HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-12-20Alinutes for December 20 2017 adopted Jan. 10, 2018
CONSERVATION COMMISSION ,$
PUBLIC MEETING _ r :i N G L E
2 Bathing Beach Road
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 2018 JnIN I I AM 8: 27
www.nantucket-ma.gov
Wednesday, December 20, 2017
4 Fairgrounds Road, Training Room — 4:00 p.m.
Commissioners: Andrew Bennett(Chair), Ashley Erisman(Vice Chair), Ernie Steinauer, David LaFleur,
Ben Champoux, Ian Golding, Joe Topham
Called to order at 4:04 p.m.
Staff in attendance: Jeff Carlson, Natural Resources Coordinator; Joanne Dodd, Natural Resources Office Administrator;
Terry Norton, Town Minutes Taker
Attending Members: Bennett, Erisman, Steinauer, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham
lbsent Members: None
Late Arrivals: None
Earlier Departure: None
:Agenda adopted by unanimous consent
''Matter has not been heard
PUBLIC MEETING
A. Announcements
B. Public Comment — None
11. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Notice of Intent
1. Nantucket Islands Land Bank —17 Commercial Wharf & Unnumbered Lot New Whale Street (42.2.4_7& 8) SE48-2885
Sitting Bennett, Erisman, Steinauer, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham
Documentation Site and topographical plans, photos, requisite departmental reports and correspondence.
Representative Art Gasbarro, Nantucket Engineering & Survey — Second public hearing, provided supplemental information
in response to questions and comments at the last hearing. There have been no major changes to the design.
Did reduced the dredge footprint by about 1,000 square feet (SF) adjacent to Commercial Wharf, increased
length of the gangway and added railings to meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements; moved
and added steps to the beach. In response to Florence Nutter's, 13 Commercial Wharf, letter of concerns,
there is no expansion of the stone revetment toe; the existing revetment is considered a coastal bank resource
area; as to the height going to elevation six, this hasn't been maintained in a long time with slumping and over -
washing and we want to restore to its original height. We were very clear that dredge soil would not be used for
back fill. In his opinion, this is a reconstruction, not new.
Sean Kelly, Applied Coastal, Coastal Engineer — Provided a letter dated December 13, 2017 that addresses
comments from the prior hearing. Reviewed the main points his letter addresses: dredging will cause minimal
impact on sediment transfer; wave height change along Commercial Wharf will be less than 1 /10 of a foot and
won't accelerate degradation of the wall.
Pam Lindenberg, PhD, Shellfish & Eelgrass Ecologist — Reviewed the 3 -year eel grass -shellfish monitoring
plan. Don't anticipate any impact to the eel grass or shellfish.
Glen Wood, Rubin and Rudman, LLP, counsel for Nantucket Island Land Bank (NILB — This is viewed as
the reconstruction in-kind of a century old structure; he disagrees with the premise this is new. Addressed the
Oak Hill Case attached to a letter from Florence Nutter, which was received late yesterday. Poin-ed out that Ms
Nutter's letter does not address environmental issues. In a commercial marine environment, you aren't tn-ing
to protect properties so that coastal engineered structure (CES) performance standard isn't applicable.
Public Arthur Reade, Reade, Gullicksen, Hanley, & Gifford LLP, for Corey Trustee, 21 Commercial Wharf and
Florence Nutter — He disagrees with Mr. Wood with regard to the characterization of the project They think
this does constitute a new CES: a vertical revetment is replacing a 1976 rip -rap sloping construction. Read the
regulations in regards to CES. The materials submitted indicate there is no danger from erosion; from that
standpoint, there is no need for a new structure. In regards to the Oak Hill Case, the ruling supported that
when they say no, they mean no. Asked Dan :MacDonald to address the wave -energy- issues.
Dan MacDonald, PhD, for Richard Corey, 21 Commercial Wharf — He submitted a response to the memo
from Applied Coastal. Contends their modeling does not represent a worse -case scenario; explained his
reasoning. Countered the assessment of conditions west of Petrel Landing in regards to the relative wave -
energy increase; by his calculation the wave height increase is one foot. Countered the assessment of conditions
east of Petrel Landing and along Commercial Wharf. Feels they should look at more severe storm models,
between 50 and 100 years. Dredging a 1.8 foot area to 3 feet would increase the wave heights and thus erosion.
Research shows that waves striking a vertical surface have more pressure than against a sloping surface.
Discussion (4:05) Golding — Read the Yd paragraph of the "Nutter" letter into the record. The applicant's representatives are
charging that this paragraph is incorrect. Asked if the height could be reduced to 5'6".
Page 1 of 9
_%linutes for December 20 2017 adopted Tan. 10 2018
Bennett — asked about the possibility of reconstructing to match the existing slope.
Golding — Mr. MacDonald seems to be reinforcing the rebuilding of the revetment.
MacDonald — The main concern is the dredging, not the rebuilding of the revetment.
Golding — In regards to Ms Nutter's letter, the 3rd paragraph, asked what Mr. Reade would advise.
Reade — This is going to be a new structure, referred to the 90 degree slope of the revetment.
Steinauer — In the history of his time on the commission, there have been cases of people having old CESs
damaged by storms, and we allowed them to rebuild in kind. They are replacing a stone revetment with a stone
revetment If the docks are for dinghies and not power boats, maybe the depth of the dredging could be
further reduced.
Gasbarro — They've reduced the dredging from 5 to 3 feet at low tide; it is meant for transient boat use with
no over -night parking, which will be managed and monitored; there might be some power boats. The
regulation of a structure refers to a retaining wall, which this is basically; this is clearly an existing structure.
Pointed out that Commercial Wharf needs maintenance as a result of existing conditions and that Commercial
\y-- harf is a vertical wall.
Kelly — The larger waves enter from the northeast; the more easterly the approach, the smaller the waves. We
could potentially be talking about 2 -foot waves. Any harm to a wall like this would be due to lack of
maintenance.
MacDonald — In terms of the 10 -foot elevation, that's the maximum; with regards to the fetch, if the wind is
from the east, there's about a mile of fetch. In his opinion, there is enough room from the east for larger waves
to form and he's concerned that issue has not been addressed.
Golding — Looking at the armoring, that is the area most impacted by northeast and east winds.
Wood — The definition for a structure in the local regulations is extremely broad; read the definition. He would
argue the landing itself is a structure well predating 1978. 1\1s Nutter's letter makes one believe a structure must
be a house.
Ashley — The sloped wall is being raised and flattened. Asked if there is any on-site drainage.
Gasbarro — There isn't much room for infiltration; this is an improvement because once the area is vegetated,
soil won't wash away.
Bennett — Asked if the area ever had to be refilled due to storm damage.
Gasbarro — About 8 years ago, a little work was done to repair damage; since NILB got the property, they have
been planning a true upgrade. There were repairs in 1975 that are detailed in the packet.
Steinauer — He wants to hear new information, not back and forth rebuttals. If there is no new information,
suggested closing this hearing.
Ashley — Ensured the new vegetation would be native, not cultivars.
Staff Have everything needed to close.
Motion Motion to Close. (made by: LaFleur) (seconded by: Steinauer)
Vote Carried unanimously
2. Flint Hills Partners, LLC — 74 West Chester Street (41-478) SE48-3017
Sitting Bennett, Erisman, Steinauer, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham
Documentation Site and topographical plans, photos, requisite departmental reports and correspondence.
Representative Paul Santos, Nantucket Surveyors — Reviewed a 2012 application for which a Certificate of Compliance was
not issued resulting in a Certificate of Occupancy not being issued. The waiver request deals with this plan and
validates the previously granted waivers based on the premise of long-term net benefit. Reviewed the scope of
this application. The invasive species removal as laid out in the original order will go forward; the area is better
defined in this application.
David X1. Haines, Haines Hydrogeologic Consulting
Public None
Discussion (5:03) Ashley — There's evidence that inappropriate plants are spreading into the 25 -foot buffer; perhaps seed heads
aren't being cut off.
Golding — A condition of the original order about the driveway wasn't met; he's concerned if this is allowed to
go forward, that condition will not be met.
Santos — He's tried to come up with a plan that is permissible under a typical application; he feels this plan
provides a net benefit to this property. The orders were never amended to remove the driveway.
Bennett — Looking at the 2012 application; there was a lot of proposed planting that were not done.
Santos — The intent of this application is to get back to what the original application intended. Reviewed the
conditions that existed prior to the 2012 application.
Ashley — The photos show what looks like a wooden dumpster within the 25 -foot buffer at the end of the
drive. That must never go back there.
Steinauer — The driveway could be moved out of the 25 -foot buffer; it would cost them some lawn. David
Haines did the original report in regards to invasive removal from the area south of the knotweed stand.
Haines — That area could benefit from additional shrubs as well as vegetation; it drops off to the wetlands.
That area will require repeated applications for the knotweed removal; does not recommend new plants for
several years until the knotweed is gone.
Golding — Asked if they, are willing to consider moving the driveway.
Page 2 of 9
Minutes for December 20, 2017, adopted Jan. 10, 2018
Santos — To him it doesn't make sense to do that; it would dramatically change the way the property functions,
explained how the current topography of the driveway is a benefit. He'd like to find a means of mitigation for
the driveway; he believes this project as submitted is permissible.
Haines — Pointed out that right now the knotweed stand acts as a vegetated buffer between the house and the
wetlands; vegetation would have to go back in once it's gone.
Ashley — She'd like a better analysis of the original application versus this proposal to better understand the net
benefit.
Steinauer — Asked if the houses were there or were constructed as part of the 2012 application.
Santos — The original house was preexisting; the back house had its own application prior to 2012.
Steinauer — Confirmed what part of a structure is within the 50 -foot buffer and what was added into the 50 -
foot buffer with the 2012 application.
Champoux — Clarified if the current owner adopted the mess or are they the ones on the prior order of
conditions.
Santos — The property has been sold but the old owner is still responsible for bringing this into compliance.
The intent is to do what was previously proposed, which provided for invasive species removal and mitigation.
Asked this be treated as an amended order of conditions to leave 850 SF of the pervious driveway. His
question is what would be the proper mitigation for that amount of pervious driveway.
Ashley — She would want to see a detailed landscaping plan to be monitored by landscapers. They were
allowed to build in the 50 -foot, no -build zone based upon the removal of the driveway from the 25 -foot buffer.
Santos — Asked for a continuance.
Staff The original waiver called out that the project was the reestablishment of the 25 -foot buffer and removal of the
invasive species constituted a net benefit.
We order a lot of restoration work as part of a project; his concern is an owner choosing what they want and
avoiding what they don't want but are obligated to do then trying to reapply for a permit to get what they -ant.
Motion Continued to January 10, 2018 by unanimous consent.
Vote N/A
3. Philips, Trustee — 19 East Tristam Avenue (31-4.1) SE48-3034
Sitting Bennett, Erisman, Steinauer, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham
Documentation Site and topographical plans, photos, requisite departmental reports and correspondence.
Representative Paul Santos, Nantucket Surveyors — This was continued for a Department for Environmental Protection
(DEP) file number and a response from Massachusetts Heritage Endangered Species Protection (MHESP).
DEP states the project does not adversely affect the wetlands act or impact the endangered species act.
Reviewed the scope of work under this application. Work occurs within the setback to the coastal bank, -which
is the revetment Asking for waivers for work within the 25 -foot no disturb zone to remove a boardwalk and
create a footpath and stairs along the revetment. There was an existing 1994 order of conditions in -which three
conditions were continued forward as part of the stone revetment work; read those conditions, -vhich are noir
part of this application as on-going conditions. Some sand nourishment was permitted in 2012 under the on-
going condition. Will do a base -line survey of conditions at this time.
Public None
Discussion (5:43) Ashley — Asked if the beach house is pre -1978. It looks like the revetment doesn't protect it. She doesn't think
an extension of the revetment should be granted in conjunction with moving the building.
Santos — He's not sure if the beach house is pre -1978; it was moved on site at one time. Wouldr_'t ask for both
an extension of the revetment and to move the beach house.
Staff A pre -1978 structure has to be substantially in its original location.
Have everything needed to close.
Motion Motion to Close. (made by: Champoux) (seconded by: LaFleur)
Vote Carried unanimously
4. Powers Revocable Trust — 164 Hummock Pond Road (65-13.1) SE48-3031
Sitting Bennett, Erisman, Steinauer, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham
Documentation Site and topographical plans, photos, requisite departmental reports and correspondence.
Representative Brian Madden, LEC Environmental — He has flagged the wetland resource areas south of the property.-
bordering
ropembordering vegetated wetland on the southeast side and patch puddle 100 -feet away from southerly property line
and a isolated vegetated wetland southeast of the property. The proposed addition on the east side of the
house has been moved to respect the 50 -foot setback. Provided more information on the septic system. Health
Department has reviewed the building permit application and confirmed no modification or upgrade to the
septic is required. Forwarded a copy of a septic inspection performed over the summer confirming it passes
inspection. Reviewed the timeline of construction on the property. Applicant is committed to enhancement
and reconstruction of buffers and removal of structures from the buffer; project as a whole represents a net
benefit over pre-existing conditions. The proposed fence is wood split rail. His client is proposing to create
more wetlands than were previously on the property and increase the buffer zones.
Public Emily Molden, Nantucket Land Council — Following up on the septic, asked how that would be handled in
the order of conditions; a septic approved within 100 -foot buffer would now be required to be an I/A system;
wonders if a denitrification box could be included.
Page 3 of 9
Minutes for December 20 2017 adopted Tan. 10 2018
Discussion (5:55) Ashley — Confirmed the greenhouses are accurately represented on the plans.
Golding — Asked if they would be willing to include a denitrification box.
Steinauer — Due to its location from the road, rather than require installation of an I/A, he'd prefer to wait till
they attach to municipal sewer. There is a lot of construction along Hummock Pond Road, so sewer would be
advantageous.
Ashley — Asked that the landscapers submit the type of fertilizer they use.
Staff We reviewed the D Series and C Series wetlands and agree the wetland lines are correct. You would be
approving the buffer zones on the site while the wetlands are off site. Wetlands are on active agricultural land
where jurisdiction is different.
The location of the existing leach field, when it was originally permitted by Health Department was shown to
be outside the 100 -foot buffer; they have done enough to document how it got there; there could be enough
findings to explain its existence with orders going forward requiring I/A should this fail. Some of the 400 SF
wetland restoration is in the area of the 900 SF building to be moved; files show a wetland that has since
disappeared. He talked with the Health Department at length about the septic; that's why the Title 5 inspection
was done; they didn't feel anything else was necessary at this point; we Iso looked at the timeline for municipal
sewer. Replacement could be conditioned with a trigger.
Have everything needed to close.
Motion Motion to Close. (made by: Steinauer) (seconded by: Champoux)
Vote Carried unanimously
5. Dupuis — 41 Millbrook Road (56-69&70) SE48-3030
Sitting Bennett, Erisman, Steinauer, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham
Documentation Site and topographical plans, photos, requisite departmental reports and correspondence.
Representative Mark Rits, Site Design Engineering — The main concern has been drainage from the proposed patio and pool
onto abutting property and down the path to the wetlands. Explained where two drains with infiltration would
be located as well as a trench drain; these should capture all the runoff.
Public None
Discussion (6:21) None
Staff Have everything needed to close.
Motion Motion to Close. (made by: Steinauer) (seconded by: LaFleur)
Vote Carried unanimously
6. *David E. & Lisa B. Auer — 4 South Cambridge Street (59.4-11) SE48- 3041
Sitting Bennett, Erisman, Steinauer, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham
Documentation Site and topographical plans, photos, requisite departmental reports and correspondence.
Representative Mark Rits, Site Design Engineering — This is to replace an existing septic with an I/A system within the 50 -
foot buffer; the existing tank would be excavated and a new system in the same location; the leach field is
outside the 100 -foot buffer.
Public None
Discussion (6:23) None
Staff Have everything needed to close.
,Motion Motion to Close. (made by: Champoux) (seconded by: Steinauer)
Vote Carried unanimously
7. *Shimmo Pond Road Nominee Trust — 46 Shimmo Pond Road (43-77) SE48-3037
Sitting Bennett, Erisman, Steinauer, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham
Documentation Site and topographical plans, photos, requisite departmental reports and correspondence.
Representative Art Gasbarro, Nantucket Engineering & Survey — Residential redevelopment project; reviewed the scope of
Public
Discussion (6:26)
Staff
Motion
Vote
work. There will be a reduction of about 130 SF of structure within the buffer zone. Requesting a waiver based
on long-term net benefit due to the increased horizontal separation from the coastal bank and reduction of
structure in the zone; they will be connecting to municipal sewer. Will accept a condition that the downspouts
be connected to a subsurface infiltration system outside the 50 -foot buffer. Reviewed what currently exists in
the 50 -foot buffer as opposed to what will be in the 50 -foot buffer resulting in a net reduction in the buffer
zone. Views this as a net improvement. All runoff from the structure would be infiltrated and will adhere to
best management practice for fertilization.
Arthur Reade, Reade, Gullicksen, Hanley, & Gifford LLP
Matt MacEachern, Emeritus Development — The Historic District Commission (HDC) has approved the
main house; the guesthouse is currently before the HDC. There is a full foundation under the new porch.
None
Ashley — Asked about the glass fence around the pool and birds.
Gasbarro — Those fences are very low and becoming more popular; they aren't in any flyways. All of this is
outside the 50 -foot buffer.
MacEachern — The glass fence might go away in favor of a more traditional aesthetic; we are going through
the landscaping process
Have everything needed to close.
Motion to Close. (made by: LaFleur) (seconded by: Champoux)
Carried unanimously
Page 4of9
Minutes for December 20. 2017. adopted ]an. 10. 2018
8. *Gail Wallace — 353 Madaket Road (60-130) SE48-3039
Sitting Bennett, Erisman, Steinauer, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham
Documentation Site and topographical plans, photos, requisite departmental reports and correspondence.
Representative David M. Haines, Haines Hydrogeologic Consulting — This is in response to an enforcement order to move a
house, which was seven feet off an eroding bank. Since then the last storm caused the loss of 20 more feet.
This needs to be removed from the site; the existing septic and leach tank must also be removed. Looks like
everything can be done from the top of the bank. All holes will be filled with clean sand; some will be on the
edge of the bank; the property will be revegetated with beach grass as much as possible.
Public None
Discussion (6:38) Golding — Could condition it in the event that the erosion decreases.
Haines — You never know where erosion will happen.
Staff Have everything needed to close.
Motion Motion to Close. (made by: Steinauer) (seconded by: Topham)
Vote Carried unanimously
9. *205 EP Trust — 205 Eel Point Road (38-31) SE48-3040
Sitting Bennett, Erisman, Steinauer, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham
Documentation Site and topographical plans, photos, requisite departmental reports and correspondence.
Representative Jeff Blackwell, Blackwell & Assoc. — This is for a residential redevelopment-, reviewed the scope of work.
Existing beach path would become partially a board walk and grass. No waivers are required. Will follow best
management practices in regards to fertilization and irrigation.
Public Terry Norton, 24 North Cambridge Street —They- are proposing a pool, which needs to be conditioned in
regards to chemicals and water removal due to its proximity- to the Harbor.
Discussion (6:45) None
Staff Have everything needed to close.
Motion Motion to Close. (made by: Champoux) (seconded by: Steinauer)
Vote Carried unanimously
10. *Annette Covelli Ford Trust — 8 Pilgrim Court (41-217.3,217.4 & portions of 217) SE48-3042
Sitting Bennett, Erisman, Steinauer, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham
Documentation Site and topographical plans, photos, requisite departmental reports and correspondence.
Representative Mark Rits, Site Design Engineering — Proposal is for a timber retaining wall and expand and connect a porch
and deck all outside the 50 -foot buffer to an off-site wetland. All work is within previously disturbed areas. The
structure and pool did not require waivers in regards to groundwater.
Public None
Discussion (6:50) LaFleur — The run off needs to be managed to prevent erosion.
Staff Have everything needed to close.
Motion Motion to Close. (made by: LaFleur) (seconded by: Steinauer)
Vote Carried unanimously
11. * Nantucket Islands Land Bank — 48 & 50 Tennessee Avenue (59.4-92,93 & 200) SE48-3043
Sitting Bennett, Erisman, Steinauer, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham
Documentation Site and topographical plans, photos, requisite departmental reports and correspondence.
Representative Rachel Freeman, Nantucket Islands Land Bank — This is to move the boathouse; resource areas include salt
marsh, coastal bank, land under the ocean, and land subject to coastal storm flowage. All work is to landward;
removal will allow an increase in the buffer zones for the resource areas.
Public None
Discussion (6:53) None
Staff Have everything needed to close.
Motion Motion to Close. (made by: LaFleur) (seconded by: Steinauer)
Vote Carried unanimously
B. Amended Orders of Conditions
1. 96 Squam Road, LLC — 96 Squam Road (12-33) SE48-2979
2. Matthew Holt — 98 Squam Road (12-36) SE48-2898
Sitting Bennett, Erisman, Steinauer, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham
Documentation Site and topographical plans, photos, requisite departmental reports and correspondence.
Representative Art Gasbarro, Nantucket Engineering & Survey — 96 & 98 are conjoining property and the work is tied
together. The amendment is to remove structural area within the buffer zone and move the driveway to allow
restoration of the buffer; reviewed the scope of work being requested. This will result in a massive reduction of
structure within the buffer zone. Reviewed the restoration area plants; none are on the invasive species list.
Public None
Discussion (6:57) None
Staff Noted that a missed wetlands has been included here.
Recommend close and issue
\Motion Motion to Close and Issue SE48-2979 and SE48-2898. (made by: Golding) (seconded by: Champoux)
Vote Carried unanimously
Page 5 of 9
Minutes for December 20 2017 adopted Jan. 10 2018
3. Nantucket Islands Land Bank — 48 South Cambridge Street (59.3-42) SE48-2938
Sitting Bennett, Erisman, Steinauer, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham
Documentation Site and topographical plans, photos, requisite departmental reports and correspondence.
Representative Rachel Freeman, Nantucket Islands Land Bank — Request to change the material of the path to the viewing
platform from stone -dust to grasscrete. There is irrigation associated with this; if it isn't necessan-, the wont' do
it. There is water -source access; the system would be turned on July 15 to August 30 only if necessary. Have
the system at the golf course.
Public None
Discussion (7:04) Ashley — Ensured the system will be checked regularly- to ensure it is properly functioning.
Staff Recommend close and issue
,\Iotion Motion to Close and Issue. (made by: Champoux) (seconded by: LaFleur)
Vote Carried unanimously
III. PUBLIC MEETING
A. Requests for Determination of Applicability
1. Elder — 42 Liberty Street (42.3.4-122)
Sitting Bennett, Erisman, Steinauer, LaFleur, Champoux, Topham (Golding recused)
Documentation Site and topographical plans, photos, requisite departmental reports and correspondence.
Representative Bruce Griffin, SWCA, Inc. — This is to confirm the delineation of a wetlands on the property; pointed out an
area the collects water whenever it rains and has wetland vegetation though it is within mown lawn. Did soil
testing and found hydric soils. The question is whether or not it's a bordering vegetated wetland. There's a
grate and a shallow channel under the privet that flows toward the grate; can't tell if there's a pipe under the
grate.
Public Scott Morrison, EcoTec, Inc, Senior Environmental Scientist, for Edwin Snider Realty Trust — Striking
concerns include: this was recorded as a bordering vegetated wetland but there's a drop manhole no one knows
where it goes; along the hedge row is a channel which he could not find during a site inspection. Contends the
bordering vegetated wetland label is erroneous; he reviewed the soil logs and wants those closely reviewed
against Federal criteria. If the water table is that high, the redox should show up close to the surface. Wants a
hard look taken to ensure there is hydric soil.
Arthur J. Heath, for Edwin Snider Realty Trust — Feels aspects of Mr. Griffin's report is speculative and lacks
documentation. A striking thing about this RDA is the lack of work proposed. The people most affected b.
this RDA is not the applicant. This requires careful study as it affects the abutters, his client in particular.
Discussion (7:10) Bennett — He noticed downspouts on the house; asked if that is being infiltrated and where.
Griffin — He doesn't know the answer to that. Explained the directions of flow of runoff in the area.
Champoux — He noticed some holes; asked for clarification on where the holes were dug. There seemed to be
an area that wasn't tested and probably should be tested.
Griffin — Noted that the redox and mottling stopped. The delineation for identifi-ing a vegetated wetland in
;Massachusetts was published in 1985; at that time the science of analtzing hi dric soils was new and a number
of soils are listed that were not found on this site but are now considered to be hydric. Cited the references
now used to identify hydric soils.
Ashley — We aren't looking at how this affects people; we are looking at establishing and protecting a resource
area.
Griffin — Asked for a continuance and a site meeting.
Staff When he went out to verify, off flag C5, he was able to get fairly- stable conditions on both sides of the wetland
line and off the rear deck. There's no question it's a disturbed area; given the conditions it wasn't overly
surprising to find saturation. Some more information for that area would be helpful to build up the record; we'
also need more information to make a determination.
Motion Continued to January 10, 2018 by unanimous consent.
Vote Golding recused
B. Minor Modifications
1. Water's Edge Nominee Trust — 16 Medouie Creek Road (20-26) SE48-2577
Sitting Bennett, Erisman, Steinauer, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham
Documentation Site and topographical plans, photos, requisite departmental reports and correspondence.
Representative Art Gasbarro, Nantucket Engineering & Survey — This modification is due to refinement of the plan; there is
no change in the limit of work. No structures are within the 50 -foot buffer. They will be back with full
landscaping plans. Approved land management activities have been ongoing for several years particularly in
regards to removal of invasive species. The order of conditions has been extended to 2019.
Public None
Discussion (738) None
Staff Recommend issuing as a minor modification.
Motion Motion to Issue as a minor modification. (made by: Steinauer) (seconded by: Champoux)
Vote Carried unanimously
Page 6 of 9
Minutes for December 20, 2017, adopted Jan. 10, 2018
C. Certificates of Compliance
1. Cronin — 22 Willard Street (29-79) SE48-2818
Sitting Bennett, Erisman, Steinauer, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham
Staff Everything is in compliance and this can be issued.
Discussion (7:42) None
Motion Motion to Issue. (made by: Steinauer) (seconded by: LaFleur)
Vote Carried unanimously
2. Little Pointe Acquisition — 11 & 13 Hallowell Lane (30-11,13 & 257.1) SE48-2962
Sitting Bennett, Erisman, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham (Steinauer stepped out)
Staff This is for a groin; it is constructed in compliance.
Discussion (7:43) None
\lotion Motion to Issue. (made by: Topham) (seconded by: LaFleur)
Vote Carried 6-0
3. Robert Knight, Trustee of Knight Realty Trust — 12 E Lincoln Avenue (42.4.1-47) SE48-2889
Sitting Bennett, Erisman, Steinauer, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham
Staff Everything is completed and in compliance. Recommend this be issued.
Discussion (7:44) None
\lotion Motion to Issue. (made by: Golding) (seconded by: Topham)
Vote Carried unanimously
4. August Pointe, LLC — 7 Walsh Street & 8 Willard Street (42.4.1-55 & 55.1) SE48-3006
Sitting Bennett, Erisman, Steinauer, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham
Staff Work is completed and in compliance. Recommend this be issue.
Discussion (7:44) None
\lotion Motion to Issue. (made by: Champoux) (seconded by: Topham)
Vote Carried unanimously
D. Orders of Condition
1. Nantucket Islands Land Bank —17 Commercial Wharf & Unnumbered Lot New Whale Street (42.2.4-7 & 8) SE48-2885
Sitting Bennett, Erisman, Steinauer, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham
Staff No order has been drafted. His general consensus is for a positive order. Will include the monitoring protocol
for eel grass and dredging. Where the dredge soil goes, we ensure it is not going in our jurisdiction.
Discussion (7:45) Champoux — Add no cultivars. Asked if it was discussed where dredge soil will go.
Motion N/A
Vote N/A
2. Philips, Trustee — 19 East Tristam Avenue (31-4.1) SE48-3034
Sitting Bennett, Erisman, Steinauer, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham
Staff Will add Finding 2 that the relocated structure is not eligible for a CES. Will add Finding 3 that the commission
recognizes on-going conditions from 1994 Certificate of Compliance.
Discussion (7:47) Champoux — If this comes back for an armoring structure in front of the newly relocated cottage that is a
definite denial.
Golding — Wants to draw attention to the encumbered on-going conditions.
Motion Motion to Approve as amended. (made by: Golding) (seconded by: Champoux)
Vote Carried unanimously
3. Powers Revocable Trust — 164 Hummock Pond Road (65-13.1) SE48-3031
Sitting Bennett, Erisman, Steinauer, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham
Staff Didn't draft an order. There will be a series of findings for each pre-existing, unpermitted structure and how
they are in maximum compliance..
Discussion (7:50) Golding — He's leaning toward approval; they've done a lot of work.
Topham — Fertilizer use should be conditioned.
Ashley — She's surprised that no one noticed what was going on back there. It is an improvement.
Bennett — He supports approval of this.
:Motion N/A
Vote N/A
4. Dupuis — 41 ;Millbrook Road (56-69&70) SE48-3030
Sitting Bennett, Erisman, Steinauer, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham
Staff Will add into the overview inclusion of subsurface drainage. Condition 23 addresses all drainage.
Discussion (7:55)
None
,\lotion
Motion to Approve as amended. (made by: Golding) (seconded by: Champoux)
Vote
Carried unanimously
5. David E.
& Lisa B. Auer — 4 South Cambridge Street (59.4-11) SE48- 3041
Sitting
Bennett, Erisman, Steinauer, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham
Staff
Pretty straightforward.
Discussion (7:56)
None
\lotion
Motion to Approve as drafted. (made by: Champoux) (seconded by: LaFleur)
Vote
Carried unanimously
Page 7 of 9
Minutes for December 20, 2017 adopted Jan. 10 2018
6. Shimmo Pond Road Nominee Trust — 46 Shimmo Pond Road (43-77) SE48-3037
Sitting Bennett, Erisman, Steinauer, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham
Staff Included general pool conditions. Will add Condition 24 about the roof runoff
Discussion (7:57) Golding — all roof runoff should be directed into a catch basin.
Motion Motion to Approve as amended. (made by: Golding) (seconded by: Steinauer)
Vote Carried unanimously
7. Gail Wallace - 353 Madaket Road (60-130) SE48-3039
Sitting Bennett, Erisman, Steinauer, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham
Staff Will add Condition 20 about replanting all exposed soil above the bank.
Condition 19 ensures that all utility components are removed from the site.
Discussion (7:58) None
Motion Motion to Approve as amended. (made by: Topham) (seconded bv: LaFleur)
Vote Carried unanimously
8. 205 EP Trust — 205 Eel Point Road (38-31) SE48-3040
Sitting Bennett, Erisman, Steinauer, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham
Staff This does have the standard pool conditions.
.Added an additional finding that the structure is existing and outside our jurisdiction.
Discussion (8:00) None
Motion Motion to Approve as amended. (made by: LaFleur) (seconded bv: Topham)
Vote Carried unanimously
9. Annette Covelli Ford Trust — 8 Pilgrim Court (41-217.3,217.4 & portions of 217) SE48-3042
Sitting Bennett, Erisman, Steinauer, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham
Staff This is for a pool cover and retaining wall. Conditions for the pool are in a previous order. There are no
additional conditions for this.
Discussion (8:01) None.
Motion Motion to Approve as drafted. (made by: Champoux) (seconded by: Topham)
Vote Carried unanimously
10. Nantucket Islands Land Bank — 48 & 50 Tennessee Avenue (59.4-92,93 & 200) SE48-3043
Sitting Bennett, Erisman, Steinauer, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham
Staff No new conditions for this. Will add Condition 19 about revegetated areas and requiring photos.
Discussion (8:02) Topham — Address plants not being cultivars
Motion Motion to Approve as amended. (made by: Steinauer) (seconded by: LaFleur)
Vote Carried unanimously
E. Extension Requests
1. Irwin — 87 Hummock Pond Road (56-310.1) SE48-2352
Sitting Bennett, Erisman, Steinauer, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham
Staff Asking for a three 1 -year extensions.
Discussion (8:m) None
Motion Motion to Approve the three 1 -year extension. (made by: Golding) (seconded by: Champoux)
Vote Carried unanimously
2. S/P Norwell, LLC —;Mariner Way (78 Union St) (55.1.4-72) SE48-2740
3. S/P Norwell, LLC — Lot 1 MarinerWay (55.1.4-72) SE48-2743
4. S/P Norwell, LLC — Lot 2 Mariner Way (55.1.4-72) SE48-2744
5. S/P Norwell, LLC — Lot 3 Mariner Way (55.1.4-72) SE48-2745
6. S/P Nowell, LLC — Lot 4 Mariner Way (55.1.4-72) SE48-2746
7. S/P Nowell, LLC — Lot 5 Mariner Way (55.1.4-72) SE48-2743
Sitting Bennett, Erisman, Steinauer, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham
Staff Asking for three 1 -year extension.
Discussion (8:04) None
Motion Motion to Approve the three 1 -year extensions. (made by: Golding) (seconded by: Champoux)
Vote Carried unanimously
F. Monitoring Reports
1. Nantucket Conservation Foundation, Inc. — 2 Squidnet Way (Squam Farm) (13-36,39; 20-49,50.2,50.3; 21-118.1, 119,
119.1, 119.2, 119.3, 121.1 & 124) SE48-2475
2. Nantucket Conservation Foundation, Inc. — Madequecham Valley Road, Tom Nevers (77-2; 89 90-1) SE48- 2482
G. Other Business
1. Approval of Minutes 11/29/2017: Adopted by unanimous consent.
2. Enforcement Actions
a. None
3. Reports:
a. None
Page 8 of 9
4. Commissioners Comment
a. None
5. Administrator/Staff Reports
a. None
Motion to .Adjourn: 8:07 p.m.
Submitted by:
'ferry L. Norton
Minutes for December 20 2017 adopted Tan. 10 2018
Page 9 of 9