Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-6-12ConCom M1nutes for June 12 2019 adopted lune 19 CONSERVATION COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING 2 Bathing Beach Road Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 ��-w« .nantuckct-ma.gov Wednesday, June 12, 2019 4 Fairgrounds Road, Community Room — 4:00 p.m. Commissioners:-Aredrew Bennett(Chair), Ashley Erisman (Vice Chair), Ernie Steinauer, David Lakeur, Ben Champoux, Ian Golding, Joe Topham r ) Called to orderat 4a i + p.m. - Staff in attendance: ctf !:arlson, Natural Resources Coordinator; Joanne Dodd, Natural Resources Office Adiotnistrainr; n Norton, Town Minutes Taker Attending Memb, i-, 13cnr:�tt, Erisman, Steinauer, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham Town Counsel: Gc0rge Pucci, K&P Law P.C. (by phone) .Agenda adopted h\: un:uununis consent PUBLIC MEETING A. Announce inents B. Public Cominciit 11. PUBLIC IIEARING A. Notice of Intent 1. Town of ciries Beach, Jetties Beach Playground, the end of Jefferson _venue, and Children's Beach (29-1, 29- 2, Road l..i�,�nn, T_.Y._- ; SE48-2300 Sitting liL�nnrrr, i-nsman, Steinauer, LaFleur, Champoux, Topham Documentation �;r, c ,+ ,}..)graphical plans, photos, requisite departmental reports and correspondence. Representative r,, Deputy Director Facilities Department of Public Works (DPV Public Discussion (5:03 Rogers — I Tc has an email from Amy Horick at Massachusetts Natural Heritage, she received the 2005 beach plan, a h,ch she hasn't had time to review. He asked her for a determination by Tuesday. She agreed that C;hilcir.ns Beach doesn't have to be reviewed. The other three will have to wait for Tuesday, June 18. Erisman—'.iecause we wouldn't allow it for any other project, she oesn't think authorizing work before the 01-'I< :e Led is a good idea; it sets a bad precedent. Rogers - I xplained how :Massachusetts Natural Heritage stated the Mobi Mats® were non-compliant. Read an cirri ii, from Gloria Russo expressing concern that the Mobi Mats® had not been installed and supporting their hresencc. Erisman — 'lie application should have been filed months ago. Topham — suggested putting this on the agenda for June 17th just in case. Staff ;icon ,h� -;,cation, doesn't think the commission wants to issue out an order; that's taking action on a portion r take action on. Suggested authorizing the DPXX- to start the project while waiting for the order. \\ :,. c :h.,.ed everything necessary to include the original Beach Management Plan; there is nothing more we ctn on Aia�s-ichusetts Natural Heritage. Last ray, h� and the deputy director of Massachusetts Natural Heritage were standing on the non-compliant \lobi looking at piping plovers and he asked if there were any issues with compliance and the answer \� a< no. Aoar they are saying that there were issues. Motion w Monday, June 17, 2019 regular meeting by unanimous consent. Vote A M. PUBLIC INIEETING C. Orders of Conditions (it the public hearing is closed — for discussion and/or issuance) 1. Sankaty I icad Gott Caul) — 8 & 18 Hoicks Hollow Road (23-9, 5) SE48-3194 Sitting lirnlicn, l :risman, Steinauer, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham Staff t'ndL r Condition 39, it has 686 cubic yards (C1� for nourishment, which is the amount replacing the loss from ih� h,o)ic _n rr, totality; to calculate, thev compared the long-term and short-term erosion rate to the length of ,hc h..uik. They did provide the bank height, elevation 12 to elevation 35. He'll change the condition to require per 11r.0 ar foot per year. \\c h:id discussed the nourishment materials; they'll take a series of samples from the bank and they gill have 10 rrnlicazc ,hat; he will add that to Condition 25. 1 IC11 add Condition 40 about a walkable beach. The.. -:iii :<<;-ess the site from the property if need be; the Hoicks Hollow access is on their property. Page 1 of 3 ConCom Minutes for June 12 2019 adopted lune 19 Discussion (4:05) Steinauer — _Asked about the height of the bank. He'd prefer about - t ard- I- " _- . _ = mitigation -an-4 Champoux — He'd also like to see a little overage, perhaps 2"(, for the mit-__- Golding — Under Condition 25, we discussed mimicking the real materials i- sldn't be Ju>t r nc- Steinauer — There should be a condition about maintaining a walkable beat Tide. _�-ked are required to maintain the Hoicks Hollow access. \lotion Motion to Approve as amended. (made by: Golding) (seconded b; : Chan_- Vote Carried unanimous- 2. Sconset Beach Presen•ation fund — 59-119 Baxter Road (49&48 -various, _area SE4B-5: Sitting Bennett, Erisman, Stemauer, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham Recused 'None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Discussion (4-15) Bennett — _asked if anyone wants more information. Pucci — Following what was discussed with respect to the application of the - _ . -, he looked fun^:e- into the issue and wants to clarify that if you're applying the substantial it - _. - _-ue with re -pec- pre -19-8 building, he recommends the Commission apply its regulations << : - _. _ - - entiren_ to include the public infrastructure portion as well. The standard by which Your dect-i rued or approve would be renewed is if it is arbitran, and capricious or otherwise contran- -s the Comrrus­.on has been working in compliance with the law. Suggested the Com=,sion f _cable performncc standards. Golding — _Asked if the Commission should take a rote on the State reg_: :i- cussing the regulations or rice versa. Champoux — He wants more clarification on applying the standard of 2(1 doe- that mesn -„ e shouldn't apply infrastructure standards because it would be chern- picking Pucci — Yes; if you are going to apply any portion, apply all of it. Bennett — Infrastructure is not covered by the State. Erisman — Read the local regulation on infrastructure pre -19-8 strucrurc _--- _d from im=ner.- danger. Carlson — I le went through the minutes, but the dates aren't super clear. it __ ._ _ _ _ _ late �� ,�_�4 and e<r: 2005. Golding — T'he applications is for the expansion of the entire geo-rube. In rc r no imnun n* danger to infrastructure. The existing structure was allowed to protide tire_ ; come up alternative to the infrastructure. For the purpose of our discussion, it does- -ldinon-. Erisman — She asked as several times to have the properties of imminen _ -__ -- _--ifra-trucrurc documented; we never really got that. Where it is in danger is currently pr(,-,- _ _ _ tubes, and thre :•_ an alternative in place. Steinauer — The number was 25 feet was because that w -as how- much bluff - Otho lo-, likt: would threaten the road. Carlson - The 25 feet was determined by the Town's consultant. Malone c concern al r structural stability- of the road to support a heavy vehicle, such as a fire true] Bennett —There are unprotected areas to the north where the road is prem _ he ecce-- road for infrastructure or just access. Carlson — It was for vehicle access. The Town is working on plans to _ _ d utlline- Throw - alternative routes. Wants to clarify that the Commission has the abihn- w -he-: _- _-�roiect TO deal .; h the length of the structure and defining the project area; but recommends gineenng change - Your main role is to ensure the project conforms to the performance stand_ - _ impact. Bennett — The length is a concern, we should talk about "tweaking ' the pr( Golding — Ile feels that rather than "tweaking" the application. Champoux —The coastal dune at the southern end has been tripping him-.: _ _ the structure he'd back at least 100 feet from it. It's in imminent danger if not immediate dar_� _ Erisman — Site asked why the coir returns were not added onto this pro, that and the-. no. Topham — Below lot 59, he doesn't see those as in imminent danger. He'd 1, _ akmg* the protect Erisman — She feels it is on the applicant to tweak it for a softer structure ar­- --_ :_ _ _.- not comfonal:ie with "tweaking" it. Golding — I le agrees with Ms. Erisman. Steinauer — He's opposed to the project; if ,,, -e go forward with it, it shou _ - the dune- If T' -,-- don't, they would end up covering up and destrot-ing those dunes. Suggeste _ - 01A- them to come back to the Commission for an extension if the dunes disappear. Bennett— We've always put returns the effected lot where the project end - : _ - _d about the effec� of the design of this structure on the lighthouse propem- and the northern I - Topham — Ile thinks there will be more end scour on the lots next to the c- -- be-. Erisman — She feels it should terminate on a propern- with a structure thzt _ - - an empr, lot. Consensus agrees. Page 2 of 3 ConCom Minutes for June 12 2019 adopted June 19 Champoux - He would like to discuss the sand stockpile; he wants to ensure there is a year's -worth or 2 -years' - u ortA: or sand is on the Island and ready to go. Golding - To him it is clear there is no relationship between the material in the bluff and the template sand: pars :tnorher reason he opposes this. He wouldn't object if it were conditioned to match the bluff material. Carlson - Department of Environmental Protection guidance on nourishment material is that it is beach comp.itil . There is some latitude under the performance standards to condition a different type of material if you fccl it «-ill protect the interests. Steinauer - We usually tweak the mitigation volume; he thinks the proposed mitigation volume to replace %vhat s :-(�icd ,, on't work. He thinks it should star at 22 CY per linear foot per year. If we change mitigation, we to ch:tiige the height. Consensus agrees based upon the success of the current project. Golding - i Ie argues that the current project has not been a success. We haven't had satisfactory analysis about the niciof:uuta, which is the building block of marine fisheries. He'd be more comfortable continuing «ith ,,vhat \\ e h:t\ c for further stud-. Reiterated that the fourth tube was temporary until the infrastructure was stabilized. Steinauer - On place the project did not perform was during the storms; sand was left sitting on top until after ilic :iorm :ind wasn't available during the storm. Golding - It was clear under the superseding order of conditions that the fourth tier was temporan- until the mfrasrucntre was altered. Topham - Disagrees with \Ir. Pucci, he felt like the Commission had to sign that; there was no option not to. Pucci - "i here was no instruction from him that the case had to be settled. When he clarified about the contest of the proposal to send it back to ConCom pursuant to the settlement. Steinauer - Going back to Mr. Golding's analysis of the lots, asked how big can a "gap lot" be to protect a yuahr, ink house. Champoux - He thinks the infrastructure is part and parcel of protecting the pre -19-8 homes, which quahfy for proiccrion. We've already used the language for a structure that protects infrastructure. Golding - if we deny this, the infrastructure is still protected by the current geo-tube structure, which was approyrd on a temporary basis. Erisman - I he Stated didn't allow four tiers on the gap lots; that would require us re-engineering the structure. ;pcstions the Commission's not having any statements from the Department of Public Works (DPV';') incl ti,,c n imle who run that infrastructure. Golding -i'he DP\X' didn't weigh in on the threat to the infrastructure. Bennett - \sked for a read from the board on which direction to go. Opposed: Bennett, Erisman, Steinauer, Golding In Favor: ] .:\Fleur, Topham, Champoux Pucci - I Ic can review the draft denial in time for the commission to review by the 19,11. He doesn't think he n-c'is n> n:i.iicipate. Asked if there are other options to meet. Bennett - AV e will vote when we have the actual order. Staff \\ c h:;\ � Linn] the 20,11. He doesn't think he can get together a draft negative order and have it reviewed by AIr. 1'ucci by tomorrow; he can have it ready for the regular June IT" meeting. A denial is different in how the perfoim:uice standards are applied and the basis behind that. the instructions by the majority of the Board is to draft a negative order of conditions. 1 he other option is to have a meeting Monday, June 17t" at 4 for commissioners to review-. Motion Continued to Monday, June 17, 2019 at 4 p.m. in the 4 Fairgrounds Road Community Room by unanimous consent. Vote N/A IV. PUBLIC MEETING A. Other Business 1. Approval of Minutes 1 ib '05/2019: Held for June 17 by unanimous consent 2. �'\lonitorin;� l�cporr 3. EnforcemCnt \CllonS a. None 4. Reports: a. None 5. Commissioners Comment a. None 6. _Admimstruo; �r.ttt 1� Ports a. None .Adjourned at 5:16 p.m. inanimous consent. Submitted by: Term L. Nortoii Page 3 of 3