Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 July 2, 2013 Notice of Intent (M.G.L. c. 131, §40) and Town of Nantucket Wetlands Bylaw Chapter 136 Prepared by: Epsilon Associates, Inc. 3 Clock Tower Place, Suite 250 Maynard, Massachusetts 01754 In Association with: Ocean and Coastal Consultants, Inc. 475 School Street, Unit 9 Marshfield, MA 02050 BAXTER ROAD AND SCONSET BLUFF STORM DAMAGE PREVENTION PROJECT 21597/Sconset 6 Erosion Control Recommendations for Sconset 2.0 Alternatives for Road and Bluff Protection This section provides a summary description of ten alternatives for preventing erosion of the coastal bank at Sconset. 2.1 Geotextile Tubes Geotextile tubes (geotubes) are fabricated from high strength, woven polyester or polypropylene sewn together into a tube shape and filled with sand. A conceptual geotube design for a 50-year storm would consist of at least four 30-foot-circumference geotextile tubes installed in a terraced alignment and covered with clean sand fill. Construction would require excavating the existing profile to +4.5 feet MLW and installing a 3-foot- circumference anchor tube and scour apron. Geotubes would then be installed and filled on the excavated terraces to approximately 5 feet tall and 11 feet wide. After the geotubes were filled, a clean sand fill would be placed to a top elevation of approximately +23.5 feet MLW. The sand fill would be placed on a 1 vertical: 2.5 horizontal slope to meet existing grade while maintaining a continuous one foot thick sand cover over the filled tubes. Geotextile tubes are not well-suited to a high energy environment like Sconset. Too much scour at the toe could potentially lead to structural failure (even when a scour apron is included in the design). Geotubes are susceptible to damage from vandalism, debris, and storm waves; storm-driven debris may puncture and tear the tube. For this reason, maintenance costs for geotubes tend to be higher than for other alternatives. When ripped open by storm waves, geotextile tubes may fail in place, emptying sand onto the beach and possibly releasing geotextile material to the coastal environment. The release of sacrificial sand would not have any adverse environmental effects since clean, beach-compatible sand would be used to fill the tubes. However, replacement of the geotube would be expected to be required on a frequent basis (one or more times annually). Such replacement often cannot be accomplished between successive storms, potentially leaving the bank vulnerable to wave-induced scarping at the toe (and subsequent slumping of the upper bank, which undermines vegetative stabilization that otherwise works) at the time when protection is most needed. For these reasons, geotubes are not considered a viable long- term erosion control solution. 2.2 Beach Nourishment Beach nourishment would involve the placement of approximately 2.6 million cubic yards of sand on Sconset Beach. The nourished beach would be approximately 200 feet wide with a berm height of 12-16 feet above MLW. Sand would be obtained from an offshore borrow site; a likely candidate would be the offshore shoal system known as Bass Rip, though other potential sites could also be evaluated. The wider beach would absorb and dissipate wave energy, thereby increasing protection to infrastructure and property threatened by erosion and storm damage. Additionally, the wider beach would potentially 7.1.18     THEN  AND  NOW     THEN  -­‐  2013     NOW  -­‐  2018       Public  infrastructure  along  northern  Baxter  Road   was  threatened  by  erosion.       Public  infrastructure  along  northern  Baxter  Road,   and  the  area  of  the  proposed  expansion,  is  NOT   threatened  by  erosion.       The  single  access  to  the  private  properties  located   on  northern  Baxter  Road,  and  to  Sankaty   Lighthouse,  was  threatened  by  erosion.  There  was   no  alternative  access  available.       The  Town  now  has  easements  to  provide   alternative  access  to  the  private  properties  located   on  northern  Baxter  Road,  as  well  as  to  Sankaty   Lighthouse,  should  it  be  needed.  Also,  the  lateral   ways  running  from  Sankaty  Road  to  Baxter  Road   provide  alternative  access  to  the  properties  located   in  the  mid-­‐Baxter  Road  area  should  it  be  needed.       An  emergency  was  declared  by  the  BOS.       There  is  no  emergency.       SBPF  and  the  Town  entered  into  a  “Public  Private   Partnership”  and  submitted  a  joint  application  to   the  Conservation  Commission  under  an  Emergency   Order.       SBPF  has  alone  applied  to  the  ConCom  unilaterally   to  expand  the  geotube  seawall.     The  geotube  seawall  was  untried.       The  geotube  seawall  has  destroyed  900  linear  feet   of  habitat  on  a  public  beach.  It  has  also  degraded   the  quality  of  that  beach  and  has  impeded  the   public’s  right  to  pass  and  re-­‐pass  on  its  own  beach.       Our  local  Conservation  Commission  had  not  made   any  determination  about  a  geotube  seawall.               Our  local  Conservation  Commission,  after  seven   months  of  hearings,  voted  NOT  to  permit  the   geotube  seawall,  finding  that  it  would  have   harmful  environmental  impacts  and  there  were   reasonable  alternatives.  When  the  State  overruled   their  decision  on  appeal  by  SBPF,     the  Commission  again  voted  to  appeal  that  decision   to  Superior  Court.1    The  ConCom  has  already   opined  on  the  geotube  seawall.     1  As  mentioned  previously,  there  were  three  PhD  scientists  on  the  ConCom  during  this  period:  Dr.  Ernie   Steinauer,  Chair;  Dr.  Sarah  Oktay;  and  Dr.  Jennifer  Karberg.