HomeMy WebLinkAbout40 SE48_3115 NCC Anlternative Analysis comments 03_11_19
ALTERNATIVE
ANALYSIS:
FIVE
MAIN
POINTS
!
Five
years
ago,
the
Nantucket
Conservation
Commission
found
that
there
were
feasible
alternatives
to
the
current
947-‐foot
geotube
revetment
installed
on
the
public
beach
below
the
bluff
in
Sconset
to
abate
an
emergency.
!
Today
there
are
even
more
feasible
alternatives
to
quadrupling
the
current
geotube
seawall
to
the
length
of
nearly
thirteen
100-‐yard
football
fields,
destroying
four
acres
of
natural
beach
habitat,
and
hard-‐armoring
7%
of
the
natural
eastern
shoreline
of
Nantucket.1
!
In
fact,
there
are
four
(4)
feasible
relocation
alternatives.
!
The
applicant
has
not
provided
the
required
analysis
of
feasible
alternatives
or
the
performance
of
nearby
soft
installations.
The
analysis
of
alternatives
in
the
NOI
for
the
expansion
filed
by
the
applicants
in
January
of
2018
is
cursory,
at
best,
and
incomplete.
It
contains
no
relocation
alternatives.
!
The
situation
now
is
very
different
from
the
situation
five
years
ago.
There
is
no
emergency
today.
1
Calculations:
One
football
field
is
300
feet
(100
yards,
not
including
end
zones).
300
x
3,820
(the
length
of
the
expanded
seawall)
is
12.7
100-‐yard
football
fields.
With
a
depth
of
45
feet,
the
total
area
covered
by
the
expanded
revetment
would
be
45x3820
or
171,900
square
feet.
One
acre
is
43,560
square
feet.
So,
the
expanded
revetment
would
be
sitting
on
3.95
acres
of
beach
habitat.
ALTERNATIVE
ANALYSIS:
MORE
DETAIL
!
Five
years
ago,
the
Nantucket
Conservation
Commission
found
that
there
were
feasible
alternatives
to
the
current
947-‐foot
geotube
revetment
installed
on
the
public
beach
below
the
bluff
in
Sconset
to
abate
an
emergency.
!
Today
there
are
even
more
feasible
alternatives
to
quadrupling
the
current
geotube
seawall
to
the
length
of
thirteen
football
fields,
destroying
four
acres
of
beach
habitat,
and
hard-‐armoring
7%
of
the
natural
eastern
shoreline
of
Nantucket.
!
In
fact,
there
are
four
(4)
relocation
alternatives
that
are
feasible:
Relocation
alternative
#1:
There
are
property
owners
on
the
east
side
of
Baxter
Road,
north
of
Bayberry,
who
own
vacant
lots
on
the
west
side
of
Baxter
Road
to
which
they
could
move
their
houses.
According
to
Town
records,
these
property
owners
are
two
SBPF
principals.
Are
there
others
within
the
project
area?
Relocation
alternative
#2:
As
demonstrated
by
the
previous
owner
of
109
Baxter
Road,
threatened
structures
could
be
moved
landward
out
of
harm’s
way
into
the
road
layout.
The
Town
has
indicated
that
it
is
willing
to
provide
an
easement
for
this
purpose,
as
was
done
for
Mr.
DiAngelis,
the
previous
owner
of
109.
Shortly
after
Mr.
DiAngelis
moved
his
house,
he
sold
it.
Relocation
alternative
#3:
The
Baxter
Road
layout
is
60
feet
wide.
Only
20
feet
of
it
is
paved;
there
are
20-‐
foot
buffers
on
either
side.
The
road
could
be
relocated
landward
into
the
western-‐most
portion
of
the
layout,
providing
40
feet
of
land
for
leasing
to
owners
on
the
eastern
side
of
the
road
so
that
they
can
relocate
their
homes
landward
out
of
harm’s
way.
Relocation
alternative
#4:
The
Town
now
has
shovel-‐ready
plans
to
provide
alternative
access
to
homes
in
the
area
of
northern
Baxter
Road,
the
most
threatened
section
of
the
road.
While
the
owners
don’t
want
to
use
this
alternative,
it
nonetheless
exists
as
a
viable
option.
NOTE:
Primary
source
documents,
such
as
the
Amended
MOU,
indicate
that
the
availability
of
this
access
is
NOT
predicated
upon
permitting
of
the
geotubes,
neither
the
current
947-‐foot
revetment,
nor
the
expansion.
!
The
applicant
has
not
provided
the
required
analysis
of
alternatives
or
the
performance
of
nearby
soft
structures.
The
analysis
of
alternatives
in
the
NOI
for
the
expansion
filed
by
the
applicants
in
January
of
2018
is
cursory,
at
best,
and
incomplete.
It
contains
no
relocation
alternatives.
It
is
also
illustrative
to
review
what
the
applicants
said
about
geotubes
in
their
NOI,
filed
in
2013,
for
a
rock
revetment
as
compared
with
what
they
said
about
geotubes
in
their
NOI,
filed
in
2014,
for
the
current
geotube
seawall.
We
believe
that
the
Commission
should
consider
and
make
public
analyses
of
how
the
current
soft
installations,
which
have
been
in
place
just
south
of
the
geotubes,
have
performed
during
the
same
time
the
geotubes
have
been
installed.
The
side-‐by-‐side
presence
of
these
alternatives
provides
an
opportunity
for
a
data-‐based
comparison.
!
Any
objective,
cost-‐benefit
environmental
(and
financial)
analysis
of
alternatives
will
indicate
that
relocation
is
the
most
preferred
alternative.
It
involves
only
a
one-‐time
move
with
a
certain
outcome,
a
known
cost,
no
mitigation,
no
maintenance,
no
monitoring
in
perpetuity,
little
or
no
environmental
harm
to
protected
resources
—
and
it
preserves
the
public
beach
below
the
bluff,
a
legacy
to
the
inhabitants
of
Nantucket
from
the
Proprietors.
The
Sconset
Trust
demonstrated
the
success
of
this
alternative
by
relocating
the
historic
Sankaty
Head
Lighthouse
landward
out
of
harm’s
way
in
2007:
a
one-‐time,
successful
move
applauded,
and
funded,
by
the
community.
!
The
situation
now
is
very
different
from
the
situation
five
years
ago.
There
is
no
emergency
today.
APPENDIX
ALTERNATIVE
ANALYSIS
DOCUMENTATION
·∙
Relocation
Alternative
#1:
Property
Cards
(2
pages):
80
and
76
Baxter
Road;
Vacant
Lots
in
Project
Area
on
West
Side
of
Baxter
Road
North
of
Bayberry
·∙
Relocation
Alternative
#2:
Easement
documents
(26
pages)
for
109
Baxter
Road
provided
by
Town
Administration.
·∙
Relocation
Alternative
#4:
Plans
for
Alternative
Access;
TON
Coastal
Erosion
and
Response
Planning
for
Baxter
Road
Utilities,
Prepared
for
ATM2019
(33
pages)
·∙
Alternative
Analysis
Pages
(2)
from
NOI
Filed
by
SBPF
in
January
2018
for
Expansion
of
Geotubes
·∙
SBPF
Statement
re
Geotubes
in
Alternative
Analysis
Submitted
in
2013
for
Rock
Revetment
(2
pages)
·∙
Photo
by
Susan
Landmann
of
Soft
Installations
Located
to
the
South
of
Geotube
Revetment,
February
2019.
·∙
Photo,
Relocation
Marker
for
Sankaty
Head
Lighthouse,
2007.
·∙
Now
and
Then
Chart:
2013
and
2018
3/9/2019 Vision Government Solutions
http://gis.vgsi.com/nantucketma/Parcel.aspx?Pid=2767 1/3
Location 80 BAXTER RD Mblu 49/ / 40/ /
Acct#00002767 Owner POSNER JOSHUA & RUDDEN
EILEEN
Assessment $552,100 PID 2767
Building Count 1
Owner POSNER JOSHUA & RUDDEN EILEEN
CoOwner
Address 32 ARLINGTON ST
CAMBRIDGE, MA 02140
Sale Price $0
Certificate
Book & Page C0017/ 538
Sale Date 10/01/1996
Instrument 99
80 BAXTER RD
Current Value
Assessment
Valuation Year Improvements Land Total
2019 $0 $552,100 $552,100
Owner of Record
Ownership History
Ownership History
Owner Sale Price Certificate Book & Page Instrument Sale Date
POSNER JOSHUA & RUDDEN EILEEN $0 C0017/ 538 99 10/01/1996
POSNER JOSHUA $237,290 C0017/ 537 1J 10/01/1996
POSNER JOSHUA & DAVID $115,000 C0010/ 627 1J 01/31/1996
POSNER BRUCE G JOSHUA & DAVID $0 C0010/ 627 07/01/1983
Year Built:
Living Area:0
Replacement Cost:$0
Building Percent
Good:
Replacement Cost
Less Depreciation:
$0
Building Attributes
Legend
Building Photo
Building Photo
(http://images.vgsi.com/photos/NantucketMAPhotos//default.jpg)
Building Layout
(http://images.vgsi.com/photos/NantucketMAPhotos//Sketches/2
Building SubAreas (sq ft)
Building Information
Building 1 : Section 1
3/9/2019 Vision Government Solutions
http://gis.vgsi.com/nantucketma/Parcel.aspx?Pid=2769 1/3
Location 76 BAXTER RD Mblu 49/ / 42/ /
Acct#00002769 Owner WEYMAR CAROLINE S TR
Assessment $13,200 PID 2769
Building Count 1
Owner WEYMAR CAROLINE S TR
CoOwner BAXTER REALTY TRUST
Address 57 CONSTITUTION HILL WEST
PRINCETON, NJ 08540
Sale Price $375,000
Certificate
Book & Page 00370/ 293
Sale Date 08/23/1991
Instrument 1N
76 BAXTER RD
Current Value
Assessment
Valuation Year Improvements Land Total
2019 $0 $13,200 $13,200
Owner of Record
Ownership History
Ownership History
Owner Sale Price Certificate Book & Page Instrument Sale Date
WEYMAR CAROLINE S TR $375,000 00370/ 293 1N 08/23/1991
THE FOUNDATION OF THE UNIVERSI $0 00351/ 153 99 09/17/1990
Year Built:
Living Area:0
Replacement Cost:$0
Building Percent
Good:
Replacement Cost
Less Depreciation:
$0
Building Attributes
Field Description
Style Vacant Land
Model
Legend
Building Photo
Building Photo
(http://images.vgsi.com/photos/NantucketMAPhotos//default.jpg)
Building Layout
(http://images.vgsi.com/photos/NantucketMAPhotos//Sketches/2
Building SubAreas (sq ft)
No Data for Building SubAreas
Building Information
Building 1 : Section 1
LICENSE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this ~y of \ j}e((2 /Jfk , 2013, by and
between the County of Nantucket, a body politic and corporate and a political subdivision
of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, acting by and through its Board of County
Commissioners, having an address of Town & County Building, 16 Broad Street,
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554(the "Licensor") and John P. DeAngelis and Susan D.
DeAngelis, the owners of property located at 109 Baxter Road, Nantucket, Massachusetts
(the "Property") by virtue of a Deed filed for registration with the Nantucket County
Registry District of the Land Court as Document No. 90730 as noted on Ce1iificate of
Title No. 19675 (the "Licensee"):
WHEREAS, LICENSOR is the owner of the land in the layout of Baxter Road as shown
on Exhibit A by virtue of an Order of Taking dated October 29, 1975, filed with said
Registry District of the Land Court as Document No. 16534 ("Roadway");
WHEREAS, due to the eroding coastal bank threatening the safety and structural
integrity of the structures on bluff-side of Baxter Road, the Licensee's dwelling is in
imminent danger; and
WHEREAS, the Licensee has received approval from the Nantucket Zoning Board of
Appeals pursuant to a Decision filed with Nantucket Registry District of the Land Comi
to re-locate the dwelling entirely within the Licensee's property and as close as five (5)
feet from the front yard lot line as shown on the attached Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Licensee has now asked the Licensor for pe1mission to site the dwelling
within the unimproved portion of the roadway layout of Baxter Road, upon and over a
portion of the layout of the Roadway, as more particularly shown on the plan attached
hereto and marked Exhibit B (the "Licensed Premises"); and
WHEREAS, Licensor has agreed, under certain conditions as more particularly set fo1ih
herein, to allow a portion of the dwelling to be sited upon and over the Licensed
Premises.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants herein
made, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Licensor hereby permits Licensee, its contractors, agents, invitees, permittees
and licensees, a non-exclusive right to enter upon and locate, maintain, and
repair the dwelling on the Licensed Premises, at their sole cost and expense in
accordance with the plan Licensee had submitted to the Building Inspector of
the Town of Nantucket which is attached hereto as Exhibit B, and all federal
state and local laws, regulations, ordinances and by-laws. Such entry and use
shall be exercised from the date of the execution of this License and shall
continue until Licensor grants a permanent easement authorized by Town
Plan-It No.Dept./Request FY20 Rqst.CapCom
Rec.
Appendix A – Capital Requests by Account & Department (w/Request Descriptions)
ADMIN-20-004 Town Wide Document Management Solution [cont. Pilot]$.1M $.1M
ADMIN-20-005 Coastal Resiliency Plan $.55M $.55M
Initial funding for critical project addressing island-wide erosion impact begun in FY18. Milone &
MacBroom is retained for consulting services and have conducted two public forums. A major workshop
on January 8, 2019 brought together over 55 stakeholders to map-out next steps. State grant secured to
help with public outreach needed to develop the Plan. TON has been awarded up to $200,000 in the
State’s recently issued economic bond bill, earmarked for this. There is likely a local match but provisions
of the bill are not yet disseminated.
ADMIN-20-006 Baxter Road Relocation $.5M $.5M
Estimates for a scope and rough budget for the Baxter Rd erosion utility relocation plan to relocate the
existing roadway and public utilities to a more secure alignment to protect from imminent threat of
coastal bluff erosion provided by Weston & Sampson. This is a rough ‘ballpark’ costs for
planning/preliminary design and final design of the roadway relocation(s) and associated evaluation
(with new water and sewer lines).ADMIN-20-007 Meeting Room Trailer $.45M $.45MLoss of 4FG Training Room has made it apparent that TON needs more permanent, functional meeting
space that can accommodate up to 30 people with dedicated NCTV equipment and that meets all ADA
requirements. Based on a site visit of the Central Fire Station at 131 Pleasant Street with SMRT Architects
it is recommended that a modular trailer be located at this location adjacent to the administration portion
of the building due to the high cost of renovating that facility and restrictions of the site (force main,
parking configuration, condition of the station). lADMIN-20-008 Central Fire Station Reuse $.25M $.25MTown Administration reviewed multiple options for reuse of fire station at 131 Pleasant Street (from
selling to tearing down & building a senior center to housing, etc.) and presented a recommendation to
the Select Board. Based on a quick review by SMRT, costs to renovate the structure for meeting space or
another use triggers code that is cost-prohibitive; however moving another department to the facility is
efficient and cost-effective. approval.
ADMIN-20-009 Strategic Planning [Transferred to Operating]$.15M $.M
ADMIN-20-010 Senior Center Relocation Study $.15M $.15M
Feasibility study & prelim site design for relocation of existing Senior Center to a new location.
GENERAL FUND SUBTOTAL:$43.43M $36.39M
Appendix A-3 of 4
Dept. Plan-It No.Request CapCom
Rec.
DPW-TRANS TRAN-17-001 Sidewalk Improvement Program $1.M
DPW-TRANS TRAN-19-2 Parking Improvements - 2FG & Town Pier $1.M
DPW-TRANS TRAN-19-4 Fairgrounds Area Roadways (Waitt Drive)$1.5M
DPW-TRANS TRAN-20-010 Wauwinet Road Shared Use Path $.35M
DPW-TRANS TRAN-21-002 Tom Nevers Bike Path $.33M
POLICE/MARINE PUBL-19-001 Harbormaster Industry Road Layup Yard & Workshop $.5M
POLICE/MARINE PUBL-20-011 Maintenance Seasonal Housing Building $.95M
TOWN ADMIN ADMIN-20-010 Senior Center Relocation Study $.15M
TOWN ADMIN ADMIN-20-006 Baxter Road Relocation $.5M
Total Borrowing: $6.28M
DPW-Fleet DPW-18-01 Loader $.25M
DPW-Fleet DPW-18-04 DPW Directors Vehicles $.05M
DPW-Fleet DPW-19-01 Trash Compactor Truck $.14M
DPW-Fleet DPW-19-05 Vehicle Lifts $.05M
FIRE FIRE-17-001 Replace Engine #7 $.45M
FIRE FIRE-19-4 SCBAs Replacement $.09M
Total Capital Exclusion: $1.03M
DPW-TRANS TRAN-17-005
Surfside Area Roads Reconstruction (Lovers Lane,
Monohanssett and Okorowaw)$6.29M
DPW-TRANS TRAN-19-3 Orange St. Bike Path $2.51M
DPW-TRANS TRAN-20-TBD1 Newtown/Fairgrounds/Old South Improvements $5.2M
POLICE/MARINE PUBL-20-010 Public Safety Auxiliary Building $3.M
TOWN ADMIN ADMIN-20-002 Town Pier Supplemental Funding $5.M
Total Debt Exclusion: $22.M
DPW-ADMIN DPW-18-12 GIS Data Integration $.15M
DPW-FACS FAC-19-004 Public Bathrooms Upgrades $.25M
DPW-FACS FAC-19-005 Annual Facility Roof Repairs $.15M
DPW-FACS FAC-19-006 Annual Facility ADA Accessibility Upgrades $.05M
DPW-FACS FAC-19-007 Annual Facility Utility Updates $.15M
DPW-FACS FAC-19-008 Annual Facility Site Paving Updates $.25M
DPW-FACS FAC-19-009 Annual Facility Equipment Replacements $.1M
DPW-FACS FAC-19-010 Annual Facility Lighting Updates $.05M
DPW-TRANS TRAN-17-006 Road Improvements/Maintenance $1.M
DPW-TRANS TRAN-19-002 Multi-Use Path Maintenance $.25M
DPW-TRANS TRAN-19-010 Cobblestone Improvements/Maintenance $.25M
DPW-TRANS TRAN-20-016 Decommissioning Fire Cisterns $.05M
IS/GIS ADMIN-17-001 Network Infrastructure $.25M
IS/GIS ADMIN-18-001 Replace Town Computers & Printers $.05M
SCHOOL NPS-18-006 Backus Lane Playing Fields Phase III $.26M
TOWN ADMIN ADMIN-20-001 Seasonal Employee Housing Feasibility Study $.3M
TOWN ADMIN ADMIN-20-003 Traffic Modeling $.15M
TOWN ADMIN ADMIN-20-004 Town Wide Document Management Solution [cont. Pilot]$.1M
TOWN ADMIN ADMIN-20-005 Coastal Resiliency Plan $.55M
Borrowing
Appendix B – Capital Requests by Fund-type & Funding Source
Capital Exclusion
Debt Exclusion
Free Cash
GENERAL FUND
2
1
3
4
Appendix B-1 of 3
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR ALTERNATIVE ACCESS TO NORTH END OF BAXTER ROAD This MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (“MOU”) is dated this ___ day of ___________, 2015 between Patrick Ryan, as Trustee of the Ryan Nantucket Realty Trust under a Declaration of Trust dated February 6, 2008, filed with Nantucket Registry District of the Land Court as Document No. 123092 (“Ryan”), Ann Furrow (“Furrow”), the Sankaty Head Golf Club, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation (“Sankaty”), the Sconset Trust, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation (the “Trust”), Siasconset Beach Preservation Fund, Inc. (“SBPF”), and the Town of Nantucket, a Massachusetts municipal corporation acting by and through its Board of Selectmen (the “Town”). WHEREAS, Ryan, Furrow, Sankaty and the Trust, propose to provide limited access as described herein (in the event Baxter Road becomes impassable as a result of advancing coastal erosion) to themselves and to those owners of certain private property located on Baxter Road, all as more specifically identified in Exhibit A, attached hereto (the “Baxter Neighbors”), situated between the property of 86 Baxter Road Nominee Trust at 86 Baxter Road (“the 86 Baxter Land”) and Jay W. Wertheimer, Trustee of Eight-Five Baxter Road Nominee Trust of 85 Baxter Road (the “Wertheimer Land”), north to the Trust property at 122 Baxter Road (the “Lighthouse Property”); and WHEREAS, the Town proposes to be responsible for the initial construction of the alternate access as described below upon the terms set forth herein. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and in consideration of other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 1. Ryan and Furrow Easement - Ryan and Furrow shall grant a ten foot (10’) wide gravel access within a twenty foot (20’) wide easement between the Ryan property at 110 Baxter Road and the Furrow property at 112 Baxter Road (the “Ryan/Furrow Access”) to Baxter Road over their respective land shown on a plan attached hereto as Exhibit B. 2. Sankaty Easements - Sankaty shall grant over its land at 125 Sankaty Road: (a) a twenty foot (20’) wide asphalt access within a forty foot (40’) wide easement, with possible temporary construction easements shown on a plan attached hereto as Exhibit B;(the “Sankaty Access”); and (b) a ten foot (10’) wide gravel easement on the Sankaty land running north from the Sankaty Access to the property of Richard S. Mackay, as Trustee of Richard S. Mackay 2002 Revocable Trust, and Linda M. A. Mackay, as Trustee of Linda M. A. Mackay 2002 Revocable Trust at 120 Baxter Road (“Mackay”), transitioning to a four foot (4’) gravel pedestrian path to the Lighthouse Property (the “Lighthouse Access”), for: (i) Access to the Furrow and Mackay properties and those of Stephen B. Cohen at 116 Baxter Road (“Cohen”), and Rick Hinchey, as Trustee of 114 Baxter Road Nominee Trust, at 114 Baxter Road (“Hinchey”); and (ii) Pedestrian and bicycle access to the Lighthouse Property.
1
(c) Limited access easement to the Trust over existing driveways on its properties to the Lighthouse Property for emergency and routine maintenance purposes. (d) An easement for a parking area for six (6) vehicles for use by members of the public who are visiting the Lighthouse Property (the “Sankaty Parking”). (e) An easement for a small turn-around at the point where the Alternative Access transitions from twenty feet (20’) wide to ten feet (10’). Appropriate signage and 4”x4” timber posts shall be placed at such juncture to discourage parking and travel beyond that point. The proposed Sankaty Access, Ryan/Furrow Access, Lighthouse Access, and Sankaty Parking are more particularly shown on the plan attached hereto as Exhibit B and are collectively referred to herein as the “Alternative Access.” 3. Easements to Town - In consideration of the payments made by the Town pursuant to this MOU, Sankaty, Ryan, and Furrow shall grant appropriate easements for the Alternative Access to the Town for its emergency or other official vehicles, the Wannacomet Water Company, and other public utilities for the installation, repair, maintenance, and replacement of underground utility services, as well as a temporary construction easement to construct the Alternative Access. In addition Sankaty shall grant to the Town an easement for public way purposes along the Sankaty Access which easement shall include a turnaround for the transition point. In consideration of the voluntary easement in the Ryan/Furrow Access granted to the Town and in lieu of damages, the Town shall, subject to appropriation, pay appropriate damages of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000.00) to Ryan and Furrow each(for a total of $500,000.00). The payment to Ryan and Furrow shall not be paid by the Town until such time as Baxter Road has been determined to be unsafe for vehicular passage as set forth in Paragraph 4 below, the appropriation by Town Meeting has been approved and all easements referenced in this MOU have been granted by all parties. All of such signed easements shall be held in escrow and not recorded or otherwise acted upon until such time as such payment has been made in full, and the appropriation for the construction set forth in Paragraph 4 below has been irrevocably and unconditionally made and approved. Simultaneously with the execution of this MOU all of the Baxter Neighbors as set forth on Exhibit A who own property on the east side of Baxter Road shall execute a One Big Beach Easement to the Town over their respective properties in a form substantially similar to that which is attached hereto as Exhibit C. It shall be SBPF’s, and not Ryan or Furrow’s, obligation to secure the easements from the applicable property owners. 4. Conditions and Control of Alternative Access - Access over the Alternative Access is intended as an avenue of last resort, to be used only when all reasonable efforts to save Baxter Road in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements have failed. To that end, the Alternative Access will be made available when, in the opinion of a majority of three (3) licensed Massachusetts civil engineers, one designated by the Town, one designated by the other parties hereto, and one designated by such two designated engineers Baxter Road is no longer safe for passage due to coastal erosion. Such condition shall not be construed to preclude the Town’s ability to exercise municipal authority over any public safety emergency. The Town shall reserve an easement over Baxter Road for pedestrian access. Such access shall be permitted if Baxter Road is deemed safe for pedestrian traffic by the Town Manager in consultation with the Department of Public Works Director, the Police Chief, and the Fire Chief. Except for the Sankaty Access, the Alternative Access shall remain private. The Town shall, subject to appropriation, be responsible for the initial construction of the Alternative Access (the “Project”), and thereafter the owners association referred to below shall be responsible for
2
routine maintenance and upkeep of the Alternative Access except for the Sankaty Access which shall be the responsibility of the Town when it is accepted as a public way. Subject to the conditions and limitations set forth herein and as necessary for emergency personnel (police, fire, EMT’S, ambulances, and other medical personnel), the Lighthouse Access shall be used solely for (a) vehicular and pedestrian access by Furrow, Mackay, Cohen, and Hinchey as appurtenant to their properties, and (b) pedestrian access, only, by the public and by the Trust, as appurtenant to the Lighthouse Property, and the Ryan/Furrow Access shall be used solely for vehicular and pedestrian access by Ryan, Furrow, and the Baxter Neighbors, and, under certain limited conditions set forth below, or for vehicular access only by the Trust; provided further, however, that with respect to the Baxter Neighbors, those Baxter Neighbors owning only vacant land as set forth in Exhibit A shall be entitled to use the Ryan/Furrow Access solely for the limited purpose of management and protection of such vacant land and for no other purpose, including, but not limited to, construction (other than such construction as is related to protection of such vacant land), public access, or occupancy. Included in such right of access are the guests and invitees of those having the right of access. Access over the Ryan/Furrow Access shall be controlled by appropriate signage at the westerly ends of both the Sankaty Access and the Ryan/Furrow Access; provided, however, that if the public routinely trespasses over the Ryan Furrow Access, other methods of limiting access, such as an unlocked gate, may be implemented. The Trust’s use of the Ryan/Furrow Access shall be limited as follows: (a) The Ryan/Furrow Access will be fully open to members of the public visiting the Lighthouse Property only on Father's Day Sunday and the Saturday of Columbus Day weekend. There shall be no access to members of the public visiting the Lighthouse Property over the Ryan/Furrow Access on any other days.
(b) No buses will be allowed to use the Ryan/Furrow Access. Tour vans having a maximum capacity of sixteen passengers (including the driver) may use the Ryan/Furrow Access only on the two open days noted above.
(c) The Trust may use the Ryan/Furrow Access when the Trust deems necessary in its sole discretion, including for emergency vehicles and personnel, but in no event for public access except as expressly herein provided. 5. Association - As a prerequisite to using the Alternative Access, those having the right of access shall enter into and become part of an owners association (the “Association”). The Association shall set reasonable rules and regulations for the use of the Alternative Access, including, but not limited to, coordinating services, such as utilities, landscaping, and deliveries, so as to minimize the number of vehicle trips on the Ryan/Furrow Access and shall assess and collect fees and charges for the routine maintenance and upkeep of the Alternative Access and appropriate insurance thereon. The members of the Association shall indemnify and hold Ryan, Furrow, and Sankaty harmless against any and all loss or damage arising from their use of the Alternative Access, and Ryan, Furrow, and Sankaty shall have no obligation to pay any Association fees and charges. The Town and/or County shall, subject to all statutory requirements, take whatever steps are necessary to abandon that portion of Baxter Road from the breach but no further south than the 86 Baxter Land and the Wertheimer Land, north to its northern terminus at the Lighthouse Property and shall convey such abandoned roadway to the Association, subject to a pedestrian easement for the public. In the event that the Alternative Access is not constructed for any reason or additional measures are required to provide access to any residents of Baxter Road, nothing herein shall be construed as imposing a limitation on the statutory authority of the Town to lay out and construct additional roadways, including the authority of the Town to acquire rights in such roadways
3
pursuant to eminent domain. The Town agrees that if the Alternative Access is constructed in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, the Town or County of Nantucket shall not exercise the power of eminent domain with respect to the Ryan Furrow Access. 6. Betterment Assessments – Ryan and Furrow understand that the Town intends to assess a betterment upon all applicable lots benefiting from the Alternative Access, depending upon the location of any breach in Baxter Road or the location of the failure or closure of the roadway to vehicular traffic, and that such betterment shall be for the total cost of the Project, including the $500,000 damage payment referenced in paragraph 3, and all other costs as appropriate under G.L. c. 80, but that the Furrow property and the Ryan property shall be excluded from such betterment. 7. Access Agreement - The Access Agreement, the delivery of which shall be facilitated by the best efforts of SBPF prior to construction of the Alternative Access, shall be in recordable form, which shall be recorded with the Nantucket County Registry of Deeds and the Nantucket Registry District of the Land Court by the owners of the properties assessed pursuant to Paragraph 6 herein, and shall provide that each lot owner assessed under Paragraph 6 herein shall agree to pay the betterment assessments as described above and not to contest with the Town the validity of the betterment to be assessed upon each of the Baxter Road Properties for the Project; not to contest the validity of any re-assessment of the betterments for the balance(s) due of the betterments for any Baxter Road Property whose home is no longer habitable due to erosion to be shared equally among the remaining Baxter Neighbors; and not to seek an abatement of the assessment, which amount shall be acknowledged to be proportionate to the benefit or advantage that such lots will obtain from the Project. The Town shall apportion the betterment assessments for each of the Baxter Road Properties in equal portions to be repaid for a period not to exceed the maximum term allowable. The Town’s obligations under this MOU are expressly conditioned upon delivery of the fully executed Access Agreement prior to commencement of any activities related to construction of the Alternative Access or payment of the damages specified in paragraph 3. The Access Agreement shall run with the Baxter Road Properties and be enforceable by the Town for a period of thirty (30) years from the date hereof, or until such time as the assessment upon each of the Baxter Road Properties is paid in full without protest, whichever is earlier. The Access Agreement shall also provide that until two years after the recording of an order of taking of the above-referenced easements, or six months after the assessment of the above-referenced betterments, whichever occurs later, the Baxter Neighbors shall not convey all or any part of their respective properties nor convey a mortgage upon the their respective properties, without providing the grantee or mortgagee with a true and complete copy of this MOU and the Access Agreement as signed by the Baxter Neighbor, and said Baxter Neighbor shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Town for any sum of money the Town may be obliged to pay a new owner or mortgagee as an abatement, damages or otherwise relating to said assessment or taking, if said Baxter Neighbor does not provide such copy to a new owner or mortgagee. 8. Additional Access - The parties hereto acknowledge that this MOU may only provide short-term access for a limited few homeowners. All parties remain very concerned and stand ready to work with the Town and the County to find a long-term solution for Baxter Road residents. Ryan is prepared to share engineering and other studies involving, the bluff erosion, the installation of water, sewer, and other utilities, the provision of access for police and fire services, and the overall costs.
4
9. Term of MOU. The term of the MOU shall be the same term as any permit for the bluff protection system referenced in paragraph 4. At the end of the term of the MOU this MOU shall be deemed null and void and the MOU terminated. 10. Waiver of Liability. The Town’s entering into this MOU is not evidence of any admission of liability on the part of the Town in its actions or inactions with respect to the actual or potential erosion of Baxter Road and surrounding properties (“Erosion Related Claims”), and the Baxter Neighbors waive any rights to sue the Town for Erosion Related Claims which may have accrued or arisen prior to execution of this MOU. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereto set their hands and seals as of the day referenced above. SIGNATURES TO FOLLOW cc: Sarah F. Alger Sarah F. Alger PC 2 S Water St. Nantucket, MA 02554 Kevin F. Dale, Attorney Vaughan, Dale, Hunter & Beaudette, P.C. 6 Whaler’s Lane Post Office Box 2669 Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 Steven L. Cohen, Attorney Cohen and Cohen Law, PC 34 Main Street, Second Floor Post Office Box 786 Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 Arthur I. Reade, Jr., Attorney Reade, Gullicksen, Hanley & Gifford, LLP Post Office Box 2669 Nantucket, Massachusetts 02584
5
Andrew V. Vorce, Director of Planning Planning and Land Use Services Two Fairgrounds Road Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
519974/19726/0001
6
EXHIBIT A PROPOSAL FOR ALTERNATIVE ACCESS TO NORTH END OF BAXTER ROAD Baxter Neighbors
Improved Property
Title Holder Property Address Parcel No. on Assessor’s Map 48
Sconset Trust, Inc. 122 Baxter Road 5
Patrick T. Ryan, as Trustee
Ryan Nantucket Realty Trust
110 Baxter Road
37
Ann Furrow 112 Baxter Road 36
William B. and Marilee B. Matteson 106 Baxter Road 39
James E. Walker, III and
Deborah C. Walker
104 Baxter Road
40
David S. and Dorothy O. Bailey 100 Baxter Road 42
Donald E. Claudy, as Trustee
Baxter Nominee Trust
115 Baxter Road
10
Kyle L. Latshaw and
Loretta A. Yoder
113 Baxter Road
11
John P. and Susan D. DeAngelis 109 Baxter Road 12
Janice S, Savery 98 Baxter Road 43 Alexander III and Laura R. Webb 96 Baxter Road 44 Daniel L. Korengold, Trustee of D & M
Baxter Road Nominee Trust 92, 94 Baxter Road 45.23
Laurnace J. and Jane S. Guido 90 Baxter Road Map 49, Parcel 5
86 Baxter Nominee Trust 86 Baxter Road Map 49, Parcel 36 Vacant Land
Sconset Trust, Inc. 119 Baxter Road 7
Stephen B. Cohen 117 Baxter Road 9
Whitney A. Gifford, as Trustee S.C. Nominee Trust 107A Baxter Road 14
Whitney A. Gifford, as Trustee S.C. Nominee Trust 107 Baxter Road 14.1
William B. and Marilee B. Matteson 105 Baxter Road 15
101 Baxter Road LLC 101 Baxter Road 17
Ann B. Furrow ___Baxter Road 18
Lawrence C. and Margaret McQuade 97 Baxter Road 19
Steven T and Erin F. Freeman 93 Baxter Road 21
Daniel L. Korengold, Trustee of D & M Baxter Road Nominee Trust 91 Baxter Road 45.23 Samuel and Ann Furrow 87 Baxter Road Map 49, Parcel 8
7
Jay W. Wertheimer, Trustee of Eighty Five Baxter Road Nominee Trust 85 Baxter Road Map 49, Parcel 35
8
EXHIBIT B PROPOSAL FOR ALTERNATIVE ACCESS TO NORTH END OF BAXTER ROAD
9
21597/Lighthouse/NOI 3-5 Project Description
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
back (landward) side of the third tube prior to backfilling the bench. This scour apron
has a small 3’ circumference anchor tube attached to it; no excavation into the bank will
be required to place the scour apron or anchor tube.
12. The tier 4 geotextile tube will be placed and filled in a manner similar to the tier 3
geotextile tube.
13. The returns will be installed by excavating the initial trench for the lowest tiers and then
filling all tiers using the slurry system.
14. Once all geotextile tubes are filled, the entire structure will be covered with pit sand using
the excavators and the bulldozer.
Construction Access
All construction equipment will access the beach from Hoick’s Hollow. All construction
vehicles will be fueled in the Hoick’s Hollow parking lot area; non-mobile or less-mobile
equipment such as the hydraulic pump will be filled on the beach using a small transfer tank.
Template Sand Delivery
Sand will be delivered from island pits to the site via dump trucks. The dump trucks will
deliver the sand to the sand delivery area(s), where it will be pushed over the edge and onto
the geotextile tubes below. Sand delivery locations for the Proposed Project include the
existing sand delivery area at the access between 85/87 Baxter Road and two new locations:
the access between 105/107 Baxter Road and the access between 71/73 Baxter Road.
Vegetation
Planting of vegetation will not require equipment on the beach or any access via Hoick’s
Hollow. Planting will be accomplished by men working on the face of the bank, with access
from the top. To ensure vegetation efforts are successful, a minor addition of sand will be
added as needed to prepare the planting bed by smoothing out some of the deeper rills and
gullies.
3.5 Alternatives
Multiple alternatives were considered during extensive hearings on the Existing Project.
These previous analyses are also relevant for the Proposed Project. The following information
previously-developed for the Existing Project is not repeated here but is incorporated by
reference:
1. An Alternatives Analysis was included as Attachment E to the original Revetment NOI
filed with the Commission on July 3, 2013 and is reproduced here as Attachment I.
This Alternatives Analysis evaluated the following options: Geotextile Tubes, Beach
21597/Lighthouse/NOI 3-6 Project Description
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Nourishment, Dewatering, Breakwater, Groin, Seawall, Drift Fence, Coastal Bank
Terraces, Marine Mattress and Gabion System, and Revetment.
2. An analysis of alternatives was provided in the supplemental information for the
Notice of Intent for the geotextile tubes in a letter prepared by Milone & MacBroom
dated October 25, 2013. This is reproduced here as Attachment J.
3. A review of jute/coir was included throughout the record of the Existing Project,
including in the March 14, 2014 Supplemental Information presented to the
Commission. This is reproduced here as Attachment K.
4. During the SOC process for the Geotextile Tube Project, the use of jute/coir for the
upper portion (third, fourth and/or fifth tiers) of the geotextile tube structure was
exhaustively evaluated in a supplemental Alternatives Analysis submitted to the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) on October 23, 2014;
this document is reproduced here as Attachment L. In its cover letter issuing the SOC
(reproduced here as Attachment M), DEP concurred that “the supplemental
[alternatives] analysis supported SBPF's need for a fourth tier and returns composed
of geotextile” and did not require the use of jute/coir for any part of the Existing
Geotextile Tube Project.
These Alternatives Analyses have consistently led to a determination that the preferred
alternative for the Project area is geotextile tubes (though a revetment is also considered
feasible). As explained in the above documents and throughout the record for the Existing
Project, the review of jute/coir has consistently demonstrated that, while a coir/jute system
may be appropriate in some situations (such as riverine or low-velocity environments), it is
not at all sufficient as an alternative for the Project area. Coir and jute are not recommended
for any part of the erosion control structure because they completely lack durability to
withstand storm conditions experienced regularly at the site, are designed to completely fail
and require frequent replacement, and would require a significant time period (estimated at
six-eight weeks or more for a single 900 foot tier) for replacement, during which all or part of
the sand template would not be available to the littoral system. As has been demonstrated at
the Project site, the failure of the coir/jute terraces leaves the bank vulnerable to catastrophic
losses during major, successive, or multi-day storms. Because the Project area has little or no
ability to absorb additional bank loss, coir/jute are not considered a viable option. Finally,
the purported benefits of the use of jute/coir have been shown to be both minimal and
compensated for by the substantial mitigation volume.
Based on the significant extent of alternatives analyses prepared for the Existing Project, and
on ongoing engineering analyses, geotextile tubes have been identified as the preferred
alternative for the Proposed Project area due to their ability to provide protection in the high
energy environment at Sconset and the ability to mitigate impacts through careful monitoring
and mitigation.
Submitted to:
Nantucket Conservation Commission
2 Bathing Beach Road
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Submitted by:
Siasconset Beach Preservation Fund
c/o Jenny Garneau
18 Sasapana Road
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
July 2, 2013
Notice of Intent
(M.G.L. c. 131, §40) and Town of Nantucket Wetlands Bylaw Chapter 136
Prepared by:
Epsilon Associates, Inc.
3 Clock Tower Place, Suite 250
Maynard, Massachusetts 01754
In Association with:
Ocean and Coastal Consultants, Inc.
475 School Street, Unit 9
Marshfield, MA 02050
BAXTER ROAD AND SCONSET BLUFF
STORM DAMAGE PREVENTION PROJECT
21597/Sconset 6 Erosion Control Recommendations for Sconset
2.0 Alternatives for Road and Bluff Protection
This section provides a summary description of ten alternatives for preventing erosion of the
coastal bank at Sconset.
2.1 Geotextile Tubes
Geotextile tubes (geotubes) are fabricated from high strength, woven polyester or
polypropylene sewn together into a tube shape and filled with sand. A conceptual geotube
design for a 50-year storm would consist of at least four 30-foot-circumference geotextile
tubes installed in a terraced alignment and covered with clean sand fill. Construction
would require excavating the existing profile to +4.5 feet MLW and installing a 3-foot-
circumference anchor tube and scour apron. Geotubes would then be installed and filled
on the excavated terraces to approximately 5 feet tall and 11 feet wide. After the geotubes
were filled, a clean sand fill would be placed to a top elevation of approximately +23.5
feet MLW. The sand fill would be placed on a 1 vertical: 2.5 horizontal slope to meet
existing grade while maintaining a continuous one foot thick sand cover over the filled
tubes.
Geotextile tubes are not well-suited to a high energy environment like Sconset. Too much
scour at the toe could potentially lead to structural failure (even when a scour apron is
included in the design). Geotubes are susceptible to damage from vandalism, debris, and
storm waves; storm-driven debris may puncture and tear the tube. For this reason,
maintenance costs for geotubes tend to be higher than for other alternatives. When ripped
open by storm waves, geotextile tubes may fail in place, emptying sand onto the beach and
possibly releasing geotextile material to the coastal environment. The release of sacrificial
sand would not have any adverse environmental effects since clean, beach-compatible sand
would be used to fill the tubes. However, replacement of the geotube would be expected
to be required on a frequent basis (one or more times annually). Such replacement often
cannot be accomplished between successive storms, potentially leaving the bank
vulnerable to wave-induced scarping at the toe (and subsequent slumping of the upper
bank, which undermines vegetative stabilization that otherwise works) at the time when
protection is most needed. For these reasons, geotubes are not considered a viable long-
term erosion control solution.
2.2 Beach Nourishment
Beach nourishment would involve the placement of approximately 2.6 million cubic yards
of sand on Sconset Beach. The nourished beach would be approximately 200 feet wide
with a berm height of 12-16 feet above MLW. Sand would be obtained from an offshore
borrow site; a likely candidate would be the offshore shoal system known as Bass Rip,
though other potential sites could also be evaluated. The wider beach would absorb and
dissipate wave energy, thereby increasing protection to infrastructure and property
threatened by erosion and storm damage. Additionally, the wider beach would potentially
7.1.18
THEN
AND
NOW
THEN
-‐
2013
NOW
-‐
2018
Public
infrastructure
along
northern
Baxter
Road
was
threatened
by
erosion.
Public
infrastructure
along
northern
Baxter
Road,
and
the
area
of
the
proposed
expansion,
is
NOT
threatened
by
erosion.
The
single
access
to
the
private
properties
located
on
northern
Baxter
Road,
and
to
Sankaty
Lighthouse,
was
threatened
by
erosion.
There
was
no
alternative
access
available.
The
Town
now
has
easements
to
provide
alternative
access
to
the
private
properties
located
on
northern
Baxter
Road,
as
well
as
to
Sankaty
Lighthouse,
should
it
be
needed.
Also,
the
lateral
ways
running
from
Sankaty
Road
to
Baxter
Road
provide
alternative
access
to
the
properties
located
in
the
mid-‐Baxter
Road
area
should
it
be
needed.
An
emergency
was
declared
by
the
BOS.
There
is
no
emergency.
SBPF
and
the
Town
entered
into
a
“Public
Private
Partnership”
and
submitted
a
joint
application
to
the
Conservation
Commission
under
an
Emergency
Order.
SBPF
has
alone
applied
to
the
ConCom
unilaterally
to
expand
the
geotube
seawall.
The
geotube
seawall
was
untried.
The
geotube
seawall
has
destroyed
900
linear
feet
of
habitat
on
a
public
beach.
It
has
also
degraded
the
quality
of
that
beach
and
has
impeded
the
public’s
right
to
pass
and
re-‐pass
on
its
own
beach.
Our
local
Conservation
Commission
had
not
made
any
determination
about
a
geotube
seawall.
Our
local
Conservation
Commission,
after
seven
months
of
hearings,
voted
NOT
to
permit
the
geotube
seawall,
finding
that
it
would
have
harmful
environmental
impacts
and
there
were
reasonable
alternatives.
When
the
State
overruled
their
decision
on
appeal
by
SBPF,
the
Commission
again
voted
to
appeal
that
decision
to
Superior
Court.1
The
ConCom
has
already
opined
on
the
geotube
seawall.
1
As
mentioned
previously,
there
were
three
PhD
scientists
on
the
ConCom
during
this
period:
Dr.
Ernie
Steinauer,
Chair;
Dr.
Sarah
Oktay;
and
Dr.
Jennifer
Karberg.