HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-July-11MINUTES
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF NANTUCKET
JULY 11, 1988
Members present were William R. Sherman, Chairman, C. Marshall Beale, Regular
Member, and Alternate Members Ann Balas and David Legg e
recording secretary.so these Minutes were taken from the tape.
William Sherman opened the meeting explaining that the hearing had been
continued from Friday, July 8, 1988. The matter to be heard that day was
072 -88, the Siasconset Wastewater Treatment Facility. It was a request for
a Special Permit under Section 139 -33A, an expansion of the sewer treatment
facilities as described in EPA project no. C250473 03. The meeting had
originally been set for 1:30 p.m., Monday, but had to be put off to 4:00 p.m.
that same Monday, July 11, 1988 in order to have a quorum. Only four members
were able to sit due to conflicts of interest.
Unknown Individual:ASpM and asked that the hearing be continued to Friday,
July 15, 1988, because there were several people at the Friday hearing
that wanted to testify on the Surfside treatment plant, that could not do
so because of the way the meeting had gone. Many of them could not come on
Monday to be heard and they wanted to testify. Some were not aware that the
hearing had been continued to Monday. Sherman said that he was apparently
speaking about the Surfside treatment plant only and that he had opened
the hearing on the one in Siasconset and the Surfside discussion would follow
this hearing. With that the individual sat down.
Speaking for the Town was Norman Lanman. The Town has been trying to build
treatment facilities in Surfside and Siasconset for a number of years now,
this project is made up of three separate grants, the first of which was for
facilities plans and study as to how they should proceed with the best
facilities for Nantucket, improving the existing sus The second phase
was for improving the Sea Street Pumping Station, relining force mains
and upgrading facilities for conveyance from Sea Street out to the proposed
site at Surfside. The third grant was for construction of the actual
treatment plants in Siasconset and Surfside.
Sherman asked if it would be more useful to present the whole plan or focus
only on the Siasconset plant at the moment. Lanman felt that alot of what
he was presenting concerned both plants, general information applied to
both, though each plant had its own plans. One point that Lanman wanted to
stress about the project as a whole is that it has had extensive work done
on it over several years, reviews, studies culminating in both State and
Federal approval and obviously the Town had to address issues of safety
as to ground water safe - guards as well as other matters where the Town had
to submit a great deal of information to the agencies in order to get the
approvals. All impacts on the areas had to be considered. That had been
the track record of the project and the Town was before the Board now because
they were expanding a pre- existing non - conforming use,and there was an
immediate need to get the project out to bid. He was concerned that,if
the project was not able to go forward at this time,the funding may not
be available any longer, Construction had to be underway by year -end.
The alternative to having a better method of treatment for the Island,t7�r
is for the Town to continue to dump raw sewage onto the beaches of Nantucket.
is certainly not an acceptable alternative
(Minutes, July 11, 1988) -2-
That was certainly not an acceptable alternative from the Town's stand-
point or the residents of Nantucket.
Sherman asked about the current system of treating wastewater. He asked
how the present system of sewer beds would be different from this system.
Lanman explained that the present system is to simply take raw sewage
and dump it into the open beds and let it leach into the ground. The
proposed system , which is a primary treatment facility, will be to take
the effluent and bring it into the S'conset facility, where it will go into
a primary collection area (here he asked his engineer to correct him if
he did not explain it right), where it would be clarified, with the solids
settling to the bottom of the tanks and the liquids that remain �av+n�
a much lower concentration of solids. They would be sent out into the beds
which is much the same as it is now only the liquids would be much cleaner
and filter more quickly. At the S'conset facility, the sludge that is at the
bottom of the tank will be pumped into a holding tank and will be then
trucked to Surfside for additional treatment on an as- needed basis.
Dick ? spoke next. The tape was not clear enough to hear his name but he
appears to be the engineer for the project. He mentioned a change in the
plans concerning the solid waste septic tanks from the homes. Sherman
clarified the current procedure. Presently the septic trucks go onto the
beds and discharge onto the bed floor For filter out. He asked what happene
to the solids at that time and was told that they were raked off to the
side. (There was lot of back'-ground noise and poor quality of the tape
in general 6o that a complete transcription of this section was difficult
at best). The septic tanks on the Island will have a separate unloading
facility (no longer pumping directly into the beds as they do now) and
treated before being pu`into the beds.
Sherman asked if any one had anything to offer on the positive side of the
project or needed further clarification before going on to objections. He
explained the manner in which the hearing was going to be conducted with
the positive comments first and then the negative after that.
Unknown Individual: he was not clear if Sherman wanted a series of technica-:
questions from the audience about the plan or a citizen's response to the
facility. Sherman said that the important thing was to be clear about the
facility that was proposed and/if we were clear enough on the facts to go
forward then lets go forward with comments from the citizens.
Kathy Loughlin spoke next, an abutter of the Surfside Treatment Plant.
She was president of the Miacomet Association as well. She hac{ a question
about the government contribution with funding for a primary plant versus
a tertiary plant. Lanman responded by stating that he had been told by the
State that there are no programs available for funding on the level the
Town has been able to obtain (90 %) for a tertiary plant. The best they
could hope for for funding was 70% and probably more like 50% 'if we could
get it at this point at all. The engineer pointed out that,if this project
did not go forward in a timely fashion as it is proposed now, we could not
apply for a project of this type again or this level of funding for any
type of system,whether it is primary or tertiary or whatever. This project
is enjoying a 92% level of funding the last time we will get this large
amount of money.
(Minutes, July 11, 1988) -3-
Sherman reminded everyone that thi.9 hearing was to deal with the zoning aspe
of the project. It may make an impact as to whether (he addressed the
abutters) they were in favor or against the project as to the level of
funding but,as far as zoning was concerned zoning would not take into accoun,
the level of funding. Zoning was concerned with health, safety, matters
of noxiousness like odors, and the general welfare that goes with that.
But the specifics of funding and the wisdom of this particular project z-e-
�o another forum, i.e., political and the funding agencies. The Board had
to find whether it was substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood
and if the relief sought is in harmony with the general purpose and intent
of the By -Law. He asked them to keep that in mind when commenting on the
project. He the>> opened the floor to negative comments.
Dr. John Martin spoke next with a positive statement. He was a resident of
S'conset, a taxpayer and he voted in Nantucket and he lived right across
the street on Low Beach Road across the street from the present plant and
also across the street from the proposed plant. From a zoning perspective.
he could not imagine anything more detrimental to the neighborhood than the
present plant which dates back in parts to the middle of the nineteenth
century. He had been followin� the plans for five years and could say with-
out reservation that he endorsed both plants, the Surfside plant as a
citizen of Nantucket and the S'conset plant for the reasons cited. He made
one recommendation in terms of the constructionjfrom a zoning perspective
o -f the S'conset plant, that is, at some point during construction local
tax money be provided to make the road accessible to the beach. He
would like to see the facility people- friendly,not only in terms of its
appearance and impact on the environment but that it would facilitate
access through its road to the beach. There is access there now,and people
are using it now continuously. He thought it was a good thing )as there were
not alot of access points for the residents in S'conset. It is unpaved now
and quite difficult to get to the beach and cars are continually getting
struck. It will be paved maybe half the way to the beach with this project.-
asked that,with the aid of tax monies,some adjustment by made to facili-
tate access to'the beach beyond the project pounds. Sherman asked whether
it would be preferred to pave the access or leave it open. Martin asked that
it not be fenced in and left open instead. Nothing will stop four -wheel
drive vehicles,and people will always cut through barbed wire fence and
he did not consider the fence people - friendly.
Lanman responded next. The plans that the access to the proposed
facility will '�o as close to the b�. d ��iq as possible. They were going to
pave a portion 11 c-2
it to provide access Forthe trucks.and there were no plans
to fence the road i.n'til it got near the control buiding. He did not see
any problem with people using that road'til it turned into sand again where
it branched off. He spoke about his personal opinion that fences around
this Island never keep people off the beaches and would just mean that
people would create another road elsewhere to get to the beach. Sherman and
Lanman discussed the fencing requirements and positioning of that fence.
(Tape was not clear on the actual wording used). Sherman said that it did
not seem like a matter for the Board in any case,and Lanman reiterated that
the Town wanted to use existing roads there. They would try to maintain
just one road as best as they could.
(Minutes, July 11, 1988) -4-
William Brown, representing Noel Thompson, an abutter, spoke next. Thompson's
biggest concern about the project was the visual impact and the possible
detriment to the property values in the area. He asked if the Town was
going to soften the impact on the area and take into account the aesthetics
of the surrounding area. He asked if they were going to screen the area with
bushes and small trees and asked how big the control building was going to
be. Lanman said that the building would be small and that it would be better
if he showed him the plans rather than try to explain it to him. Sherman
invited anyone interested up to the table to look at the plans. Lanman
said that the building itself was 21' 10" x 16'. (There was extensive
discussion of the plans and measurements were taken with a ruler.) It would
have cedar shingles. It was 6'8" to the eaves and with the roof height,the
structure would stand about 18' high. Brown then asked about the screening
around the pits and Lanman showed him the site plan of the area. The control
building will be about 500 feet in from the road almost straight down on
the access road. That will be the only building on the S'conset site was
his response to Brown's question about other structures on the site.
Brown then pointed out where his client's house was and Lanman said that
he could understand his client's concern. Brown asked what the fences would
be like and Lanman explained that current specifications call for a 6 -foot
chain- linked vinyl- coated fence. There had been alotof discussion about
fencing onthe Surfside site and a request had been received for a smaller
fence of four -foot height. He had talked with water - pollution control
people on several occasions and,at their last meeting with him that past
Thursday, they said that they would come back with a written reply as to
their feelings about dropping the fence to four feet. Lanman said that the
pluses were that it was easier to landscape and hide a four foot fence.
If he were living out in S'conset at a higher elevation;it was a choice as
to whether he wanted to look at a fence or a lagoon. He said,as far as
a planting schedule around the beds, there were not any plans to do any-
thing around the bed area and that there were plans to do so around the
control building. There was further review of the plans submittedJparticularly
as to planting areas indicated.
Several audience members discussed what they preferred in respect to plantings
(the tape did not pick up the names or specifics of what they said except
that they preferred that the fence be camouflaged as well). Sherman then
clarified that the only plantings planned were for the control building area
and not the fence and that the fence would be green in color. Lanman
said that there had been a question as to the color of the fence as there
were only a few available, i.e., green, dark brown /black and clear coated.
For the Town's purposes.it did not matter what color they used�rf,,j were
willing to use whatever the residents and the Board wanted as far as coating
was concerned. On a personal level, Lanman said that the green would appear
to be far less invasive visually than the other two.
Kathy Loughlin spoke again. She object to the clear coating of a 6 -foot
high fence that would reflect grey and the buildings would be all grey.
She felt that the impact would be lessened in Surfside and advised the
S'conset residents to think about that. If the recommendation comes back
that they were going to stick with the 6 -foot high fencing around the beds,
that they try to place them on a down -grade to minimize the amount of
fence acatually visible. She suggested that in other Town s that have
done that only about 3 -4 feet were left visible. The protection was still
(Minutes, July 11, 1988) -5-
there but less of a visual impact. It was not apparent from the plans
as to whether the fence was positioned in the lower part of the lot or not.
Lanman said that it was not the Town's intent to build a gulley all around
the beds to put a fence. Sherman suggested that;for zoning purposes, we
could condition relief on the visual impact of the fence being minimized
as much as possible.
Lanman had one problem that he had with the fence issue is that the area of
construction allowed by the Conservation Commission's Order of Conditions
was so restrictive that1without their allowing a sL'ght deviation from
that order made the project impossible to construct at all. They allowed the
deviation for the positioning of the fence, thus the leeway they have to
alter the fence in any substantial way was severely limited. Any significant
alteration of grade that would push the area for construction out will
probably necessitate going back to the ConCom to amend the Order of
Conditions. Sherman stated that was why he suggested that it be phrased in
a manner that would stress the objective of the plans, nc tee( ) to minimize_
the visual impact of the fence to allow the latitude within the restraints
of the funded project, the ConCom, HDC. He explained that this Board tries
to defer to the HDC in matters of design and aesthetics. Lanman said that;
from the stand -point of the Town�the height of the fence is basically
functional. He did not think there was anyone in the Town who said that
"I want a six -foot fence!" There were two things that had to be considered.
One was insurance, making sure they have adequately protected the property.
More importantly,it was to protect it from a small child who might wander
into the facility. For that purpose,a six -foot fence as opposed to a four -
foot fence made very little difference. The other thing that we had to
be conscious of are the conditions of the D4vision of Water Pollution
Control. If they said that we did not have to have a six -foot fence and
that a four foot fence was fine, and it did not affect the insurance, he
suggested that the Town, though he did not want to speak for all the members
of the Sewer Project Advisory Committee, might not have a problem with
installing a four -foot fence.
A member of the audience asked about the perimeters of the project being
screened again. Lanman said that he understood their concerns. If he had
his way,he'd plant whatever the area wanted. It had taken so much of his time
so far that he'd just as soon spend $50,000.00 to put plantings in there
and be done with it. Obviously, however, cost is a concern in this project
andhe's notsure whether plantings would be covered under the current funding.
He suspected that coverage for that would be minimal and that it would
pertain to revegetating the areas that were ripped up during construction
or some small amount around the building area. The rest of the plantings,
and here he stressed that he was syjpathetic to the concerns over this issue,
someone other th_,n the State has to pay for it. The tax payers have to
be aware of that and,if they are supportive of that,fine. He had no problems
with that at all. Ultimately, it was tax dollars that would have to be spent
on it and the taxpayers are the ones that should be asked.
Lirsette Doble, an abutter, spoke next. She asked about the beach plum and
beach grass growing out there already and was assured that it would be repla(
upon completion of the project.
Sherman said that he was a little relL)ctant to develop a list of conditions
that would require Town expenditure beyond what was alreaty allocated and
required. He could not sanction putting in conditions that would mandate
(Minutes, July 11, 1988) -6-
that the project be shut down or make it so that the Town would have to
seek more money at Town Meeting in order to avail itself of the Special
Permit relief. The conditions would be ancillary and not directly necessary
for the proper functioning of the facility. It is, however, encumbent on
this Board to advise and lean on the Town to take into account the concerns
of the neighbors.
Lanman said that the Surfside aretresidents had made a specific request for
something,and he wanted to bring it up then. They had asked also for extende(_
plantings and he wanted to give the S'conset residents some perspective.
He reiterated that the Town would be supportive of extended plantings there
and in S'conset and certainly revegetating what had been disturbed, and
we should be able to reasonably expect the voters to be supportive also.
He then stated that they would have to go back to Town Meeting for the projec
anyway,and there would be a Special Town Meeting and,at that time,if
they could identify what reimbursable funding was available,then they could
also identify what additional funding from the Town might be needed to complF-
the project as they would like. He also added that he felt that the Sewer
Project Advisory Committee would recommend favorably and support the plantin,_
of more vegetation in these areas. When asked when the Town Meeting was
going to be,he said it had been set for September 13, 1988.
Brown( ?) asked how this would be less noxious to the area than what was
already therejas it was still a primary treatment plant and not tertiary.
Lanman responded and said that,presently,the stuff that goes out to the beds
is a mixture of everything, all together, solids and liquids. The improve-
ment that they hope to get with this is thaticertain percentage of solids
would be removed from the effluent and that the effluent that goes into the
bed wouldyare a much lower conce=ntration than presently exists. The solids
would then be composted and any odor that there was from the beds now
woulAconsiderably diminished. He had no reason to believe that that would
not happen.
Sherman asked if there was any further way to minimize the odor,like coveriri.
the beds or some such thing,and was there any low cost way of minimizing
it. Lanman said that covering the beds would not be an effective way of
controlling odor as the biological process that breaks down the bacteria
needs to be open to the air.
A member of the audience asked why the odors would be reduced as effluent
would still be dumped in the pits. Lanman said that it would as the con-
centration was purer. The pits could not be covered,nafv interfere with the
bacterial action that is necessary to break down the remaining solids in
the liquid. Here, the engineer explained the specific action of the pit
and the process for filtering. He pointed out that evaporation was a large
part of getting rid of the liquid so covering would also interfere with that.
80% of the solids are going to be separated into sludge tanks before the
liquid is released into the pits,and the potential odor should be a great
deal less than it is tvr(a All of the tanks that are going to be holding
sludge will be odor - controlled and covered.
Syd Conway spoke about the water issue. He asked if they were going to brin
water down Low Beach Road and someone said that there was already water
there. He was of the opinion that a tertiary plant could have been done
(Minutes, July 11, 1988) . -l-
and that was what bothered him about the whole project. Several years ago;
this Town opted to put in a primary system with no nitrification with all
the contaminates going into the ground because of a Class III designation
The State and the Town have allowed the contamination of the water in
those areas by a Class III designation. He wanted to make it very clear
that we were contaminating our water by having a Class III designation.
Sherman again stated that it was not this Board's decision as to the
wisdom of this type of plant over another. We had to take what was the
choice and test it to see if relief could be granted. The basic question
was whether the primary treatment plant, as proposed, was more detrimental
to the neighborhood than what was there.
Sherman asked the Board members if they were ready to take a vote and Limet_
Doble had a question. She asked about the trucking of the solids to Surfsid,
She was confused as to where He ;,we�rctobcomposted and was told that it
was to be in Surfside and not in S'conset.
Kathy Loughlin spoke again. She said that the reason that they were bringin_
up the tertiary plant was because of their concerns over
tthe safenotof cure
their water, the smells that are alr y i e
by a primary plant. She wanted to go on the record that the objections
that they are voicing are not to argue that they want a tertiary plant an(:
lets spend the money but their desire is based on the fact that the primary
plant will not cure the problems:tf,� are concerned about their wells and
odor. A tertiary plant there wouldy ,4ladrinking water that would come out
of the process.
John Martin spoke again. He could see no other conclusion in his own mind
thaw what was propod was a substantial improvement over what was there.
Syd Conway spoke about the contamination problem again. There will be more
contamination as the new facilities would allow further expansion of the
Island's population with new construction. Dr. Martin again stated that
what was proposed was a substantial improvement over what was there regard:
Ann Balas asked about the HDC approvals and Lanman said that all structure
have received Certificates of Appropriateness. However, because of all of
the delays, the permits have lapsed and they would have to go back and get
extensions. There had been some minor modifications made to Surfside but n(j-
to S'conset. He said that they would go back with all of the structures at
the July 26, 1988 meeting of the HDC. Lanman wanted to add that a great deg.
of time and money had gone into the design and permit process over several
years and they have tried to make the project fit in and still have a
functioning treatment facility. Sherman clarified some issues for Ann Bala.
as she felt thatas a new member,she wanted to be clear on the issue they
were to decide,howe.ver narrow that issue was considering all of the evident
that had been presented.
Ted Tillotson spoke next. It took about nine years to get an approved proje
for Nantucket. The Board had to consider Section 139-33A. The sewer bedsLa.:
are considered non - conforming because there was no provision
as written for their existence and they pre -dated 1972 zoning. The Board
r .
(Minutes, July 11, 1988) -8-
can grant permission to alter, extend, or amend that pre- existing, non-
conforming use provided that it was not more detrimental to the neighbor-
hood. The primary concern of the Board is the safety, health and general
welfare of the residents. We have the existing sewer beds system,and
they have to be improved soon. The systems we have are not doing the job
adequately,and it will take another year and a half to get the new primary
system in place as it is,with no delays. The communitylas a matter of lake
must provide facilities for all. The Town could become liable. He saw
the task of the Board of Appeals to determine whether or not to issue a
Special Permit to allow the expansion and that was one thing that should
call on the best judgement of the Board in granting the permit, will that
satisfy the requirements of the By -Law in protecting the safety, health anti
welfare of the community,and find" hat the expansion is not in fact opposed
to the Zoning By- Lawfand it should be something that should be granted.
He urged the Board to grant the relief as promptly as possible and hoped
that there would not be an appeal,as there had been previous litigation
that had held up the project so far.
Sherman thanked Tillotson for the comments. He said that the people are
entitled to take an appeal from a Board of Appeals decision but that
he hoped no one would. He commented to the Board that they should be mind-
ful of the real issue facing them and think about any conditions that
might want to impose but also be mindful that they did not want to frustrate
the positive aspects of the project with unnecessary conditions either.
David Leggett motioned that the Board grant the relief with conditions that
would be sufficiently flexible to allow the Town to minimize the impact of
the fence . Sherman clarified that they pete,��1, not spell out how that would
be done possibly using the term "with best efforts to minimize the visual
impact ..." and that was agreed upon. It was seconded and the relief was
GRANTED by a UNANIMOUS vote.
Due to the late hour,there was discussion of putting off the hearing on
the Surfside plant'til that Friday, July 15, 1988 at 4:00 p.m.�and it was
so moved and so voted.
Respectfully submitted,
el
Linda F. Williams, Secretary
Board of Appeals William R. Sherman
Dated:
Nantucket, MA 02554
C
,o117.-/
J,o�,.��
Member
Member