HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-10-1--5 pm ConCom Minutes for October 1,2020,adopted Oct. 15
N A PT U C K c i
TOyNCONSERVATION COMMISSION
CLERK
� TUCF
4�� A PUBLIC MEETING
,� 1,,, .. , 2 Bathing Beach Road
,, 1 = Nantucket,Massachusetts 02554
coe` 2:t0 OCT IL AN 9
1u9oaac °
`Y Thursday,
October 1,2020—5:00 p.m.
This meeting was held via remote participation using ZOOM and YouTube,
Pursuant to Governor Baker's March 12, 2020 Order Regarding Open Meeting Law
Commissioners: Ashley Erisman (Chair), Ian Golding(Vice Chair),David LaFleur,Joe Topham,
Seth Engelbourg,Maureen Phillips,and Mark Beale
Called to order at 5:00 p.m.by Ms.Erisman
Staff in attendance: Jeff Carlson,Natural Resources Director;Joanne Dodd,Natural Resources Coordinator
Attending Members: Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale
Agenda adopted by unanimous consents
*Matter has not been heard
I. PUBLIC MEETING
A. Announcements
B. Public Comment—(see Item III.H.3.)
II. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Notice of Intent
1. The Town of Nantucket—34 Washington Street(42.2.3-2)SE48-3300
Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale
Documentation Site and topographical plans,photos,requisite departmental reports and correspondence.
Representative Tarja McGrail,Coastal
Charles Gibson,Deputy Police Chief
Public D.Anne Atherton,Nantucket Coastal Resiliency
Discussion(5:12) McGrail—This has been approved by the Nantucket Historic District Commission(HDC).
Gibson—The HDC approved the footprint with minor architectural changes.The outbuilding for emergency
equipment trailer was deleted from the HDC plan;on this plan it is a pad at grade.
Carlson — Ms. Atherton asks whether or not this will be reviewed by consultant for the Coastal Resiliency
Plan.The review was done prior to submission.
Staff Have everything needed to close.
Motion Motion to Close. (made by:Beale) (seconded)
Roll-call Vote Carried 7-0//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-aye
2. Kim Glowacki—46 Easton Street(42.4.1-22)SE48-3285
Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale
Documentation Site and topographical plans,photos,requisite departmental reports and correspondence.
Representative Dan Bailey,Pierce Attwood,L.P.
Dan Wells,Goddard Consulting
Don Bracken,Bracken Engineering
Public None
Discussion(5:17) Bailey — We have eliminated the plan to reconstruct the bulkhead. We recharged roof drains and adding
planting beds and added 5-foot pedestrian access easement. Reminded the commission this is a relocation of
an existing structure and construction of a new structure eliminating all structure within the 25-foot structure
and reduced the coverage within the 50-foot buffer. The existing dune is being extended the rest of the way
across to provide coastal protection rather than rebuilding the bulkhead. It is our position that this is
approvable due to the reduction of structure within the buffer zones and invasive species mitigation.
Bracken—Explained the recharge zones and planting beds for roof runoff.
Beale—He met the owner and was given a tour of the property.
Golding—Asked if the public access goes all the way to the beach.
Bailey—Access will go to the beach and extends along below the high-water mark.
Engelbourg—About the extended coastal dune, the bulkhead is shown as being left; asked if that could be
removed.
Wells — We understand the commission was against any activity regarding the bulkhead; it would improve
things if we could restore a part of it.We are showing filling in the eroded gap with sand and beach grass.
Engelbourg — We don't want it restored; but it makes more sense to have no bulkhead. The dune would
function as a resource area and want the area to be more naturalized.
Bailey — We previously talked about removing the bulkhead would require substantial excavation. He's
believes that over time,the bulkhead will be covered as the dune fields build up.
Page 1 of 10
ConCom Minutes for October 1,2020,adopted Oct 15
7. Nantucket Island Land Bank(NILB)—35 Almanack Pond Road(46-7.1)SE48-3317
Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale
Documentation Site and topographical plans,photos,requisite departmental reports and correspondence.
Representative Rachael Freeman,NILB
Taylor Donovan,NILB
Public None
Discussion(6:17) Donovan—Reviewed the proposal;we provided a vegetation plan.
Engelbourg —Asked for a link to be added to the sign leading to expanded information more about the
project.
Staff Have everything needed to close.
Motion Motion to Close. (made by:Topham) (seconded)
Roll-call Vote Carried 7-0//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-aye
)
8. *Nantucket Islands Land Bank—All Land Bank Properties(Various)SE48-3337
Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale
Documentation Site and topographical plans,photos,requisite departmental reports and correspondence.
Representative Rachael Freeman,NILB
Taylor Donovan,NILB
Public None
Discussion(6:22) Freeman —This is to permit all maintenance work around wetlands, wetland buffers, and wetland resource
areas. We have not received feedback from Massachusetts Natural Heritage. One benefit is we would renew
this every three years;any changes in activity would be brought to you every three years.Reviewed the type of
work that recurs in wetland resource areas.
Carlson—We've been talking about this at the staff level for a while;it came from discussions about activities
the Department of Public Works (DPW) does within resource areas. It would provide our people with
something to understand how and what is being done.
Beale—Asked if this is across the board or if eachPew'
Pro would have a set of conditions.
Freeman—we included a field maintenance guide;we could specify what goes on there.It's challenging to do
individual orders for each property.
Beale — He would anticipate other foundations might come in for a carte blanche without commission
oversight.
Freeman—A difference is this is public land and the others are private land.
Golding—This wouldn't be a blanket permit for the DPW.Asked where you would draw the line_
Freeman—We would be restricted to activities called out in this NOI.
Carlson—This wouldn't be any new work,that would require a new filing.This would memorialize practices
on current things being maintained.
Topham — He understands this as Mr. Carlson explained it. Maintenance is necessary, and this would save
them time,especially in responding to calls.
Engelbourg—He supports this though out NOI.Requested the maintenance logs come to the Commission.
On the Field Maintenance Guide, the description for some items is vague. On bulkhead and boardwalk
replacements,he would like those to be reviewed for more environmentally alternatives.
Erisman—Agrees with Mr. Engelbourg. Maintenance and repairs could be differentiated in respect to what
requires machinery.Vista pruning has gotten the Land Bank in trouble;that might need to specific. Mowing is
another concern:clearing a field versus trail maintenance.
Freeman—Agrees we need to provide more information and clarification on pruning and mowing.One issue
is that people are vista pruning trees on our property; if we have ConCom permission to do limited vista
pruning,the hope is that neighboring property owners will do it illegally;the Land Bank has no recourse.
Engelbourg — The ConCom has recourse against people who are pruning Land Bank trees. Suggested
looking for anything considered structural need to have maintenance and repair defined. When mowing is
happening,it would be good for the Commission to be informed as to why. About vista pruning, it sounds
like there are established heights and views that exist that aren't memorialized; it would be helpful for areas
where vista pruning is happening to provide photos and heights.
Topham — Agrees with what Mr. Engelbourg said about people performing illegal work on Land Bank
property;call us so we can issue the violation notice.
Golding—Looking at the draft proposal for scheduled violations,this brings into focus how devastating vista
pruning can be;we should have a discussion going forward.Thinks Mr.Engelbourg's suggestion is excellent.
Freeman—Asked for a 2-week continuance.
Staff There are a lot of situations that come up when we talk with the Land Bank and try to resolve it before it
becomes a full enforcement order. This proposal would help Staff in we know what they are doing
maintenance-wise.
Motion Continued October 156.
Roll-call Vote N/A
9. Tina Eger McGoldrick Trust—33 Quidnet Road(21-27.2)SE48-3327 (Cont. 10/15/2020)
Page 4 of 10
ConCom Minutes for October 1,2020,adopted Oct. 15
10.*Fourteen Mayhew Lane N.T—14 Mayhew Lane(41-147)SE48-3349
Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale
Documentation Site and topographical plans,photos,requisite departmental reports and correspondence.
Representative David M.Haines,Haines Hydrogeologic Consulting
Public None
Discussion(6:54) Haines — This is for an addition on a shed in the buffer to a isolated vegetated wetland on the adjacent
property; outside the buffer to a bordering vegetated wetland. There will be no foundation and all within
existing lawn;no dewatering necessary with minimal soil disturbance.Disturbed areas will be seeded.
Staff We reviewed the site and the wetland delineation.
Have everything needed to close.
Motion Motion to Close. (made by:Golding) (seconded)
Roll-call Vote Carried 7-0//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-aye
11.*Abramson—80 Millbrook Road(40-79.1)SE48-3340
Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale
Documentation Site and topographical plans,photos,requisite departmental reports and correspondence.
Representative Mark Rits,Site Design Engineering
Public None
Discussion(6:58) Rits—One main concern was maintaining 50%or greater of native vegetation within the buffers;most of the
area being altered is existing lawn; 50.3% of the native plants will be maintained. Received no take from
Massachusetts Natural Heritage.
Engelbourg — Objects to classification of the existing lawn; he conducted a site visit today. Reviewed the
types of native plants he saw.
Erisman — Pitch Pines are a concern; asked how many pitch pines would come down because those are
habitat for long-eared bats.The habitat value seems to be underrepresented in the packet.
Golding— He met the previous owners out there and agrees with Ms. Erisman and Mr. Engelbourg. He'd
like to see a landscape photo superimposed on the plat plan to clarify what is threatened.He's concerned with
how the wetland delineation is drawn.There is room for this complex on the other side of the house.
Rits —In terms of the wetland delineation, there was a lot of effort to flag the plants and survey them; the
plan is as accurate as it possibly can be. This project has been reviewed by Massachusetts Natural Heritage,
which doesn't feel endangered species are impacted. There are a significant number of pitch pines on the
upland side of the property.All structural components are outside the 50-foot buffer and feel this is similar to
many proposals outside the 50-foot buffer.
Topham—He thinks it is important to maintain the bat habitat; suggested putting the complex elsewhere so
as not to have to remove so many trees.It's not shown on the plan how many trees would be removed.
Phillips—It seems a lot of work must be done to create a flat area for the pool and dwelling,given the grade
drop. It looks like the pool will be at elevation 20 and the retaining wall will be at elevation 14;we have no
information about the retaining wall. The walkway has stepping stones and leads to a path which becomes a
boardwalk;also,don't have information on that.
Rits — We can do an inventory of pitch pines and what will be removed; we can provide additional
information on the wall and pool and stepping stones.
Engelbourg— It's not just random pines across the site, there's canopy coverage,light filtration, etc. Once
we know how many and which trees will be impacted,we can discuss mitigation.
Erisman—Source pitch pines can be an issue.
Beale—Asked if the applicant considered a different location than within our jurisdiction.
Rits—They would like to have this on the pond side for aesthetic and enjoyment reasons.
Beale—Asked if the existing pool will be abandoned. (Yes.)
Golding—Asked for a satellite overlay on the plot plan to provide a visual image of the proposal.The tennis
court could also be sited outside the 50-foot buffer and possibly outside the 100-foot buffer.
Rits—Asked for a 2-week continuance to provide additional information.
Staff None
Motion Continued October 15th.
Roll-call Vote N/A
12.New England Development—Commercial Wharf(42.2.4.3-Various)SE48-3342
Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale
Documentation Site and topographical plans,photos,requisite departmental reports and correspondence.
Representative Kathrine Barnicle,Senior Wetland Scientist A.E.Com
Mike Duffy,New England Development
Richard Beaudette,Vaughan,Dale,Hunter,and Beaudette P.C.
Public None
Discussion(7:17) None
Staff This was left open to put together the order.
Motion Motion to Close. (made by:Topham) (seconded)
Roll-call Vote Carried 7-0//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-aye
Page 5 of 10
ConCom Minutes for October 1,2020,adopted Oct 15
13.*46 Shimmo Pond Road N.T—46 Shimmo Pond Road(43-77)SE48-3343
Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale
Documentation Site and topographical plans,photos,requisite departmental reports and correspondence.
Representative Dan Bailey,Pierce Attwood,L.P.
Jack Vaccaro,Epsilon Associates Inc.
Art Gasbarro,Nantucket Engineering&Survey
Public R.J.Turcotte,Nantucket Land Council,Inc.
Discussion(7:18) Bailey—This is a reconstruction of a pier;reduced the proposal to lessen impact on land under the ocean and
eel grass beds.
Vaccaro — Reviewed the proposal. No longer extending into Massachusetts Natural Heritage jurisdiction.
Reviewed the study of eelgrass density in the area of the proposed dock. The area of existing dock to be
removed is 19 square feet (SF); the replacement is 19 SF. Reviewed impact on the resource areas: coastal
beach,land under the ocean,land containing shellfish,and eelgrass zone. Explained mitigation:protection of
species,water circulation. The project meets all performance standards of the Nantucket bylaw and Wetlands
Protection Act(WPA).
Gasbarro—Explained the pier design:5 feet above mean high water,narrow,and reconfigured_
Topham—One problem is you're not allowed to put docks into the harbor.Another problem is prop wash
to the fragile eelgrass.He doesn't think this will work and this application should be withdrawn.
Beale — He's troubled by how they will plan to build this in while there is a moratorium against building
docks on the harbor;no one has challenged the moratorium until now.
Vaccaro—It is in fact a dock and has a Chapter 91 licenses; the Department for Environmental Protection
(DEP)reviewed this and consider it a water dependent use and a dock.
Bailey—Regarding the moratorium,we feel we have the ability to go forward with under the protection for
pre-existing structures. We will go to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) for a special permit for this dock
There will be ample opportunity under the ZBA to discuss whether or not this is a grandfathered dock Asked
the ConCom to stick to their jurisdiction.
Phillips—Her objection is the impact on the eelgrass;it will make it difficult for eelgrass to reestablish. We
need to do everything we can to maintain eelgrass. There is another dock not far away; there have been
comments that there is an available and clearly grandfathered dock thus we would not be denying the
applicant the ability to put a boat into the water.
LaFleur — His concern, aside from the zoning issue or the moratorium, is the very fragile resource of the
eelgrass.The proposal doesn't help with the rejuvenation of eelgrass in that area.
Engelbourg—Reviewed local performance standards and WPA which he believes this project cannot meet
Section 208(B), Section 3,Section 48(B),and CMR 10-25. The applicant has access to the waterfront and an
existing mooring.
Erisman — She agrees with the fellow commissioners about the proximity to existing eelgrass when our
harbor is at a critical tipping point. Allowing this would be against the regulations and resource areas we are
charged to protect.
Vaccaro—He heard about the issue of the mooring ball tied to the dock;if the applicant doesn't get a dock,
he's going to get a mooring permit. The impact of a single mooring chain dragging across the bottom is
greater than this dock. Explained why he disagrees with Mr. Engelbourg regarding the three local
performance standards:barge access at high tide only,there is no snorkeling,mitigation for scallops.
Golding — Referenced letter from Division of Marine Fisheries addressing consideration of construction
barge,prop dredging caused by motor vessels,allowing only non-motorized vessels approaching and using the
pier. Given the nature of this application and our efforts to reestablish eelgrass habitat, this project puts that
in jeopardy.
Dodd—From Kevin Kuester,the Nantucket Shellfish Association strongly opposes this application.
Turcotte—The DEP guidelines for building a dock is based upon data by Burdick and Short and their work
on Nantucket Harbor; Burdick wrote a letter strongly opposing building a pier in this area. Mooring are
temporary and can be moved regardless of the scour.Nantucket has been slow regarding ecologically friendly
moorings;when Nantucket adopts that technology,moorings will have the least impact on the ocean bottom.
Nantucket Land Council was out there planting more eelgrass;hoping for a 60% survival rate.The applicant
already has a pier and the neighbor's dock.Permitting this will open a'Pandora's Box."
Engelbourg—Eelgrass,if allowed,can spread and restore the area within 10 years.
Topham—There is also a letter from the Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board (SHAB),which opposes this
project.
Bailey—Asked for a 1-month continuance.
Staff The SHAB letter is included in the packet and will be discussed at their next meeting.
Motion Continued to October 29th.
Roll-call Vote N/A
Page 6 of 10
ConCom Minutes for October 1,2020,adopted Oct. 15
14.*ACK007 Properties,LLC—46 Walsh Street(29-101.1)SE48-3346
Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale
Documentation Site and topographical plans,photos,requisite departmental reports and correspondence.
Representative Art Gasbarro,Nantucket Engineering&Survey
Public None
Discussion(8:01) Gasbarro—For a shed on piers and reconfigured walkway within land subject to coastal storm flowage.
Staff Have everything needed to close.
Motion Motion to Close. (made by:Engelbourg) (seconded)
Roll-call Vote Carried 7-0//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-aye
15.*Peter E.Halle and Carolyn B.Lamm—24 Pilgrim Road(41-94)SE48-3347 (Cont.10/15/2020)
III. PUBLIC MEETING
C. Minor Modifications
1. Norton—24 North Cambridge Street(38-20)SE148-2765 Withdrawn
D. Certificates of Compliance
1. Jeffrey Johnston,TR of the Jeffrey H Johnston Trust—131 Wauwinet Road(12-5)SE48-2201
Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale
Representative None
Staff For installation of tight tanks;constructed in compliance and recommend issue.
Discussion(8:04) None
Motion Motion to Issue. (made by:Beale) (seconded)
Roll-call Vote Carried 7-0//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-aye
2. 100R Wauwinet Road Nominee Trust—100R Wauwinet Road(11-24.3)NAN-130
Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale
Representative None
Staff For installation of I/A system within jurisdiction;constructed in compliance and recommend issue.
Discussion(8:05) None
Motion Motion to Issue. (made by:Phillips) (seconded)
Roll-call Vote Carried 7-0//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-aye
3. Peter Glazer,PKG Design Build,LLC—3&3A Pilgrim Road(41-612&613 Lot 1O&11)SE48-2382
Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale
Representative Mark Rits,Site Design Engineering
Staff In compliance.
Discussion(8:06) Rits—For construction of retention basis within 100-foot buffer;completed substantially in compliance.
Motion Motion to Issue. (made by:LaFleur) (seconded)
Roll-call Vote Carried//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-aye
4. S/P Norwell LLC,c/o New England Development—Lot 3 Mariner Way(55.1.4-72)SE48-2745(Cont. 11/19/2020)
5. 11 Meadow Lane,LLC—11B Meadow Lane(41-448.1)SE48-3098
Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale
Representative None
Staff For redevelopment including a pool and patio;it is in compliance and recommends issue.
Discussion(8:07) None
Motion Motion to Issue. (made by:Golding) (seconded)
Roll-call Vote Carried 7-0//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-aye
6. 247,LLC—7 Walsh Street(42.4.1-55)SE48-3120
Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale
Representative None
Staff Issued an amended order recently;now in compliance and recommend issue.
Discussion(8:09) None
Motion Motion to Issue. (made by:Topham) (seconded)
Roll-call Vote Carried 7-0//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-aye
7. 101 Baxter Road,LLC—101 Baxter Road(48-17)SE48-1468
8. Robert Berwick&Marilyn Matz—101 &103 Baxter Road(48-17&40)SE48-1137
Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale
•
Representative None
Staff We can take these two together.Relocation of house off the site;both are in compliance.
Discussion(8:10) None
Motion Motion to Issue SE48-1468 and SE48-1137. (made by:Beale) (seconded)
Roll-call Vote Carried 7-0//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-aye
Page 7 of 10
ConCom Minutes for October 1,2020,adopted Oct. 15
9. Price—10 Long Pond Road(59-24)SE48-3223
Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Beale
Representative None
Staff Did a recent amended order including solar array;now in compliance and recommend issue.
Discussion(8:11) None
Motion Motion to Issue. (made by:Beale) (seconded)
Roll-call Vote Carried 6-0//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,and Topham-aye;Phillips recused
10.Sylvia—51 Meadowview Drive(56-389)SE48-868
Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale
Representative None
Staff We confirmed septic was constructed in compliance with Board of Health permit;recommend issue.
Discussion(8:12) None
Motion Motion to Issue. (made by:Topham) (seconded)
Roll-call Vote Carried 7-0//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-aye
11.Sylvia R.T—39 Meadowview Drive(56-13) SE48-29
Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale
Representative None
Staff From late 1970s;did our best to confirm it is compliance and recommend issue.
Discussion(8:13) None
Motion Motion to Issue. (made by:LaFleur) (seconded)
Roll-call Vote Carried 7-0//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-aye
12.Calmen—334 Madaket Road(60-141)SE48-3030
Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale
Representative None
Staff Seeking invalidation:no work done or proposed.
Discussion(8:14) None
Motion Motion to Invalidate the Order of Conditions. (made by:Phillips) (seconded)
Roll-call Vote Carried 7-0//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-aye
E. Orders of Condition
1. The Town of Nantucket—34 Washington Street(42.2.3-2) SE48-3300
Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale
Documentation Draft Order of Conditions
Staff This is for the Harbor Master building. Included a photo monitoring condition. In the overview part,he will
include construction of a concrete pad;use of a porous material was a question for the public hearing.
Discussion(8:18) Golding — The pad, asked if it's necessary to draw attention there are no construction plans for the pad
Asked if the pad materials could be porous.
Motion Motion to Issue as amended. (made by:Golding) (seconded)
Roll-call Vote Carried 7-0//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-aye
2. The Town of Nantucket Pier—34 Washington Street(42-2.3.2)SE48-3332
Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale
Documentation Draft Order of Conditions
Staff This is for the extension of wave attenuator.Included a condition about the siltation.
Discussion(8:22) Topham—Mr.Bailey pointed out that this is a safety issue and that's why it was approved.
Motion Motion to Issue as drafted. (made by:Beale) (seconded)
Roll-call Vote Carried 7-0//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-aye
3. Kim Glowacki—46 Easton Street(42.4.1-22)SE48-3285
Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale
Documentation None
Staff Asked for a discussion to help craft an Order of Conditions.
You will have to make findings related to the waiver request and possibly issue waivers not requested; you
have the ability to decide whether or not aspects of the project meet the waiver requirements. If you are
looking at a negative order,those might apply to local regulations only;we could end up with a positive order
related to state regulations and negative related to local.
He's happy to draft two orders.
Discussion(8:24) Erisman—It might be wise to see which way the commission falls: approve or deny. She is not comfortable
issuing an order for this project due to new construction within proximity to a dune field.
Golding—Suggested drafting two opinions: for and against. He is completely tom Despite the argument for
a net benefit,there is new construction within the 50-foot buffer.
Phillips—Doesn't want to approve new construction within the 50-foot buffer.
Topham — He felt we helped them craft a plant that would be beneficial; restore dune, raise houses onto
piers,more water being absorb.
Engelbourg—His concern is related to local regulation rather than the WPA. He does agree there are some
benefits, especially with lifting the house. He would have preferred to see more restoration work leading to a
Page 8 of 10
.rrommor
ConCom Minutes for October 1,2020,adopted Oct. 15
greater net benefit. He's still struggling to see the long-term net benefit especially with the new structure
within the 50-foot buffer.
LaFleur—He thinks there are a lot of benefits here: everything is moving out of the 25-foot buffer with a
reduction in the 50-foot buffer; elimination of the foundation allowing water flow. He's concerned that the
denial will result in no change.
Beale—He too is still troubled by all the construction within the 50-foot buffer and the intense use of the site
within our jurisdiction.He is not in favor of this.
Erisman—We need two orders and looking at both State and local regulations.
Motion Continued to October 15th.
Roll-call Vote N/A
4. Robert E.Furdak—26 West Chester Street(42.4.3-56)SE48-3345
Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale
Documentation Draft Order of Conditions
Staff Reviewed adjustments made based upon tonight's discussion: Condition 21 regarding use of herbicide,
pesticide and fertilizer;Added Condition 28 regarding draining the patio and Condition 29 requiring a filing
planting plan as a minor modification.
Discussion(8:39) None
Motion Motion to Issue as amended. (made by:Golding) (seconded)
Roll-call Vote Carried 7-0//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-aye
5. Nantucket Island Land Bank—35 Almanack Pond Road(46-7.1)SE48-3317
Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale
Documentation Draft Order of Conditions
Staff Has a photo-monitoring condition. Suggested an additional Finding Nr. 2 encouraging linking the signage
through R-codes and links.
Discussion(8:41) Phillips—Suggested requiring adding"QR squiggly thing"to the sign.
Motion Motion to Approve as amended. (made by:Topham) (seconded)
Roll-call Vote Carried 6-1//Beale,Engelbourg,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-aye;Erisman-nay
6. Fourteen Mayhew Lane N.T—14 Mayhew Lane(41-147)SE48-3349
Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale
Documentation Draft Order of Conditions
Staff No waivers and no additional conditions.
Discussion(8:45) None
Motion Motion to Issue as drafted. (made by:LaFleur) (seconded)
Roll-call Vote Carried 7-0//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-aye
7. New England Development—Commercial Wharf(42.2.4.3-Various)SE48-3342
Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale
Documentation Draft Order of Conditions
Staff This mirrors the one for Old South Wharf with the same conditions. Conditioned siltation containment and
storing materials off site.
Discussion(8:46) None
Motion Motion to Issue as drafted. (made by:Beale) (seconded)
Roll-call Vote Carried 7-0//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-aye
8. ACK007 Properties,LLC—46 Walsh Street(29-101.1)SE48-3346
Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale
Documentation Draft Order of Conditions
Staff None
Discussion(8:47) Phillips—she didn't see on the application that the shed would be on piers.
Gasbarro—It will be supported by blocks or piers on the corners;there is no full foundation.
Motion Motion to Issue as drafted. (made by:Golding) (seconded)
Roll-call Vote Carried 7-0//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-aye
F. Extension Request
1. Net Zero,LLC—Lot 2 Fisher Lane(formerly 101 Low Beach Street) (75-32)SE48-3020
Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale
Representative Mark Rits,Site Design Engineering
Staff None
Discussion(8:15) Rits—Was for a driveway,garage,and landscaping within buffer to isolated vegetated wetland.Land has been
cleared but the site changed ownership. The new owner wants to continue with the previously approved
work.Would like 3 1-year extensions.
Motion Motion to Issue 3 1-year extensions. (made by:LaFleur) (seconded)
Roll-call Vote Carried 7-0//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-aye
G. Public Hearing
1.Amendment of the Town of Nantucket Conservation Commission Wetland Protection Regulations(Cont.10/15/2020)
3 n___ n _tIn
...........
ConCom Minutes for October 1,2020,adopted Oct. 15
H. Other Business
1. Approval of Minutes 09/17/2020:
Phillips—Had requested minor corrections;asked if those had been included.
Carlson—Will forward those to the Minutes Taker.
Motion(8:49) Motion to Approve as amended. (made by:Topham) (seconded)
Roll-call Vote Carried 7-0//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-aye
2. Discussion of SBPF—77-122 Baxter Road SE 48-1659;SBPF—65-67 Baxter Road SE48-1602(Cont. 10/15/2020)
3. BSS Hummock Pond,LLC&Hummock Pond Holdings,LLC—287/289 Hummock Pond Road(83-4/39)SE48-3320
Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale
Speakers Burton Balkind
Discussion(5:04) Carlson—Mr.Balkind had questions about the status of the move and clean up;some remaining debris might
have caused damage to the coastal bank west of the house. We've been doing regular site inspections; the
house has been moved so no emergency cert has been issued. The move was also covered by an Order of
Conditions with a provision requiring removal of the exposed septic.An issue is getting access onto the beach
for machinery to remove concrete.
Erisman—During the previous discussion,we had talked about removing the septic immediately; this now
serves as a warning for immediate removal when on the coast like this.
4. Reports:
a.CRAC,Golding
b.CPC,Topham
c.NP&EDC,Phillips
5. Commissioners Comment
a.Topham — There is a Cycle for Open Space by Nantucket Conservation Foundation to maintain trails; a virtual
fundraise over Columbus Day Weekend.The plan is next year it will be expanded to include categories for school-age
competitors across the moors with proceeds going to all the conservation land owners.
b.Beale — When there is an alternative site for an applicant to move a structure outside ConCom jurisdiction, asked
when does the Commission require the project be moved versus conditioning to comply with performance standards.
Carlson — On a normal site with buffers and no encumbrances and it meets the performance standards, the
commission can't require it be moved. For other sites,the Commission must include specific habitats requiring extra
protection;we can look at that.There has to be a very clear reason something needs protection beyond that provided
by the performance standards.
Golding—In terms of wetland scenic views,asked if a pristine habitat should be given any weight.
Carlson—Wetland Scenic Views is a subjective trait;the question to be answered is if the view is of the resource area
or the land upland of the adjacent resource area. You need very clear findings on why the Wetland Scenic View is
being damaged from a public viewpoint.
c.Erisman—Apologized for a mess she made of the last meeting and the negative light cast upon the Commission.
6. Administrator/Staff Reports
a.Feels Ms.Erisman should have been included in the Inquirer&Mirror article about Island women in science.
b.If people are still interested in signing up for the MAT Conference,let Ms.Dodd know.
c.Thanked Ms.Dodd for all she does for Natural Resources.
I. Adjournment
Motion Motion to Adjourn at 9:07 p.m. (made by:Golding) (seconded)
Roll-call Vote Carried 7-0//Beale;Engelbourg;Erisman;Golding;LaFleur,Phillips;Topham-aye
Submitted by:
Terry L.Norton
Page 10 of 10