HomeMy WebLinkAbout073-88Is
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF NANTUCKET
NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554
DECISION:
0 --7 a- -S�e
At a public hearing of the BOARD OF APPEALS on
Friday, July 15, 1988 at 4:00 p.m. in the Town and
County Building, Nantucket, on the Application (073 -88) of
the Town of Nantucket, Broad Street, Nantucket, MA 02554.
1. Applicant seeks a Special Permit under zoning Code
Section 139 -33A to alter and extend the existing SURFSIDE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES substantially as shown and
described in EPA Project Number C250- 473 -03 in Town
records. The premises are located at the southerly end of
South Shore Road, Assessor's Parcels 86 -301 through -312,
86 -211, 86 -214 through -242, 86 -182 through -194, 86 -265
through -284, 86 -288 through -291, and 87 -144 through
-146, 87 -135 through -138, 87 -085 through -090, and 87 -36,
more or less, as shown specifically on Plans of Taking
endorsed 'approval not required` by the Nantucket Planning
Board 2/24/86 (its file 2965) in Town records. The zoning
district is Limited Use General -2.
2. Our findings are based upon the Application papers
including the Location Plan and Drawing Index dated
9/12/86, Sheet 2 of 16 (our Exhibit "A") and an 83 -sheet
set of plans dated June 1988 and referencing the above EPA
Project, correspondence, representations and testimony
received at our hearing of July 15, 1988 to which the
matter was continued. We note that Applicant's payment of
the usual application fee was waived by our unanimous vote
to avoid purposeless Town accounting.
3. According to Applicant's representatives, the proposed
upgrading to a primary wastewater treatment facility for
Surfside is a culmination of years of planning and
facilities rehabilation pursuant to Federal and State
grants. Some of that concerned the Town center Sea Street
pumping station and force mains to the Surfside facility,
also a new Siasconset facility (see companion application
072 -88). With particular attention given to community
health and safety together with cost effectiveness, we are
told that a primary treatment facility was determined to
be the best choice for upgrading at Surfside. Given the
specific soil conditions at the site and the trend of
subsurface water flow toward the adjacent ocean, a primary
facility has near the effectiveness of a secondary
treatment process. The Environmental Protection Agency has
been particularly strong in supporting the choice of
primary treatment. That choice was recommended in the
conclusions of an EPA - funded environmental impact report.
To assure against subsurface pollution extending beyond
the Applicant's parcel, some 9 monitoring test wells are
to be located north and south of where the effluent plume
will enter the soil. Reference is made to Class III
compliance wells as well as to discharge permit monitoring
wells. Supported by computer modeling of subsurface flows,
assurance against pollution extending to any adjacent lots
or to the ocean is projected for the next 20 years.
4. The proposed Surfside facility comprises primary
clarifiers receiving the flow from existing 20" force
mains via 'headworks`. Here in the solids handling
building, solids settle to form sludge which is removed to
a sludge- composting area and shelter. The composting
process which takes place there transforms the sludge into
a relatively benign soil additive. In that form, the
material may be trucked from the site. Alternatively at
some future time, sludge may be transported to the Town
solid waste disposal area for which a co- composting
process is considered. Filtrate from the primary
clarifiers will be passed to some 10 new infiltration
basins set in a generally rectilinear array in the south
central area of the site. Such basins or beds are used in
succession to intr-)duce the effluent into the sandy
subsoil, leaving a filter cake of remnant solids to be
removed from time to time. In the subsurface environment,
the liquid percolating into the sand undergoes an
anaerobic clean -up. The facility operation is managed from
a control building located near entry to the site, and the
composting from a sludge management building just to the
southwest.
5. By contrast, the existing facility, which long predates
1972 adoption of zoning, involves no clarifiers. Waste
water is simply run into sewer beds from the outfall ends
of the existing sewer lines, without prior treatment. All
those testifying or expressing their views by letter were
uniformly in support of our finding that the proposed
primary treatment facility would be substantially less
detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing
primitive facility. No one urged any viewpoint that would
counterindicate our finding Applicant's proposal in
harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning
code chapter. To the contrary, a local developer,
characterizing himself as likely the closest abutter,
urged our making the requisite findings on the basis that
the years of planning with Federal, State and local
participation assured that the new facility would be a
substantial betterment in health, safety and welfare. The
Planning Board's recommendation likewise was favorable.
6. The evidence before us supports, indeed compels, our
making these findings necessary for granting the requested
- 2 -
Special Permit. The proposal meets the Chuckran test.
7. Other abutters and neighbors, while recognizing the
proposed primary facility as better than what now exists,
urged that we withhold the requested Special Permit relief
unless the Applicant Town constructs a tertiary treatment
facility discharging only clean water into the subsoil.
Applicant's representative explained why such a
high - technology process was not selected including factors
of burdensome funding, also questions of safety involving,
e.g., chlorine shipments to the site. In any event, we are
not empowered to substitute our judgement for the Town's
and other authorities but simply to determine whether
Applicant is or is not entitled to the relief requested.
As noted above, we find in favor of Applicant. Should the
Town or other authorities later determine that upgrading
to tertiary treatment is worthwhile, this Board will
likely have the opportunity to pass on its zoning
propriety. Meanwhile, the purposes of zoning will have
been served by the primary treatment plant.
8. One abutter invites our conditioning relief upon
Applicant complying with various permits, stipulation
agreements and regulations which may be applicable to the
project. These are apparently within the jurisdiction of
competent regulatory bodies, hence, inappropriate for our
conditional relief. However, such abutter rightly urges
compliance with the zoning Code pertinent to odor and air
quality, i.e., Section 139 -20A. We have found that
Applicant's existing facility has benefit of
'grandfathering` as to zoning requirements, but we
properly can condition relief toward better conformity
with that Section. To protect air quality, the basins or
beds should not be aerated, as some urged. Applicant's
proposal includes no aeration but does anticipate the
installation of 'scrubbers` near the sludge handling and
storage areas to minimize the release of odors. We
condition relief on
(A) reduction of odor release from the sludge
processing area to the extent practicable,
subject to the availability of legally- required
funding, e.g., by addition of 'scrubbers`, prior
to the new facility being put into regular
operation.
9. Parties located to the west of the site urged that
fencing be minimal and landscaping provided, also that no
additional beds be constructed without prior public
hearing and approval of this Board. Seeking fully to
respond to these concerns, we further condition relief on
the following:
(B) No additional infiltration basins shall be
constructed on the site without prior public
- 3 -
granted by this Board;
(C) Apart from the entry lighting to illuminate
the street area at the front gate, exterior
lighting shall substantially comply with Section
139 -18H to avoid offsite glare into residential
areas;
(D) Best efforts shall be extended to minimize
adverse visual impact of the new facility
consistent with safety, security, insurability
and applicable requirements of governmental
agencies including the Nantucket Historic
District Commission and the Conservation
Commission; and generally
(E) The new facility shall be constructed and
operated in substantial conformity with EPA
Project No. C250- 473 -03.
10. Having made the findings required for the requested
relief and having set forth above the conditions upon such
relief, this Board by unanimous vote grants to Applicant
the Special Permit under Section 139 -33A for the proposed
Surfside Water Treatment Facility.
Dated August 1, 1988
C. Ma shall Bealtiel,
Ann Balas
Dale Waine
rur�r�r.( llrgurL, i9vP
Willi-&m R.. S
- 4 -
0
f
TOWN OF NANTUCKET
� BOARD OF APPEALS
NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554
6- -U9uSt I, 1958
Re: Decision in the Application of
Was '�e uo at% V" T'ec:� � VY�e vL C j,
Co�3 -91&)
Enclosed is a notice of the Decision of the BOARD OF APPEALS
which has this day been filed with the Town Clerk.
Any appeal from this action shall be made pursuant to
Section 17 of Chapter 40A of the General Laws, and shall be
filed within twenty (20) days after this date.
cc: Building Commissioner
Planning Board
Town Clerk
William R. Sherman, Chairman
BOARD OF APPEALS
RICHARD J. TORPIE, M.D.
7301 HURON LANE
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 191 19
23 Pond View Road �,I4G„Q,-
PO Box 2260
Nantucket, MA 02584
August 16, 1988
William R. Sherman, Chairman
Board of Appeals
Nantucket, MA 02554
Dear Mr. Sherman and
Members of the Board,
I would like to appeal the decision of the Board of
Appeals made on the Friday, July 15, 1988 hearing
for the alteration of the existing Surfside Waste
Water Treatment Facility. The following points are
significant:
Point I - Notice of the July 15 A
provided with insufficient notice pp to Meeting was adetely
review or respond to the conditions of the gzaning
appeal. The letter was postmarked
received July S,, I Jul would certainly feel that more
adequate rules of representation and notification
must fairly exist to describe a
process to those to be affected b true appeals
especially when newspaper notification the Project,
specific regarding there u'rmentsforchange.(NPre
orici�na/ Meef6Ar- ti cr �9ealu�r�TyS, g- /)
Point II - The decision of the a
was never - the -less made on July 15e 5failsrtoeaddress
issues which substantially change the Waste Water
Treatment Facilities as originally
study submitted to the Environmental enProtection
Agency. In reality, the Board of A
endorsed environmentally unhealthy nd o peals has
y
situations for establishment of a pprobrious
treatment facility utilizin rimar type
that give off g evaporation ponds
particularly strong,
these odors will not c foul odors;
hange substantially despite
some minimal scrubbing or clarifiers at the
receiving facility.
William Sherman
Page 2
August 16, 1988
The Board of Appeals has not addressed the reality
of growth in the southern shore area surrounding
Surfside- Miacomet, which was not anticipated in the
original study.
Excuses are found by the zoning board decision
report to 'grand- father' in zoning requirements,
with reasons that are, at best, spurious, including
transportation of chlorine to the island, when, in
fact, chemicals, including aviation gas and
propane, are readily transported to the island and
stored at more populous areas than the sewer
treatment facility. Certainly, communities
elsewhere by the thousands manage chlorine storage.
There is also isolation in the decision report of
a plan to truck in sewage waste from the
Siasconset plant, which, to my knowledge, was not
.included in the original Environmental Protection
Agency study, or submitted to them for such
approval. This will only burden the facility
further.
Please do not construe this as obstructionism in
the face of progress and the need, obviously for
Nantucket to have an appropriate sewage facility.
Please know that as a physician, my concerns are
quite legitimate for smells, which we are now, and
may be further forced to live with, which represent
potentials for poor health and respiratory -borne
diseases.
We need not remind ourselves of ancient "miasmas"
when, indeed, our civilization is now subject to
diseases not known in textbooks 10 years ago, such
as Legionnella and the AIDS virus complex. The
technology obviously exists that can deliver pure
drinking water as the by- product of sewage and not
the present primitive extreme.
William Sherman
Page 3
August 16, 1988
I, therefore, appeal both the legal appropriateness
of the original July 15 meeting, for lack of due
notice, and barring failure of that
process,
formally submit appeals to the Board regarding the
decision made at the meeting.
It is my plan, with interested community members,
to further appeal to the Environmental Protection
Agency, especially when this primitive sewer bed
technology is contrasted to the environment, and
even the Nantucket Ground Water Plan with risks to
all concerned, including yourselves.
Since ours,
Richard J. orpie, M.D.
RJT /sls
441wa 41va 41 i' iyrr
4;4
,/
NOTICE
A Public Hearing of the BOARD OF APPEALS will be held
on FRIDAY, JULY 8, 1988 at 1:30 p.m. in the TOWN AND COUNTY
BUILDING, FEDERAL AND BROAD STREETS, NANTUCKET, on the Appli-
cation of TOWN OF NANTUCKET (073 -88) seeking a SPECIAL PERMIT
under SECTION 139 -33A to alter and extend the SURFSIDE WASTE -
'WATER TREATMENT FACILITIES substantially as shown and described
in EPA Project Number C250- 473 -03 in the Town records. The
premises are located at the southerly end of SOUTH SHORE ROAD,
Assessor's Parcels 86 -301 through -312, 86 -211, 86 -214 through
-242, 86 -182 through -194, 86 -265 through -284, 86 -288 through
-291, and 87 -144 through -146, 87 -135 through -138, 87 -085
through -090, and 87 -36, more or less, as specifically on Plans
of taking endorsed ANR by the Planning Board 2/24/86 (file
2965) in Town records, zoned LIMITED USE GFNERAL -2.
�� z, lf�� S � ✓rte
„c-mf Linda F. Williams, Secretary
,1��/j BOARD OF APEPALS
11,0A Form -
ARPEZCATION-
NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ( "BYA")
owner' s name (s) To_of tl1Lri�.t.___� ._ ___.�_ r_. _ -- - -. -_.._. —
Ma i 1 _ng address: _ Broad Street
.Appl icu. .' s name : Town of Nantucket
Mailing address: Broad Street
L.o<iatir of lot(s): Assessor's map And parcel: See Maps Map 86 & 87_
Stre t address
Regi.t-.ry LC PL, PL BK & PG, PL FL Lot - Deed ref.
Subd. vision Endorsed /, / ANR?
Date Lo (s) acquired: l / 16/ 86 'Zoning distril,,t LUG 2
Number ..1: dwelling units on lot(s): N /A__._� _- Rent 1_ guest Dooms .` N/A ,r
Commerc .A use on lot(s): None IiC:! - No
Build;n`; date(s): all pre -'72 zoning? -� NO _ or
Building permit application- 11o.. and dates 4_ N/A C cF 01 `N /A r_
Case No(s). or dates all prior BOA applications:
State fully all zoning relief sought togetber.tiith all respective Code sections
and subsections, specifically, what you propose com ared with present and
what grounds you urge, for BOA to make each finding per Section 139 -32A if
Variance, -30A if Special Pe;-rrAt, -33A if to alter )r- xte<<d non-conforming
use, or to reverse fituildi-ng inspector by•; Apn:sai. pee -31A & B:
33A Expansion of Sewer Treatment facilities as des ribed in EPA Project
-,- Number C250- 473 -03. `- ____
Enclosu-es forming part of this Application: Supplemen to above
Site /plct plan(s) X with present /proposed structrres X
Locus map X Floor plans present /proposed Ap eal,record N/A
Nee(;ed: areas frontage setbacks GCR% parking data
Assessor's^ c tified addressee list ('► sets): , X Mailing •labels) (2:.s�ts) X
Fee cheek �r $150.00 yab1e to Town of Nantucket !'Cap" covenant No
I certify that the requested information submitted is substantially complete
and trun'to the best of my'knowledge; under pains'e d penalties. :of perjury.,
Signature: Applicant Attorney /agent
(If not owner-, show base fo-y: aut?�or ty_ tb�app,1Y,,,
/FOR-,OFFICE USE _ ��
FA
RICHARD J. TORPIE, M.D.
7301 HURON LANE
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19119
23 Pond View Road E— d&''44%
PO Box 2260
Nantucket, MA 02584
August 16, 1988
William R. Sherman, Chairman
Board of Appeals
Nantucket, MA 02554
Dear Mr. Sherman and
Members of the Board,
I would like to appeal the decision of the Board of
Appeals made on the Friday, July 15, 1988 hearing
for the alteration of the existing Surf side Waste
Water Treatment Facility. The following points are
significant:
Point I - Notice of the July 15 Appeal Meeting was
provided with insufficient notice to adequately
review or respond to the conditions of the zoning
appeal. The letter was postmarked July I, and
received July S. I would certainly feel that more
adequate rules of representation and notification
must fairly exist to describe a true appeals
process to those to be affected by the project,
especially when newspaper notification was not
specific regarding the requ }rements for change.(Awre
Point II - The decision of the appeals process that
was never - the -less made on July 15 fails to address
issues which substantially change the Waste Water
Treatment Facilities as originally presented in the
study submitted to the Environmental Protection
Agency. In reality, the Board of Appeals has
endorsed environmentally unhealthy and opprobrious
situations for establishment of a primary type
treatment facility utilizing evaporation ponds
that give off particularly strong, foul odors;
these odors will not change substantially despite
some minimal scrubbing or clarifiers at the
receiving facility.
F-1
William Sherman
Page 2
August 16, 1988
The Board of Appeals has not addressed the reality
of growth in the southern shore area surrounding
Surfside- Miacomet, which was not anticipated in the
original study.
Excuses are found by the zoning board decision
report to 'grand- father' in zoning requirements,
with reasons that are, at best, spurious, including
transportation of chlorine to the island, when, in
fact, chemicals, including aviation gas and
propane, are readily transported to the island and
stored at more populous areas than the sewer
treatment facility. Certainly, communities
elsewhere by the thousands manage chlorine storage.
There is also isolation in the decision report of
a plan to truck in sewage waste from the
Siasconset plant, which, to my knowledge, was not
included in the original Environmental Protection
Agency study, or submitted to them for such
approval. This will only burden the facility
further.
Please do not construe this as obstructionism in
the face of progress and the need, obviously for
Nantucket to have an appropriate sewage facility.
Please know that as a physician, my concerns are
quite legitimate for smells, which we are now, and
may be further forced to live with, which represent
potentials for poor health and respiratory -borne
diseases.
We need not remind ourselves of ancient "miasmas ",
when, indeed, our civilization is now subject to
diseases not known in textbooks 10 years ago, such
as Legionnella and the AIDS virus complex. The
technology obviously exists that can deliver pure
drinking water as the by- product of sewage and not
the present primitive extreme.
William Sherman
Page 3
August 16, 1988
I, therefore, appeal both the legal appropriateness
of the original July 15 meeting, for lack of due
notice, and barring failure of that process,
formally submit appeals to the Board regarding the
decision made at the meeting.
It is my plan, with interested community members,
to further appeal to the Environmental Protection
Agency, especially when this primitive sewer bed
technology is contrasted to the environment, and
even the Nantucket Ground Water Plan with risks to
all concerned, including yourselves.
Since —xours
Richard J. ,orpie, M.D.
RJT /sls