Loading...
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