Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-10-17_ ConCom Minutes for October 17 2018 adopted Nov. 7 CONSERVATION COMMISSION N A N41 T U Q K rE PUBLIC MEETING { ' .AY C L E R 2 Bathing Beach Road Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 www nantucket-ma gov 2018 NOV 19 Pfd 2:35 Wednesday, October 17, 2018 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 4:02 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, Champoux, Golding, Topham Absent Members: LaFleur Late Arrivals: None Earlier Departure: None Agenda adopted by unanimous consent I. PUBLIC MEETING A. Announcements B. Public Comment None II. PUBLIC HEARING A. Notice of Intent 1. Mary D. Starr —19 East Creek Road (55-60) SE48-2985 (Cont. 11/07/2018) 2. Gregory Reyes —19 East Creek Road (55-60) SE48-3065 (Cont. 11/07/2018) 3. Jon & Kerry Walker —112 Wauwinet Road (11-20) SE48-3119 (Cont. 11/07/2018) 4. Terrance P. & Patricia A. Moran — 72 Millbrook Road (57-4) SE48-3128 Sitting Bennett, Erisman, Steinauer, Champoux, Golding, Topham Documentation Site and topographical plans, photos, requisite departmental reports and correspondence. Representative Paul Santos, Nantucket Surveyors Public None Discussion (4:04) Santos — This is for an addition and renovation to the existing structure outside the 50 -foot no build; a portion is within the 100 -foot buffer. The wetland line is for a bordering vegetated wetland. Also asking for construction of a, 20X40 in -ground swimming pool and bluestone patio with pergola, spa, etc. outside the 50 - foot no build but within the patio. The pool will have an auto -cover, so no pool fence is required. Asking for waiver from 2 -foot separation from groundwater. Pool discharge will be outside the 100 -foot buffer. Hummock Pond is to the south. The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) had no comments. Groundwater mapping shows it to be anywhere from elevation 6 to elevation 8; the elevation of Hummock Pond has a dramatic impact when the pond level drops or rises. The pool top will be at elevation 13. Champoux — Asked if there are alternative pool sites with no groundwater issued. Santos — No; but the pool has to be engineered for the high groundwater. This could be conditioned for shallow infiltration for the bluestone patio. Staff Have everything needed to close. Motion Motion to Close. (made by: Champoux) (seconded by: Topham) Vote Carried unanimously 5. Nantucket Point of View, LLC — 9 Lincoln Avenue (30-137) SE48-3124 Sitting Bennett, Erisman, Steinauer, Champoux, Golding, Topham Documentation Site and topographical plans, photos, requisite departmental reports and correspondence. Representative Brian Madden, LEC Environmental Public None Discussion (4:13) Madden — This is for the renovation/relocation of an existing garage and a proposed pool, patio, and fence and reconfiguration of driveway within the 100 -foot buffer of the top of a coastal bank. Work is on the landward side of the house. Staff Have everything needed to close. Motion Motion to Close. (made by: Topham) (seconded by: Champoux) Vote Carried unanimously Page 1 of 6 6. Sitting Public (4:: Staff Motion Vote 7. Sitting Public ConCom Minutes for October 17, 2018 adopted Nov. 7 Nominee Trust — 9 Willard Street (42.4.1-15.3) SE48-3123 Bennett, Erisman, Steinauer, Champoux, Golding, Topham Site and topographical plans, photos, requisite departmental reports and correspondence. Art Gasbarro, Nantucket Engineering & Survey None Gasbarro — This is to enclose a 111 -floor deck to be living space completely within the flood zone and within the 50 -foot buffer to a bordering vegetated wetland. Asked for a waiver for work within the 50 -foot buffer and work within the flood zone. Included in the plan is the neighboring structures showing how close they are to the resource area. There is no change in the footprint within the resource area. Foundation will be piers with flood vents. Erisman — Questions if the deck to be enclosed was permitted with the structure or added later. Champoux — He would think that the addition should have some membrane to channel run off and keep the first floor dry. Gasbarro — Under the definition of Structure, a deck is considered a structure whether or not it is impervious. Looking at the hydrology, the question is if the change of area impacts the resource area; he doesn't believe so. There are no new steps coming off the house; he feels the project meets the standards. Champoux — We have to look at this as structure for structure and if there is a greater impact Steinauer — The groundwater is not very far down maybe a couple of feet; infiltration is bad no matter what Golding — We don't know if the deck was part of the original structure. He doesn't want to start a precedent where a deck is added much later than the original construction and is automatically considered part of the structure. Champoux — That's a good point but we should have a cut-off date. If we find out the deck was built without a permit, the question is what to do. He doesn't see an adverse impact with enclosing the deck area. Bennett — If the enclosed area is on piers, the water can flow under and around it Steinauer — If we're really concerned about runoff, we need to know how much run off from the boards there is. He questions what amount of deck runoff is considered significant. He thinks the impact will be very small considering the amount of structure already there. He doesn't think there is room to infiltrate on this lot Erisman — Wants to know if the deck was permitted and if it is lined to prevent water from running through the deck. Could put planters on the 2nd -floor deck to absorb water. Gasbarto — In terms of the regulations and performance standards, when the deck was constructed is not pertinent. The question under the performance standards is if there is an adverse impact on the areas of interest. If the deck has t/4 -inch gaps between boards, enclosing the area in his opinion doesn't change the impact on the area of interest. Could do something shallow like French drains. When this was constructed, the standards were very different, if in existence. It's not uncommon to find a lot of structures that don't have permits and were renovated after the Wetlands Act If this deck was constructed in 1987, the question is what impact it has on the performance standards; all our rules and regulations tie back to the performance standards and he doesn't want to open up a Pandora's Box of something we're going to start requiring. The local Wetlands Bylaw is 1978 and the State is 1972. Have everything needed to close. Motion to Close. (made by: Steinauer) (seconded by: Champoux) Carried 4-2//Golding and Erisman opposed N, LLC —109 Eel Point Road (32-4) SE48-3126 Bennett, Erisman, Steinauer, Champoux, Golding, Topham n Site and topographical plans, photos, requisite departmental reports and correspondence. Mark Rits, Site Design Engineering Emily Molden, Nantucket Land Council 3) Rits — This is for the installation of sand -covered, planted, coir -fiber rolls along the bank; site conditions are similar to 103, 105, 101, 93, & 99 Eel Point Road. The rolls will be anchored similarly to abutting rolls. There will be no fence. 40th Pole is pretty far away but will be the equipment delivery point. The sand delivery point will either be done in conjunction with neighboring parcels or on the east side of the property where there is a little less vegetation. Proposing the same amount of sand covering and monitoring protocol as neighboring structures. Champoux — Asked if the 25 -foot buffer from the top of bank is no disturb. Rits —The sand could be conveyed across the 25 -foot stretch; all that would be required would be a support for the conveyor. Delivering sand from 40th Pole would be an increase in damaging beach traffic. Golding — Wants there to be failure criteria should the rolls be uncovered or the plants not take. Rits — On a lot of these the course is to bring it back into compliance; some of the sand is sacrificial. Hopefully the nourishment is done frequently enough to counter the loss of contribution from the bank. Bennett — This and the abutting structures should be looked at as one large project Steinauer — A typical geotube is a hard structure. These are staged up and have the vegetated cover, that might slow the storm's take so that we have sand going in over a period of time. We are mimicking loss over time. Large loss from a bank in a monster storm happens once every ten years or so. Champoux — It is hard to mimic what happens to a bank when a big event takes everything. Page 2 of 6 ConCom Minutes for October 17 2018 adopted Nov 7 Erisman — We have to think about impact to the beach over time. After a storm, the beach recovers, but it can't if there are construction vehicles ruining along it. We need to think about the foundation of that ecosystem, which isn't just sand -grain size but the mixture of the different components. The beach ecosystem can never fully recover, and we will have an impact over time that we can't measure. Golding — Agrees with Ms Erisman and we are all on the same page in how we deal with it going forward. Rits — The sand contribution placed initially is approximately equal to the annual average for this area. If there are multiple storms that require renourishing, we end up adding more than has been taken in a typical year. Coir fiber rolls are not solid geo-tubes; these will have some failure in big events; they are anchored so as not to float free. There is consideration in this design for a big storm event. These also have give and absorb some of the wave energy. Molden — Didn't see documentation of erosion rate and volume for this site; that should be on file. The likelihood is that there be a condition that there is a minimum of survival every year and that nourishment be provided even when there are few storms. Rits — Since we have to wait for Massachusetts Natural Heritage (MNI-1), he'll put together a memo of the erosion rate. Asked for a continuance. Staff It could be conditioned so as there is no disturbance within 25 feet of the top of bank. Typically, the failure criteria procedure is if failure criteria are met, the applicant should appear back before the board to discuss actions to be taken: adjustment to bring into compliance or remove. A new condition added to 101 Eel Point Road was the recovering of the structure within 21 days from when structure uncovered and they can request an extension; that would be attached to this. Waiting for MNH. Motion Continued to 11/07/2018 by unanimous consent. Vote N/A 8. Michael S. & Kristina Elizabeth Jemison —195C Hummock Pond Road (65-23.2) SE48-3127 Sitting Bennett, Erisman, Steinauer, Champoux, Golding, Topham Documentation Site and topographical plans, photos, requisite departmental reports and correspondence. Representative Mark Rits, Site Design Engineering Brian Madden, LEC Environmental Public James Hardy, 193 Hummock Pond Road Discussion (5:05) Rits — This is the result of an enforcement action against brush cutting within the 100 -foot buffer all the way up to the wetlands; the removal of vegetation was extensive. This is to present the restoration planting plan, put together by Brian Madden, LEC Environmental. Propose to replant the disturbed wetland and 25 -foot buffer and 50 -foot buffer. The silt fence will remain in place until plants are reestablished. Parts of this area were stripped down to sand. Erisman — Step three is to roto -till; she is concerned that will disturb the soil more and destroy further what was left. Wants to know what happened to all the soil. Madden — There is no topsoil on the bank; there is no invasive species. Need to add top soil and that will have to be roto -tilled in. Champoux — We have to figure out a way to grow out a little bit of the soil. Rits — He was brought in after this occurred so doesn't know the conditions prior. Golding — Soil from another part of the lot would be the same type; suggested taking it from there. Madden — Suggested Natural Resources staff vet the soil before it's put down. He'll bring in a maximum of six inches of topsoil with an average of two inches around the root balls. Erisman — Wants more shrub diversity within the bordering vegetated wetland. Wants monitoring during the growing season. It doesn't take many rainstorms to make it look like just sand once plants are gone. Steinauer — We want to limit the use of fertilizer given the condition of the pond. If they're making topsoil by adding compost, the compost will be high in phosphorous in order to get the right amount of nitrogen. Hardy — The material currently on the ground is what was growing; nothing has been removed. They also crossed the property line and took some cedar trees from his property. Rits — His plan is to restore this property and the abutting property within the 100 -foot buffer, further discussions between parties should be through their attorneys. Erisman — Roto -tilling is appropriate for soil conservation; she won't support that. Champoux — Conditions will be for: no roto tilling, field adjustments, survival of the plants, and lowering the depth of topsoil. Staff It was bare sand; but there was an unnatural break that looked like something was removed; some material was left. The older delineation shows the wetland closer to the pond. Using aerial photos, we compared the proposed to the original area of lawn and it's pretty close. We can require a chemical analysis of the top soil before it is laid down. Asked Mr. Hardy to call him to set up a site visit and they will go over some remedies. Restoration of Mr. Hardy's property can be handled under the original enforcement order. Have everything needed to close. Motion Motion to Close. (made by: Champoux) (seconded by: Topham) Vote Carried unanimously Page 3 of 6 ConCom Minutes for October 17, 2018, adopted Nov. 7 9. Teddy Bloomer, LLC — 94 Tom Nevers Road (91-41) SE48-3125 Sitting Bennett, Erisman, Steinauer, Champoux, Golding, Topham Documentation Site and topographical plans, photos, requisite departmental reports and correspondence. Represent tive Mark Rits, Site Design Engineering Public None Discussio 1 (5:3) Rits — This is for a path through a buffer zone, beach stairs, and a little boardwalk over the vegetation on a dune. The boardwalk is to be elevated 12 to 14 inches; installation of the boardwalk and stairs will be done with hand tools. They will top -trim the vegetation under the boardwalk; it won't be cut. There is a steep upper portion to the ravine, a flat middle, and again steep toward the dune; the boardwalk is to cross this area. The bank is very thoroughly vegetated with a healthy beach; there is no evidence of erosion. Everything will be wood: 4x4 posts, 2x6 decks; only the stairs will have railings. Steinauer — He thinks the elevated boardwalk is the best way to go. Golding — This will be quite obtrusive. Erisman — She's uncertain about where the stairs terminate in the sand of the dune. Asked if it could be monitored so that beach equipment isn't being set up there causing destruction to the dune. Rits — We're talking about a beach that gradually grades into a bank; it's a dune because of the established vegetation; not the shape. The end of the boardwalk is within MNH jurisdiction; request a continuance. Staff Legally, we can't condition recreational use at the end of the walkway. We can condition a monitoring program for the health of the beach vegetation in that area and minimise construction that might impact on the vegetation. Motion Continued to 11/07/2018 by unanimous consent. Vote N/A B. A nen led Orders of Conditions 1. ons t Beach Preservation Fund — 87-105 Baxter Road (48 -Various) SE48-2824 (Cont. 11/07/2018) III. 1 IUBLIC MEETING A. R tquc sts for Determination of Applicability 1. C iristopher Fiumara — 67 Easton Street (42.4.1-115.1) Sitting Bennett, Erisman, Steinauer, Champoux, Golding, Topham DOCUMCI Ltatfii Site and topographical plans, photos, requisite departmental reports and correspondence. Represemative Mark Rits, Site Design Engineering Donald Visco, owner Public Emily Molden, Nantucket Land Council Discussi (5:44) Rits — This is an RDA with a local jurisdictional wetland on the property delineate by Brian Madden, LEC Environmental. Molden — There is only one set of flag data in the files on the soils. Visco — Disagrees with the wetland designation. When the regulation was adopted in 2013, the rules were changed to adopt the same setbacks as the State. Stated that what the State had in mind was property that had to be served by a septic and well, not a property served by Town water and sewer. As an isolated vegetated wetland, it has no inlet and the outlet is a drainage system approved under State law in 1996; this was never meant to be a wetland. We have a Historic District Commission permit for a 4 -bedroom house. The whole of Brant Point is noted by DEP as a beach; it's all filled land. If we can't use the property, well have to challenge the ruling. Regardless of what the expert says, he believes ConCom has the right to move the delineation. Bennett — Moving the delineation would be inappropriate. Staff Confirmed the wetland boundaries; current site conditions are accurately reflected on the plans. There is a more extensive report on file. Recommend issue as a Positive 2A for land subject to coastal storm flowage and isolated vegetated wetland. Motion Motion to Issue as a Positive 2A. (made by: Steinauer) (seconded by: Champoux) Vote Carried unanimously 2. ed Godfrey & Joyce Jaskula — 325 Polpis Road (25-40) Sitting Bennett, Erisman, Champoux, Golding, Topham Documentation Site and topographical plans, photos, requisite departmental reports and correspondence. Representative Art Gasbarro, Nantucket Engineering & Survey Public None Discussi n (5: 7) Gasbarro — This is to confirm a portion of the vegetated wetland boundary and a finding that an NOI isn't required within the buffer to install a new septic to pump to a leach field outside the 100 -foot buffer. Staff Confirmed the wetland boundary. Recommend issue for a Positive 2A confirming the boundary and Negative 2 for work within the buffer. Motion Motion to Issue as recommended. (made by: Champoux) (seconded by: Topham) Vote Carried 5-0//Steinauer recused Page 4of6 ConCom Minutes for October 17, 2018, adopted Nov. 7 B. Certificates of Compliance 1. Michael O'Mara — 240 Polpis Road (26-23) SE48-2451 Sitting Bennett, Erisman, Steinauer, Champoux, Golding, Topham Staff Septic system up upgrade. We have the Board of Health sign off. Recommend issue Discussion (5:59) None Motion Motion to Issue. (made by: Champoux) (seconded by: Topham) Vote Carried unanimously 2. Blue Shutters — 4 Hulbert Avenue (42.1.4-2) SE48-2582 3. Blue Shutters — 4 Hulbert Avenue (42.1.4-2) SE48-2555 4. Blue Shutters — 4 Hulbert Avenue (42.1.4-2) SE48-2504 Sitting Bennett, Erisman, Steinauer, Champoux, Golding, Topham Staff SE48-2582 is in compliance. Discussion (6:00) Paul Santos, Nantucket Surveyors — SE48-2504 and -2555 are invalid because work wasn't done. The only open order is SE48-2582 for the garage; it was moved away from the 25 -foot no -disturbed zone and the vacated area restored; that work has been completed. David M. Haines, Haines Hydrogeologic Consulting, did an analysis which was included into the file; as-builts were done and submitted. Asking for a Certificate of Compliance for SE48-2582 and invalidation for SE48-2504 and SE48-2555. Motion Motion to Approve the invalidation of SE48-2555 and SE48-2504 and Issue SE48-2582. (made by: Topham) (seconded by: Champoux) Vote Carried unanimously 5. Pauline Dalton — 8 Shawkemo Road (43-90) SE48-1561 6. Pauline Dalton — 8 Shawkemo Road (43-90) SE48-1389 Sitting Bennett, Erisman, Steinauer, Champoux, Golding, Topham Staff Explained how this can be protected to ensure the new owner remedies something that should have been taken care of 15 years ago. This is not in compliance; the board can invalidate the Orders of Conditions. If a new application comes in, there is the potential all the boundary lines have changed. Discussion (6:04) Jeff Blackwell, Blackwell & Assoc. — The Orders are from 2000 & 2002 resulting from a violation of the wetland setback. SE48-1389 is 80% compliant with the order, there is 500 square feet of a fence that encroaches into the 25 -foot no disturb. In 2002, SE48-1561 was issued for work on the coastal bank_ This property is for sale and scheduled to close; the buyer is fully aware of the situation and is committed to file an NOI as soon as possible to remedy the situation by April 1, 2019; submitted a letter of commitment from the buyer into the record. Asking that the orders be approved and issued. Sarah Alger, Sarah F. Alger P.C., for the buyer — Her client will be coming back within the neat year for a major project and wants to do the right thing. Golding — Wants to ensure there is legal obligation for the new owner to come back. Motion Motion to Issue. (made by: Steinauer) (seconded by: Champoux) Vote Carried unanimously 7. Francis M. & Ivy C. Scricco —155 Polpis Road (44-14) SE48-28001 Sitting Bennett, Erisman, Steinauer, Champoux, Golding, Topham Staff This is in compliance with no on-going conditions. Discussion (6:16) None Motion Motion to Issue. (made by: Steinauer) (seconded by: Champoux) Vote Carried unanimously 8. Swain's Point Nominee Trust — 262 Polpis Road (25-1) SE48-3047 Sitting Bennett, Erisman, Steinauer, Champoux, Golding, Topham Staff This is in compliance. Discussion (6:18) None Motion Motion to Issue. (made by: Champoux) (seconded by: Topham) Vote Carried unanimously C. Orders of Condition 1. Morris & Karen Smith — 235 Madaket Road (59.4-364) SE48-3121 Sitting Bennett, Erisman, Steinauer, Champoux, Golding, Topham Staff Reviewed conditions; memorialize compensatory storage area and included no cultivars. Discussion (6:19) None Motion Motion to Approve as drafted. (made by: Golding) (seconded by: Champoux) Vote Carried unanimously 2. Terrance P. & Patricia. A. Moran — 72 Millbrook Road (57-4) SE48-3128 Sitting Bennett, Erisman, Steinauer, Champoux, Golding, Topham Staff He did not draft an Order of Conditions because at the time he didn't have a file number. Discussion (622) Bennett — Need something about infiltration on the bluestone. Motion Continued to 11/07/2018 by unanimous consent. Vote N/A Page 5 of 6 Sitting Staff Motion Vote 4. Sitting Staff Motion Vote 5. Sitting Staff Motion Vote D. 1. Sitting Staff Motion Vote E. O 1. A] a. b. 2. M 3. Ej a. Sitting Staff Motion Vote 4. October 17, 2018, adopted Nov. 7 :et Point of View, LLC — 9 Lincoln Avenue (30-137) SE48-3124 Bennett, Erisman, Steinauer, Champoux, Golding, Topham Reviewed the conditions. None Motion to Approve as drafted. (made by: Golding) (seconded by: Champoux) Carried unanimously Nominee Trust — 9 Willard Street (42.4.1-15.3) SE48-3123 Bennett, Erisman, Steinauer, Champoux, Golding, Topham Will add Condition 20 requiring a pier foundation. Will add Condition 21 about infiltration. Can say this doesn't require a waiver; if it does, it could mention the historic site conditions and that the expanse of the footprint won't have an adverse impact and there is no alternative. Bennett — Suggested a condition about shallow infiltration. Steinauer — Since they are doing work within the 50 -foot buffer, they should have a waiver. Motion to Approve as amended. (made by: Steinauer) (seconded by: Champoux) Carried 4-2//Erisman & Golding opposed S. & Kristina Elizabeth Jemison —195C Hummock Pond Road (65-23.2) SE48-3127 Bennett, Erisman, Steinauer, Champoux, Golding, Topham Didn't draft an order. None Continued to 11/07/2018 by unanimous consent. N/A )n Requests iter Locke — 34B Grove Lane (41-433) SE48-2416 Bennett, Erisman, Steinauer, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham Most of the work was completed except for the building itself. Paul Santos, Nantucket Surveyors — This is still valid due to the Permit Extension Act and is for a small shed workshop; the work has not been done so asking for a one-year extension. Motion to Grant the one-year extension. (made by: Steinauer) (seconded by: Champoux) Carried unanimously of Minutes /2018: Motion to Approve. (made by: Steinauer) (seconded by: Champoux) Carried unanimously 10/01/2018: Motion to Approve as amended. (made by: Steinauer) (seconded by: Champoux) Carried g Report: none ent Actions Fader — 36 Liberty Street (42.3.4-83) Bennett, Erisman, Champoux, Topham He received an email from Ms Fader stating she was planting grass where her mower chewed up an area. Asked what the commission wants to see. The Commission can set a date stating the conditions at that time may be maintained. In the last three years, at least three cedars were removed as well as a number of other activities to include work on the house within the buffer zone. The neighbor also has a wetland with the boundary up to the edge of her property. Something to include in the letter would be about plantings within the resource area requiring a permit to prevent use of cultivars. Champoux — We need to give her some direction. Bennett — Items we want from Ms Fader include: wetland delineation; set a date for filing with fines if no NOI at that time; and maintenance plan. No action at this time. N/A//Steinauer and Golding recused a. PC Golding b. os uito Control Committee, Erisman 5. Conumssioners Comment a. ris an — We need to work on updating the regulations. b. :omment 2 6. A strator/Staff Reports a. on ijo d a 6:46 p.m. by unanimous consent. Terry Page 6 of 6