Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSiasconset Bluff Walk Public Access Meeting Notes - November 2, 2010_201402041425359951 SCONSET FOOTPATH PUBLIC ACCESS SUBCOMMITTEE Draft Minutes Tuesday November 2, 2010 / 4:15 PM @ 2 Fairgrounds Road Conference Room Members Present: Co-Chair D. Anne Atherton, Rob Benchley, Bob Felch, Jeri Hicks, Frank Holdgate, Joan Porter, Bert Ryder Con-Com Liaison: Mary Wawro BOS Liaison: Brian Chadwick Absent: Co-Chair Harvey Young Members of the Public Present: Allen Reinhard, Lee Saperstien, Linda Holland, Carol Dunton I. Call to Order: Co-Chair Atherton called the meeting to order at 4:15PM A quorum was present II. Approval of Minutes: The minutes of the meeting of October 26, 2010 had not been distributed and Co-Chair Atherton described the content of the Draft Minutes prepared by Secretary Pro Tem, Jeri Hicks. The Committee will formally adopt the October 26 Minutes at our next meeting. III. Announcements: Ms. Atherton reported she had received an email from Carol Dunton who has experience in caretaking and estimated the maintenance costs for the Footpath annually may be $6,500. Ms Atherton also received from Jeff Willett his estimate of costs for the DPW to mow the Path. He estimated the cost at $240.00 per mowing. Ms. Atherton reported on the conversation she and Co Chair Young had with Andrew Vorce, Planning Director, by way of follow up to the October 26 meeting. They discussed the takings process hoped to acquire in written form a simple description of the process to make available to the Subcommittee. When queried, Allen Reinhard mentioned the March 2008 meeting of the Roads and ROW Committee included an outline of the takings process. Ms. Atherton also stated Rick Huxsum (sp?) of Deutch Williams had produced a report with a description of the takings process. Ms. Atherton further described the topic of ways not included in Article 74. It was stated she would bring to the Subcommittee the subject of recommending taking the full width of some ways in the best interests of the Town as part of the Draft of Executive Summary of Recommendations. The next topic was the reference to the Footpath as opposed to Bluff Walk, as to which is the proper term: “path” being a less formal description and “walk” a more substantial type of construction. It was stated in the historic reference by Mr. Flagg the term “footpath” is used. Henceforth the Committee shall use “Footpath” in describing and referencing the path. IV. Discussion: Summary of Recommendations Taking all Ways included in Article 74: The Subcommittee accepted the wording as is in the draft. Ways not included in Article 74: Discussion included reasoning for not recommending taking due to the fact that good faith discussion had eliminated two of these from inclusion in Article 74. The third is still in a state of negotiation pending the creation of a management plan. Mention was made that these ways had not always been open. On the other hand, it was the Committees’ intent to treat all ways the same. However, since these ways had not been included in our original charge the final recommendation is to remit to the Roads and ROW Committee for their attention their current status, whereas we will recommend that Ann’s Lane Way (removed from Article #74 during ATM2010) be taken this year, since little progress has been made in negotiating an easement. Full widths: Using Indian Ave. as a template, should the Committee recommend that some of these ways be retained in their full width rather than retaining only a ten-foot wide easement for the Town? The intent of the recommendation would be to reserve these ways for the best interest of the Town should some situation arise which would necessitate full-width access. The conclusion of the discussion was that a majority felt this would not be something the Committee should recommend and that there would be no mention of full-width taking in the body of the final report. Priority Easements for First Phase of Negotiations: Should the takings process be done with priority given to certain ways? A memo was provided by members Rob Benchley and Joan Porter which describes the current status of the ways and suggestions for the Committee to consider and discuss. The result of discussion was a motion by Ms. Hicks seconded by Mr. Holdgate. MOTION - That the Committee shall recommend the following four (4) ways be prioritized in the first phase of the takings process: The way between #65 and #67, the way between #61 and #63, Rosaly Lane between #13 and #15, and Nosegay. The vote was unanimous in favor. Maintenance Standard: The Committee agreed the wording should remain as is. Marking Pedestrian Ways: The Committee was agreed the wording should remain as is. Management Plan: That the Town should adopt the proposed Management Plan and further to recommend that the Roads and ROW Committee maintain oversight over the implementation of this process as it goes forward with assistance from the Sconset Civic Association. CPC Funding: The Committee was agreed the wording should remain as is, with the inclusion of surveying the lateral ways. Staircases: Shall the Committee make a recommendation on the status of the stairs? The stairways not having been included in the original charge of the Committee. It was decided Ms. Wawro would prepare a simple summary to accompany the document “List of Baxter Road Properties With Beach Stairs Subject to ComCom Jurisdiction Summary of Existing Orders of Conditions / Stairs With No Record of ConCom Permits”, which was compiled and provided by Ms. Wawro. Survey: Whether to recommend that the entire Footpath be, at some point, surveyed in its entirety. Ms. Hicks made a motion that was seconded by Mr. Holdgate MOVED: To include the recommendation as worded. The motion was adopted, with a vote of 4 yes, 2 no. VII. Adjournment: While the entire agenda had not been completed due to the lateness of the hour the meeting was adjourned @ 6:25 PM by Co-Chair Atherton. The next meeting is Tuesday, November 9th@ 4:15 at 2 Fairgrounds Road. Since our deadline is looming, it was agreed that we would be prepared to stay later than the usual 6:00 PM at the November 9 meeting. Respectfully Submitted, Bert Ryder Secretary Pro Tem Documents: Agenda Executive Summary of Recommendations MEMO RE: Status and recommended uses of ways connecting Baxter Road to the Sconset Footpath- A Closer Look 1DRAFT/FOR DISCUSSION/11.2.10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS · The Town and County of Nantucket should proceed with the takings process for all of the lateral ways contained in Article #74. None should be eliminated. The Subcommittee believes that it is in the best interests of the public to retain all access options, given the history of erosion in this area of the island and the consequences for the foot path. ·  There were three ways not included in Article #74. The Anne’s Lane way, which was removed from Article #74 during the course of ATM2010, with the commitment from the property owner that an easement would be negotiated, should be brought back to ATM this year, since no progress has been made. The other two ways, between #23 and #25 Baxter Road and #53 and #55 Baxter Road, were not included in Article #74 because, in both cases, they intersect properties owned by the same individual. The Subcommittee recommends that the Town consider initiating negotiations with these owners to secure voluntary easements to provide pedestrian access to the Bluff Walk in these locations for the future, should they be needed.  Because of the dynamic shoreline and issues related to loss of access, as at Sheep Pond Road, the Subcommittee recommends that the Town retain rights to the full width of certain of the ways, such as those that are extensions of existing roads. (Nosegay, Rosaly, Anne’s, etc.) This will provide vehicular access in the future, should it be needed, to the edge of the Bluff and to the Town-owned property beyond. The arrangement recently negotiated at Steps Beach, whereby the Town issued licenses to the abutters to plant vegetation on either side of a pedestrian access down the center of Indian Avenue, could serve as a model for these particular ways.  Negotiations for priority easements should be initiated as soon as possible for pedestrian access at the following locations to assure suitable means of public access and egress at the present north and south terminuses, as well as at additional points along the path: Bayberry Lane; the unnamed way between #67 and #65 Baxter Road; and Nosegay. [More discussion needed re additional locations.] · The Town should establish a minimum, maintenance standard for the Bluff Walk and pedestrian access ways of four (4) feet in width. DRAFT/FOR DISCUSSION/11.210 · The pedestrian access ways from Baxter Road to the Bluff Walk should be marked as open to the public in an unobtrusive manner and in ways that are consistent with the character of the area. · The Town should adopt the proposed Management Plan that will result in a better understanding of the acceptable uses of the Bluff Walk, a lower public profile for the path, and a more positive, symbiotic relationship between abutters and visitors to the path. These outcomes will be achieved through the communications of specific Do’s and Don’ts, the utilization of certain control tools, including signage, as well as more regular and dependable enforcement and maintenance. · In response to and recognition of the concerns of abutters, and others, the Town must take responsibility for implementation and enforcement of the recommended Management Plan for the Bluff Walk. The Town could be assisted in this duty by the establishment of an ongoing citizens group consisting of representatives from the Sconset community, abutters and members at-large, or implementation oversight could be provided through a subcommittee of the Roads and Rights of Way Committee. · The Subcommittee recommends that CPC funds received by the Town for public access should be allocated for the initial implementation of the Management Plan, maintenance of the Bluff Walk and lateral access points, as well as for any one- time capital expenses such as signage and other control tools, due to the current constraints of the General Fund.  All staircases that are built on public land should be properly licensed by the Town, open to the public, and marked as such.  All staircases leading from the Bluff to the beach should be properly permitted by the Conservation Commission and the conditions imposed enforced.  While the Subcommittee is not recommending that the entire Bluff Walk be surveyed at this time, it is recognized that, should funds be available, such a survey may be helpful. A survey of the Bluff Walk could be done in sections, over time, and the Subcommittee recommends that the Town proceed with such a strategy, perhaps seeking CPC grants for this specific purpose.