Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-10-29 ConCom:Minutes for October 29,2020,adopted Nov. 12 CONSERVATION COMMISSION` A N T U C K ` _3 �� PUBLIC MEETING g 1 L ? .d, 2 Bathing Beach Road Nantucket,Massachusetts 02554 2U20NOV 3 AM9: 59 �k '- `'► u�vu�.nantucket-ma.gov r h, _ . -= Thursday,October 29,2020—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 5:01 p.m.by Ms.Erisman Staff in attendance: Jeff Carlson, Natural Resources Director; Joanne Dodd, Natural Resources Coordinator, Terry Norton,Town Minutes Taker Attending Members: Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale *Matter has not been heard I. PUBLIC MEETING A. Announcements B. Public Comment— Erisman—We have a comment from Burton Balkind asking about 289 Hummock Pond Road. Carlson—289 Hummock Pond will be discussed during enforcement actions. II. PUBLIC HEARING A. Notice of Intent 1. Eli Zabar—47 Squam Road(13-22) SE48-3253 (Cont.11/19/2020) 2. Nantucket Point of View,LLC—9 Lincoln Avenue(30-137)SE48-3278 Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale Documentation Site and topographical plans,photos,requisite departmental reports and correspondence. Representative Brian Madden,LEC Environmental Julie Jordin,Garden Design Company Public None Discussion(5:09) Madden—Reviewed updates to the project based upon previous discussions. Engelbourg — Asked about the 18" high sitting wall adjacent to the stairs; there had been a retaining wall previously proposed;a sitting wall is a structure under our regulations in an area not normally permitted or its safety purpose justified. Madden— Originally there was a 36" retaining wall along the coastal bank;it was removed. The 18" sitting wall was always been proposed; we provided details how it will be installed without impact on the coastal bank. Jordin—The sitting wall is intended to protect those in the living area from falling down the slope. It also helps with visibility of the deck.It only retains about 6"of grade and doesn't interact with the coastal bank. Engelbourg—He doesn't think it meets our performance standards for a structure within the resource area. Also replacing the boardwalk is work within the resource area. Madden—We previously requested a waiver for no adverse impact on the coastal bank and it is necessary for safety. Erisman — She somewhat agrees with Mr. Engelbourg about structures within the 25-foot buffer. On the lower lot,it looks like the boardwalk extends into the 25-foot buffer a couple of feet;it should be cut short. Golding — He thinks 18" would be a tripping wall; he accepts the client wants it aesthetically, but Ms. Erisman and Mr. Engelbourg made the point it shouldn't be permitted. There is limited relevance to the structure next door;it should be removed. Topham —The height of the wall gives this a dual use. The wall next door functions well with no adverse impact on the bluff or vegetation. Beale—He's struggling with the net benefit of the project;the stairs are existing,but the repair/replacement could cause damage. Jordin—The staircase is currently overgrown with black cherries, growing on Land Bank property, and in the shade thus making it slippery.We are moving the stairs farther from the resource area and bringing them up to modern standards.This bank is currently lawn and being replaced with native plants,no irrigation,and invasive removal. Madden—With invasive species mitigation and expanded setback,this project provides a net benefit.This is a sloping bank adjacent to a flood zone. Erisman— She used to work on this property and agrees the stairs are treacherous and that transitioning a lot of the turf is a benefit. Page 1 of 9 ConCom Minutes for October 29,2020,adopted Nov. 12 LaFleur—He thinks the sitting wall is acceptable in that location;it is also a stop-gap for heavy rain runoff Beale — He was there in the spring and climbed the stairs; the slippery stairs could be resolved by cutting back the offending brush.He is troubled by the wall within the 25-foot buffer. Topham—That stairway runs right along the wetland flags;if we can get it 75 feet away, that will help the wetlands. Also,invasive species mitigation is a benefit; suggested the applicant team up with the Land Bank for invasive species removal. Golding—The Land Bank only owns the top-half of the property; from mid-way to Jefferson Avenue,it is privately owned meaning that most of the existing stair is not abutted by Land Bank property. The brush could be cut back. Jordin—The black cherries are on Land Bank property.This bank is a mess.The owner wants native plants on her bank and wants to show the Board good faith in restoring this corner of Nantucket. This is not a contributing coastal bank.Believes this project will result in a net benefit. Engelbourg — He's okay with moving the stairs. This is a non-contributing coastal bank with invasive species growing on it but there are also common native vines growing on it. For him, however, the sitting wall is being installed for aesthetic and recreational reasons and is still adding a new structure within the buffer and not approvable. Madden —The vegetation on the bank is bittersweet, privet, honeysuckle, etc. Hearing comments, we are willing to drop the sitting wall to move the project along. Beale—He's happy to support the project without the sitting wall Phillips—She was concerned about the characterization of the bank. A lot happened on Nantucket before resource areas were delineated.Agrees with the reasons for moving the stairs;removal of the sitting wall puts this is the right category. Staff Have everything needed to close. Motion Motion to Close. (made by:Phillips) (seconded) Roll-call Vote Carried unanimously//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-ave 3. *Marica Kleinberg—18 Quidnet Road(21-117.5)SE48-3348 Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale Documentation Site and topographical plans,photos,requisite departmental reports and correspondence. Representative Brian Madden,LEC Environmental Public None Discussion(5:38) Madden—This is for the installation of a pool,patio,and landscaping.Resource area is an isolated vegetated wetland and a bordering vegetated wetland. Topography rises from the road to the proposed location. No work or structural components are proposed within the 50-foot buffer.No waivers are proposed. Golding—Asked what type of tree is being removed. Madden—Black cherry. Staff Have everything needed to close. Motion Motion to Close. (made by:Topham) (seconded) Roll-call Vote Carried unanimously//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-aye 4. *Mary Jo Buckland—113 Hummock Pond Road(546-59)SE48-3330(Cont.12/03/2020) 5. Nantucket Islands Land Bank—All Land Bank Properties(Various)SE48-3337(Cont.11/19/2020) 6. 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. Art Gasbarro,Nantucket Engineering&Survey Jack Vaccaro,Epsilon Public R.J.Turcotte,Nantucket Land Council,Inc. Discussion(5:41) Bailey — Reviewed revised plan submitted as a response to previous discussions; it is now outside any Eel Grass bed.Responded to comments made with respect to this proposal;the commission should contain itself to the resource area of land under the ocean,not if this is a pier or a dock;that will be decided by the Zoning Board of Appeals(ZBA).This has also been pulled well away from the mooring field.There has been concern about adverse precedent; he feels that has been overstated. This is an unusual situation with an existing pier and the ZBA will address that. Included in the record is an Order of Conditions issued by the Commission which is very similar to this request. Gasbarro—Reviewed the revised plan in detail. Vaccaro—In addition to reducing the length,there is a proposed single pile to be installed in the area where there is very sparse Eel Grass; that is for an outhaul, so the boat can reside in deeper water. Went into detail on the pertinent Performance Standards to ensure it is on the record how the project meets those Performance Standards: Land Under the Ocean Performance Standards; Coastal Beach Performance Standards;Land Containing Shellfish Performance Standards;Performance Standard 8,no impact on resource area;the last Performance Standard allows the ConCom to impose additional conditions. Phillips —As it happens, she attended the Massachusetts Association of ConCom Commissioners training session on Eel grass and dock building while she appreciates all the applicant's work,she doesn't quarrel with Page 2 of 9 ConCom Minutes for October 29,2020,adopted Nov. 12 most of the facts that Eel Grass is either absent or sparse,she doesn't agree with allowing a light structure.Eel Grass is very important not only to scallops but also the Island; this environment historically had Eel Grass and it appears Eel Grass would come back in if there were nothing going on.This is a potential habitat and a historical habitat;we should not allow structures here for that reason.We should not approve this. Topham—There are a lot of assumptions that there will be no adverse impact to the Eel Grass;he feels this pier will bring more damage to this area by encouraging more vessels traveling over the Eel Grass.Prop wash from boats traveling to this pier will impact the Eel Grass.He feels this pier should not go forward as the plan is drawn. Engelbourg—Appreciates the application moving the pier out of the Eel Grass; however,he is concerned about the outhaul pile.The outhaul pile will shade an area;when it is in use,we are talking about a very robust area that would be impacted by prop wash. If that pile weren't there,a lot of what the representative is saying would be true. Erisman—She is very concerned about a boat going back and forth between the outhaul pile and pier.When she looked at Madaket Marine,her concern was sprawl;this also represents sprawl when the applicant could use the existing pier on the abutting property. Golding—The project narrative is about extension of an existing dock;asked under what basis they consider that. One letter claims that it was never a pier or dock;asked when it was licensed. Bailey—That is a licensed,solid-filled pier;this is a zoning issue.A person with a 300-foot pier is objecting to the is project; take that for what it's worth. We have a lot of information about why we feel this is a preexisting pier.It was licensed within the last few years. Gasbario—The license issued is included in the packet;it says please check the below-,the first item is that it has piles.The neighbor says the existing was used for loading and unloading;to him that feels like a dock. Golding—All that could be loaded from there would be a kayak or dingy pulled up on the shore. Gasbarro — The historical use was for loading rocks onto a shallow barge to build the groins. He feels it meets that definition even if it is small. Phillips —The comments she made have nothing to do with if this is a historic pier,her point is the impact upon the Eel Grass habitat.The pile for the outhaul will be clearly destructive.An issue discussed at the class was the use of any light-preventing structure and its use having a clear impact. Those are issues, she feels, where the applicant hasn't met the Performance Standards. Vaccaro—Understand the concern for Eel Grass;reviewed the plan showing the pile in a bare spot.There is a limit in the depth of water in which Eel Grass can survive and thrive.Eel Grass could not colonize the area of the pier.He feels the moorings have a lot to do with the sparsity of Eel Grass in this area;he is confounded that the ConCom isn't concerned about the adverse impact of moorings;argues that a pile is a more ecological arrangement than a mooring. Engelbourg—Pointed out that Land Under the Ocean Performance Standard 6.B&E of the State Wetlands Protection Act address causing destruction to Eel Grass and Algae.Would like to see a study comparing the impact of a mooring versus the pile.An alternative is to launch a dingy from the existing pier or the beach to the outhaul pile without needing this new pier. Turcotte—Submitted a comment letter from Dave Burdick for commissioner review;Mr.Burdick has done Eel Grass studies here on Nantucket and elsewhere in Massachusetts. The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) uses his research for impact studies. This is a very sensitive area for such a proposal. Regarding Madaket Marine,that area has not supported Eel Grass;our concern was the impact of prop wash; also, that is a commercial interest with seasonal floats that the commission could chose to remove. Petrel Landing is also seasonal floats with a different bottom sediment and no Eel Grass. The Town Pier is an existing structure and doing the best they can to protect against wave action with significant public benefit and no Eel Grass. Those are very different from this and not apropos.This is an area that has a good chance of supporting Eel Grass; a number of performance standards have not been met; he also has letters from commercial fishermen enumerating their concerns. Gasbarro—There are no floats proposed;the outhaul would have a simple pully system. Beale—If the walkway will be 5'above mean high water,at low tide,it would be an 8-foot drop down to the boat;that doesn't seem realistic. Carlson—Read comments from Peter Brace,SHAB—too shallow to navigate around the pier,can't claim it won't be a hazard until it is installed,the point behind the Eel Grass program is to get Eel Grass growing in the harbor again. Gasbarro—He will share a photo that shows the dark area north of the pier.He believes that is accumulated dead Eel Grass.The pier ends landward of where Eel Grass would grow. In terms of navigation,you need to consider the existing stone groin so feels it being a hazard to navigation is not a valid argument. Engelbourg—His point about access,if the boat is at the outhaul pile,it will still need an exit craft. Bailey—Willing to take the outhaul pile off the table.Asked to close. Staff Have everything needed to close. Motion Motion to Close.(made by:Golding) (seconded) Roll-call Vote Carried unanimously//BealeEngelbourg,Erisman,Golding, Phillips,and Topham-aye 7. *Peter E.Halle and Carolyn B.Lamm—24 Pilgrim Road(41-94)SE48-3347 (Cont.11/19/2020) Page 3 of 9 ConCom Minutes for October 29,2020,adopted Nov. 12 8. *Eleven Crooked Lane,LLC—West Chester Street Extension(41-Various)SE48-3352 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(6:43) Gasbarro—This is for a low-pressure sewer force main. It was continued for Massachusetts Natural Heritage response;their determination was no adverse impact. Staff Have everything needed to close. Motion Motion to Close. (made by:Beale) (seconded) Roll-call Vote Carried unanimously//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-ave 9. *Steamship Authority—1 Steamship Wharf(42.4.2-14)NAN-134 Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale Documentation Site and topographical plans,photos,requisite departmental reports and correspondence. Representative Brad Saunders,GEI Public None Discussion(6:45) Saunders—This is for an emergency certification for a dredging project at the end of the ferry wharf Prior to dredging, two sediment samples were sent for analysis but did not return within the 21 days allowed by the Emergency Certification; those samples came back clean. About 1500sf were dredged and material transported to New Bedford where it will be disposed of as dean-fill material_ The resource area is Land Under the Ocean. The Steamship Authority will be proposing additional dredging in the next few months as soon as sediment sampling is done. Engelbourg — The dredge material that was removed, asked the representative to consider keeping it on Island for use as mitigation sand for projects on Nantucket. Erisman—The sediment could be used on Island. Golding—He was staggered by the depth of the chemical analysis;even DDT is still present It's defined as clean fill;asked for an elaboration on that. Saunders—All he knows is it meets the Commonwealth standards for clean fill. Erisman—Chemicals like DDT might still be found in people who grew up in the 1960s. Engelbourg—Listed other chemicals that have detection limits. Staff Have everything needed to close. Motion Motion to Close. (made by:LaFleur) (seconded) Roll-call Vote Carried Unanimously//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-aye 10.*George L.Balboa—71R Cliff Road(30-160.1)SE48-3354 Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale Documentation Site and topographical plans,photos,requisite departmental reports and correspondence. Representative Paul Santos,Nantucket Surveyors Public None Discussion(6:55) Santos—This is for a driveway,dwellings,and pool. The private way services 3 properties. Undeveloped lot surrounded by residential uses.Reviewed history of permits for the property.The resource area is a bordering vegetated wetland located on the property to the east. It is not mapped on the Massachusetts Endangered Species map.He has spoken with abutters who have concerns and provided Ethan Griffin a detailed site plan. Site has a perched water table; he is looking into water testing done on this site. His hope is to keep any foundation system outside ConCom jurisdiction Phillips—Asked about the right of way. Santos—It is outside the 50-foot no-build zone.The grading and grass swale are intended to keep runoff on the site. Erisman—The area between 25 and 50 looks to have been altered. Santos—When we did the RDA,there was an old line dating back to 2000;it showed a wetland line closer to the private right of way than we feel is accurate;we surveyed that and found that was not the wetland line. Golding—He's confused because it looks like the no-build zone crosses the right of way. Erisman — Asked if soil testing results would be submitted at the next hearing. Would like to have that groundwater data before voting to close. Carlson — Ethan Griffin provided 7 points: shoot site elevation; site in gulley; schematic plans show no hardscaping;house,pool, and cabana represent significant ground cover,topography related to groundcover, groundwater table;move the house farther from 50-foot buffer. Meryl Brower is concerned about density of program and runoff. The Padirs are concerned the dwelling and studio take up 30% of lot and are also concerned about run off and wants to understand groundwater data. Santos—Asked for 3-week continuance. Staff The plan just shown is the original plan, not the updated plan Mr. Santos has been referencing. Reviewed what he and Mr.Santos looked at;the original wetland line was based solely on plants. Motion Continued to November 19th. Roll-call Vote N/A;Topham recused Page 4 of 9 ConCom Minutes for October 29,2020,adopted Nov. 12 11.*Mainsail,LLC—3 Pops Lane(60.2.4-64.1)SE48-3355 Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale Documentation Site and topographical plans,photos,requisite departmental reports and correspondence. Representative Paul Santos,Nantucket Surveyors Public None Discussion(7:18) Santos—This is for expansion of a deck outside the 50-foot setback within existing lawn and for removal of encroaching vegetation with associated grading and landscaping within buffer to a coastal bank.The area has bayberry and blackberry and Rosa Rugosa as well as poison ivy. The septic will be upgraded to I/A technology outside ConCom jurisdiction. Erosion control will be installed along area of clearing. No waivers required.No irrigation is proposed. Staff Have everything needed to close. Motion Motion to Close.(made by:Topham) (seconded) Roll-call Vote Carried unanimously//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-ave B. Amended Order of Conditions 1. New England Development—Lot 3 Mariner Way(55.1.4-72) SE48-2745 Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale Documentation Site and topographical plans,photos,requisite departmental reports and correspondence. Representative Katherine Barnicle,Senior Wetland Scientist AeCom Mike Duffey,New England Development Richard Beaudette,Vaughn,Dale,Hunter,&Beaudette, Public None Discussion(7:23) Barnicle—This is for a revised footprint and change in material for the driveway and a fence within the flood plain and within 100-foot buffer to a wetland.The building and fence were constructed,and driveway material change done. Staff Recommend close and issue. Motion Motion to Close and Issue. (made by:Phillips) (seconded) Roll-call Vote Carried unanimously//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-aye 2. Luxury Brands,Inc—100 Low Beach Road(75-7)SE48-3027 Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale Documentation Site and topographical plans,photos,requisite departmental reports and correspondence. Representative Brian Madden,LEC Environmental Jeff Blackwell,Blackwell&Assoc. Public None Discussion(7:27) Madden—This is for a reconfiguration of the pool and patio, combining three structures into the cabana, and driveway work.No structures are proposed within the 50-foot buffer. Engelbourg—For the pool associated structure,it looks like a tiny portion extends over the 50-foot buffer line.Asked what that is. Madden—That is nothing structural;it is the stone patio. Erisman—The lawn and planting area between 25 and 50,asked what the proposed plants are and what the lawn will look like this close to the wetland. Madden—Landscaping plans haven't been finalized, but we are planning everything to be native within 50 feet. Golding—The letter from Sconset Trust claims the applicant made a false statement and makes the point the determination was over 18 years ago.Asked if a new determination should be made. Madden—This property has been subject to multiple applications over the years,the most recent being last year.The resource area hasn't changed;there is a clear brake from upland and the swale. Erisman—She recalls that this area floods a lot and the structures will impact floodwater storage. Madden—It's course,sandy soil and the vegetative swale helps.We can install infiltration chambers to catch run off. Golding—When he was a teen, there were times you couldn't drive across to Tom Nevers Pond due to the flooding.He thinks flood waters would get right up to the pool. Madden—He believes the flooding won't extend beyond the dune or the swale. Staff The reference on the plan is for the barrier beach delineation done by the State. He's confident the wetland delineations are still accurate. Reviewed areas Staff identifies with the most substantial flooding. Recommend close and issue. Motion Motion to Close and Issue. (made by:Topham) (seconded) Roll-call Vote Carried unanimously//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-aye Page 5 of 9 ConCom Minutes for October 29,2020,adopted Nov. 12 III. PUBLIC MEETING C. Certificates of Compliance 1. Silver Fox Partners Real Estate,LLC—235 Madaket Road(59.4-364)SE48-3121 Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale Representative Jeff Carlson Discussion(7:40) Carlson — This was for an in-ground pool and compensatory storage and retaining wall. During the site inspection, he identified non-compliant issues; those issues have not been resolved. Asking for a denial of compliance. Motion Motion to Deny the certificate of compliance. (made by:Engelbourg) (seconded) Roll-call Vote Carried unanimously//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-aye Motion Motion to Issue the enforcement order. (made by:Topham) (seconded) Roll-call Vote Carried unanimously//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-aye 2. Johnson-3 Fulling Mill Road(27-27)SE48-2998 Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale Representative Jeff Carlson Discussion(7:43) Carlson — This was for upgrade/replacement of the on-site septic. Septic is constructed but not the pooL Recommend issue. Motion Motion to Issue. (made by:Beale) (seconded) Roll-call Vote Carried unanimously//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-aye 3. BFP Properties,LP—13 Easton Street(42.1.4-26)SE48-2490(Cont.11/19/2020) 4. Dudley—4 South Cambridge Street(59.4-11)SE48-3041 Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale Representative Jeff Carlson Discussion(7:45) Carlson—Asked for a certificate to invalidate the Order of Conditions. Motion Motion to Issue a certificate to invalidate the Order of Conditions. (made by:Beale) (seconded) Roll-call Vote Carried unanimously//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-aye 5. Perry Family Trust of 2015—16 Fulling Mill Road(27-23.2)SE48-3170 Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale Representative Art Gasbarro,Nantucket Engineering&Survey Discussion(7:47) Gasbarro—A septic upgrade to I/A. Carlson—Is in compliance asked Condition 19 be carried forward. Motion Motion to Issue with on-going Condition 19. (made by:LaFleur) (seconded) Roll-call Vote Carried unanimously//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-aye D. Orders of Condition 1. Nantucket Point of View,LLC-9 Lincoln Avenue(30-137)SE48-3278 Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale Documentation Draft Order of Conditions Staff He'll modify the permit overview to include removal of the sitting wall and add Finding 2 noting the sitting wall is not approved. Will add Condition 26 keeping the boardwalk out of the 25-foot buffer. Given the presence of native plants in the area,they will grow back pretty quickly. Discussion(7:48) Erisman—The plan had the boardwalk extending into the 25. Golding—He'd like a provision protecting the native species in the area of the invasive removaL Engelbourg— It would be very hard not to remove native species when eliminating intermingled invasive species. Motion Motion to Approve as amended. (made by:Topham) (seconded) Roll-call Vote Carried unanimously//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-aye 2. Marica Kleinberg-18 Quidnet Road(21-117.5)SE48-3348 Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale Documentation Draft Order of Conditions Staff Included up-to-date pool conditions to include providing contact information on pool maintenance company. Discussion(7:54) None. Motion Motion to Issue as drafted. (made by:Phillips) (seconded) Roll-call Vote Carried unanimously//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-aye 3. 46 Shimmo Pond Road N.T—46 Shimmo Pond Road(43-77)SE48-3343 Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale Documentation Draft Order of Conditions Staff Asked for direction on where the commission is going given the timing of the next meeting.It could be added to one of the special meetings.There was real concern about the potential impact on Eel Grass and its ability to expand through the area. His assumption is there would be a dual deniaL Suggested continuing to November 12th Discussion(7:56) Erisman—Asked if this could be added to a special meeting for further discussion.Asked for a straw vote to see where the commissioners stand.It seems there is support for a denial. Page 6 of 9 ConCom Minutes for October 29,2020,adopted Nov. 12 Phillips — We don't want to fall into the hole of docks and zoning appeals. She feels the Eel Grass is sufficient for denial. Erisman—Mr.Engelbourg's points regarding the State Act should be included. Engelbourg — He believes the applicant hasn't met the burden of proof that this meets the Performance Standards and there is a reasonable alternative. Beale—Asked if there is a point to adding in that it could be a detriment to recreational use. Motion Continued to Special Meeting on November 12th at 5:00 p.m. Roll-call Vote N/A 4. Eleven Crooked Lane,LLC—West Chester Street Extension(41-Various)SE48-3352 Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale Documentation Draft Order of Conditions Staff Pretty straight forward. Discussion(8:04) None Motion Motion to Issue. (made by:LaFleur) (seconded) Roll-call Vote Carried unanimously//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-aye 5. Steamship Authority—1 Steamship Wharf(42.4.2-14)NAN-134 Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale Documentation Draft Order of Conditions Staff He added the siltation curtain,but they finished and used a siltation curtain Discussion(8:06) None Motion Motion to Approve. (made by:Beale) (seconded) Roll-call Vote Carried unanimously//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-aye 6. Mainsail,LLC—3 Pops Lane(60.2.4-64.1)SE48-3355 Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale Documentation Draft Order of Conditions Staff He would like to add Cond 19 prohibiting irrigation. Discussion(8:07) None Motion Motion to Issue as amended. (made by:Engelbourg) (seconded) Roll-call Vote Carried unanimously//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-aye E. Extension of Orders 1. 36 Lily Street,LLC—36&36B Lily Street(42.4.3-93&94)SE48-3005(Cont.11/12/2020) F. Public Hearing 1. Amendment of the Town of Nantucket Conservation Commission Wetland Protection Regulations(Cont.11/12/2020) G. Other Business 1. Approval of Minutes 10/20/2020: Motion Motion to Approve as amended. (made by:Golding) (seconded) Roll-call Vote Carried unanimously//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-aye 2. Enforcement Action a. Sesachacha Pond Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale Documentation Photos,Google Earth photo, Speakers Rob McNeil,Director Department Public Works(DPW) Sam Kefferstan,Nantucket Sanctuaries Director Danielle Perry,PhD.,Mass Audubon Climate Adaptation Ecologist R.J.Turcotte,Nantucket Land Council,Inc. Discussion(8:10) Carlson—Issued out an enforcement action at the last meeting for unpermitted work changing the concrete barrier adjacent to the pond in a coastal beach and coastal bank and coastal wetland. He and Mr.McNeil are schedule to meet to go over a restoration plan.Work has stopped out there. McNeil—This section of the pond has very little growth and along the road there is rip-rap.In 2018,a severe storm resulted in washover into the pond; the water level was up to the edge of the road for 3 days and subjected the edge of the road to severe erosion.We removed most of the north-side lane;once the wind died down,we had an emergency contractor to install piles and crushed stone to minimize the damage. A lot of those materials ended up on the beach or in the pond.When the pond was opened and restored to its normal level,we went in to reset the blocks;at that time,we discovered the 3 culverts and opened them up.All that work was under the emergency certification. No DPW work in a resource area is started without discussion with Mr.Carlson.Recently we noticed that the block was being undermined and that the pond water level was abnormally high—at the lower block.The wave action every time we get a northeast wind was causing erosion under the block and the top block started to roll. We approached Mr. Carlson about repairing the block; he assured us that in April there was a chance to open the pond again;COVID delayed that.When the pond was scheduled to finally be opened, we got report of a nesting Plover in the area to be cut so work didn't go forward.The pond was opened in early October and the water level receded.We mobilized our contractor to get out there but neglected to contact Natural Resources or Audubon. His big concern is the water elevation; Page 7 of 9 ConCom Minutes for October 29,2020,adopted Nov. 12 when it's high,it causes damage to the road and threatens public safety. The Hazard Mitigation Plan (H1 PP) cites this area to be looked at regarding raising the road and bike path. Engelbourg — Asked why an NOI wasn't applied for following the emergency order since those are temporary are require applications to work with the local ConCom. Carlson—In 2018 when that emergency order came out,they weren't requiring a NOI. Engelbourg — Confirmed the Emergency Order is no longer active. What was characterized as maintenance/repair;but without a permit,qualifies as new work. McNeil—He and Mr. Carlson have been working to come up with an NOI that covers all DPW work done on an annual basis. Golding—Going forward he would like to see a protocol of owners and abutters being involved in an NOI. He would prefer a less obtrusive,long-term approach to protecting the road. Piles might be used and would allow buildup of the beach. Erisman—There can be a blurred line between maintenance-repair and a new structure. What she sees out there is a new structure.There might have been a less invasive process. Engelbourg—Appreciates DPW wanting a comprehensive NOI in place.He agrees the conditions that exist on the ground now exceed what was permitted by the Emergency Order, this qualifies as a new structure, rather than maintenance and repair. What is on the ground doesn't meet the Performance Standards for Coastal Bank and Coastal Beach. In the short term, we need to remove what is there. With the current situation the water from the pond can't flow into the wetlands on the opposite side of the road;he feels the road should definitely be raised. Kefferstan—He appreciates Mr. McNeil coming and speaking and stating his commitment to making things right. On October 16th, he observed work on the Polpis Road retaining wall being done from Audubon property and that the jersey barrier groin is on their property. In 2018,we worked with the Town to establish a wall,which was to be removed once the emergency abated. Mass. Audubon must have a voice in work on our property. All impacts to our property must be addressed and remediated This has brought light to the need for pro-active planning in the face of sea-level rise. Temporary emergency structures should not be allowed with no knowledge of long-term impacts because they tend to become permanent Perry—Reviewed her job with Mass.Audubon. Nature-based solutions use natural mimic natural processes; we have serious concerns about the impact of this work on the pond. The construction did not follow permitting procedures and had negative impacts on natural resource areas; therefore, the impacts were not mitigated. Mass.Audubon stresses the use of nature-based solutions in the face of sea-level rise.The retaining wall now inhibits the ability for construction of a living shoreline. Mass. Audubon should be involved in any planning for sea-level rise. Golding—He wonders to what extent it will be feasible to protect the road in that area.It is very expensive to raise or move a road;we are looking at a dilemma. Erisman—The Town needs to jump on this and correct it as soon as possible.The fix will have to be phased Topham—Coir rolls would be great;but for now,take down a couple of rows of barriers and separate some of them. It would be great for Mass.Audubon to be part of a Town group to look at the best way reconnect the two properties. ConCom with Mr. Kefferstan and Ms. Perry should write letters advising this to move forward on a plan as quickly as possible. Phillips—It struck her that this is a missed opportunity to think of a better and long-term solution as well as taking a look at the larger picture.The most important thing for the current problem at Saccacha is to get the Town to accept the issues and cost of resolution without damage to one of our most important resources. It might be good to see what other municipalities have done. Perry—The next step is the action of raising the road;though that is expensive,it will save money long-term by reducing the cost of maintenance.Another way to supplement that is to design nature-based solutions for mitigating impacts of sea-level rise. Carlson—He will prepare a summary of his up-coming discussion with Mr. McNeiL Everyone wants some short-term solution as quickly as possible to protect the integrity of the road and resource area Erisman —Asked for an as-built plan of the current structure and one of the previous structure,if it is on record. Engelbourg—This is a critical area and a living-shoreline hybrid might work Turcotte—Read comments from Emily Molden,Nantucket Land Council: share Mass.Audubon's concerns about work done without proper permit;hopes communication between Town departments is improved The hearing process allows for alternative analysis.Temporary emergency structures tend to become permanent. Erisman—Asked this be continued to November 5th special meeting. Motion Continued to November 5th 5 p.m. Roll-call Vote N/A Page 8 of 9 ConCom Minutes for October 29,2020,adopted Nov. 12 b.SE48-3320—BSS Hummock Pond,LLC&Hummock Pond Holdings,LLC—287/289 Hummock Pond Rd(83-4;39) Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale Documentation None Speakers None Discussion(9:05) Carlson—This was the relocation of the house;under the Order of Conditions they had 21 days to pick up exposed elements. Clean up hasn't been completed with substantial bits of concrete still exposed. He is looking to issue the Enforcement Order.There is stuff that could be easily removed by hand;the house was moved so he feels the larger debris could be picked up. The longer that hard material remains, the more erosion damage can occur. Motion Motion to Issue the Enforcement Order.(made by:Phillip) (seconded) Roll-call Vote Carried 6-0//Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-aye;Beale no vote c.SE48-3232-115 Baxter Rd,LLC and 117 Baxter Rd,LLC—115&117 Baxter Rd(7542) Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale Documentation None Speakers None Discussion(9:09) Carlson—This was where we permitted a house move and they wanted to keep the old foundation and put a deck over it; there are timber retaining walls and other work that is not on the permit plan. Asking for issuance of an Enforcement Order. Topham—Asked if they cut the back to get the vertical timber wall. Carlson—He doesn't know but is concerned that is what happened. Motion Motion to Issue the Enforcement Order.(made by:Topham) (seconded) Roll-call Vote Carried unanimously//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-ay e 3. Discussion of SBPF—77-122 Baxter Road SE 48-1659;SBPF-65-67 Baxter Road SE48-1602(Cont. 12/03/20) 4. Reports: a.None 5. Commissioners Comment a.Golding — For next week's SBPF meeting, asked of Town Counsel will be present and if he has an opinion on whether or not what the situation is on making a request to ConCom that only has four of the original seven commissioners. Erisman — Yes, he will be present. We are having a discussion that would allow SBPF to file a new NOI; Town Counsel supports that discussion. Carlson—That discussion was George Pucci's suggestion. b.Beale—Asked about 215 Polpis Road Carlson—He has been in contact with Town Counsel about what to serve them and talked with the Chair to get that under way.Once we have that information we will serve them and start fining them. c.Beale—36 Lily Street,asked when their Order of Conditions end. Carlson—In November;we could potentially issue the extension on the expiration date:DEP guidance allows for that as long as the application was in on time.He had a number of questions and the applicant wanted to address those. d.Topham—Suggested commissioners review the Select Board meeting for a discussion with Town Counsel. Erisman—Agrees and urged members to review that;it's 1 hour 20 minutes into the meeting. 6. Administrator/Staff Reports a.We have received the SBPF 2019 annual report; that will be disseminated and posted to the website tomorrow. The Order of Conditions requires a posted meeting to discuss that report. b.Report 2 H. Adjournment Motion Motion to Adjourn at 9:21 p.m. (made by:Beale) (seconded) Roll-call Vote Carried unanimously//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,Topham-aye Submitted by: Terry L.Norton I i