HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-11-12 ConCom Minutes for November 12,2020,adopted Nov. 19
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
NPUBLIC MEETING A T U C K
TO :1N CLERK
v+ . 2 Bathing Beach Road
% Nantucket,Massachusetts 02554 q 4
\\y(ki CAA��-7-' www.nantucket-ma.gov 2020 GEC -4 QM 9: 56
Thursday,November 12,2020—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, Terry
Norton,Town Minutes Taker
Attending Members: Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale
Agenda adopted by unanimous consents
*Matter has not been heard
PUBLIC MEETING
A. Announcements
B. Public Comment—Burton Balkind is asking about 289 Hummock Pond Road and wondering when machinery
will be used on the beach and wants that machinery identified and where the washover into the pond is most severe;
he feels that is where the machinery ran over the bank and onto the beach.
II. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Amendment of the Town of Nantucket Conservation Commission Wetland Protection Regulations
Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale
Documentation Town of Nantucket Conservation Commission Wetland Protection Regulations
Public None
Discussion(5:05) Erisman—There is information in the packet from Mr. Golding and Mr. Engelbourg and Nantucket Land
Council.
Golding—One request is on definitions 1.02 to change"substantially improved"and under procedures under
1.03 he suggested increasing the fees. Under project plans, 3 should be changed to 3A. Asked how to
incorporate geological dunes into the regulations.Would like to how to expand the definition for compatible
beach sand to add some factors.
Engelbourg — The regulations should have updated scientific names; update "significantly improved",
permanent tree cutting, changing the waiver requirements for no adverse impact no reasonable alternative,
wants a variety of changes related to bulkheads and groins and require that applicants submit a living shoreline
plan before asking for a rebuild/replacement.He would like the definition of compatibility of mitigation sand
to include chemical,biological, odor and color testing. For pools he would like a requirement that pools are
not eligible to waivers from 2-foot separation from high ground water. He would like applicants doing
invasive species eradication to catalogue those removals on the State website. ConCom should memorialize
that invasive plants are to be properly disposed of at the landfill and look at language about invasive species
eradication alone as a long-term net benefit; would like to reassess the definition of a structure regarding
patios and better ways to handle rare and invasive species.He would also like to look at a moratorium on new
coastal piers and coastal pier improvements. We need to look at how we handle penalties regarding
unpermitted tree cuttings;would prefer to assess fines based upon the total area cut.
Erisman—The issue of what is a structure has been a concern for her;a bluestone patio has the same runoff
as a wooden deck. She'd also like to address properties where they don't have space on site to draining pool
water and those properties not being allowed to have a pool.
Topham—He has similar concerns about decks and patios; a deck allows more water to weep more quickly
than a patio;we could require patio stones be spaced to allow plants to grow.
Engelbourg—Patios should not be classified in a similar fashion to decks;there is soil compaction as well as
runoff which increases harm.
Phillips — There was mention of a drainage coefficient; she would prefer defining the structure with a
drainage coefficient by stating a structure has a coefficient greater than"X".
Engelbourg—Runoff coefficient when a patio is first laid is significantly different than 10 years on because
of the issue of soil compaction,which changes absorption.
Topham —You want to find out how fast rain will seep through; explained how he does that. Wonders if
there is a test that can be done to establish a coefficient and to establish whether or not there is less weeping.
A gap space between stones would be important.
Page 1of4
ConCom Minutes for November 12,2020,adopted Nov. 19
Erisman— One thought is better regulation fertilizer use within out jurisdiction;ie. outlawing it within our
resource areas.Another issue is native plants within our jurisdiction;we usually say within the 50-foot buffer
but that isn't written. We might need a list of plants that shouldn't be planted within 100 feet of a resource
area.
Engelbourg—The list Ms.Erisman is talking about has been put together,ConCom can look at that list and
adopt it or adjust as necessary.
Topham — Asked for an explanation about pools and the 2-foot separation from ground water; he
understood that once you start excavation and get within that area,you have to notify ConCom.He wants to
ensure we aren't misunderstanding how that rule was written and interpreted.
Engelbourg—His understanding is there were issues on Squam Road where sea water had to be displaced.
Just before he came onto the Commission, a pool expert talked about issues related to maintenance and
management. A pool gets drained down every year. When pools sit within the water table, the foundation
starts to crack allowing seepage of pool water into the groundwater; getting the pool out of groundwater
alleviates the issue of cracking. A pool is an ancillary structure and not necessary for habitation; in his
opinion,ancillary structures should be treated differently than residential structures.
Erisman —We will see extreme fluctuations in the ground water table with sea-level rise; agrees we should
reevaluate that condition.
Beale — He thinks the drainage problem is a serious issue; we should make an effort to be stricter on the
elevations of a pool and how it's drained.Pool chemicals being dumped into a resource area is a big concern-
Topham
oncernTopham—He agrees with Mr.Beale;there should be some fine;he likes Ms.Rrisman's suggestion to fine per
leaked gallon. Any pool within a resource area will eventual fail; he doesn't know if that's a detail of
waterproofing.We need to have a specification on how to maintain the water beneath the pooL
Beale—Asked how much clout we have between 50- to 100-foot range;ie. can we require pools be moved
farther out.
Erisman—She'd like to be able to require pools be moved farther from the resource area.
Carlson — If the ConCom wants a pool to be move based upon an impact, it's okay as long as there is
justification for it.
Engelbourg—We tend to picture in-ground pools;we could ban one type of pool within an area but allow a
different type of pool.
Golding—It boils down to the impact on our area of jurisdiction. It will be an increasing issue going forward,
and he favors more stringent regulations.
Topham — He feels for the 95% of applications within the 100-foot buffer, every topography shows water
flowing toward the resource area. All drainage should be into a truck and taken to the sewer plant; ConCom
could issue a letter to theeffect.
e fect.
Carlson—Other things to consider is in those areas for those impacts,ConCom can require mitigation such
as an enhanced buffer zone;i.e.the buffer is increased to 35 feet or 50 feet.It is fair to do that as a condition.
You could also require trucking as well as the enhanced buffer zone in the event something goes wrong.
There might be a ratio or a reverse buffer zone on the pool itself.There could be an unintended impact from
drainage.
Topham—He heard that the ZBA has a definition of spa versus pool based upon the gallons;that might be
something to look into and take as a standard ourselves. A pool should have some offset within the buffer.
We need to control the language as an application comes to us.
Erisman—Doesn't know if we want to call out a pool from a spa;they both contain chemically treated water
and have drainage issues.
Carlson—We can add a definition of pool and space into section 1.02.
Erisman—Asked Mr.Carlson about a structure regarding a stone patio versus a deck.
Carlson — It has always been stone patios are considered pervious regarding the assemblage of materials.
Agrees some clean-up is necessary.
Golding—He has to leave at 5:52 p.m.He will return.
Engelbourg—Under the regulations,someone could construct an at-grade wooden deck and it won't qualify
as a structure.Feels decks and patios should be treated the same.
Erisman — We can look at other commissions to get some ideas there. Agrees sometimes one is more
detrimental than the other;a bluestone patio impact increases over time.We talked about incorporation of the
list of invasive plants from the Biodiversity Initiative and the Invasive Plant Committee.
Engelbourg —We discussed adding to our list of locally the invasive plants while waiting for the State to
catch up with Nantucket.
Erisman—She'd like to see no non-native plants within the zero to 100-foot buffer.
Carlson—The last time we updated regulations,the invasive species protocol was a definite topic of concern.
We've always talked about local criteria for where non-native plants should not be. If we have local criteria or
process,that would be good.We could have Invasive Plant Committee come to explain how they adopt plants
to a list. Native species provide a lot of benefits;it would take a lot of thought to expand that all the way to
the 100-foot buffer;we don't want to start a fight where native is being managed right next to non-native.
Page 2 of 4
ConCom Minutes for November 12,2020,adopted Nov. 19
Engelbourg — Asked about requiring project applicants to submit their plantings into the Massachusetts
database.
I Carlson — That is a good idea; if the State has vetted it, that saves us time. Administratively, we have
suggestions for procedures and working on an updated filing fees component.We want to get everyone's area
of interest out then collaborate with the State ConCom association and finally provide a draft for Commission
Ireview. A final draft would come from that review. Has an update on the violation section: our draft was a
little wishful thinking;Town Counsel reviewed it and non-criminal disposition allows only up to;300 fine per
incident.He liked the idea of square foot but doesn't meet the State non-criminal disposition.We do have the
ability to set filing fees:it could be by activity and charge by the square foot.
J Topham—Many years ago,we filed for a building permit based upon the foundation plan; then the owner
changed the entire foundation plan. For the Historic District Commission (HDC), the as-built fine was 4
times the base fee;that is something we could set as an equal standard.
Erisman—If all our applications work based upon the square footage and considering the level staff needs to
manage that site,they should pay a higher fee.With violations and notifications,those need to be higher.
Carlson—Stuff gets constructed and changed along the way without the person who did the initial permitting
l knowing.Someone damaging an area that was permitted is something different.
Golding returned at 6:09 p.m.
Engelbourg — There are three fee categories: one is the standard application; next is for an after-the-fact
approval but not necessarily where an Enforcement Action is necessary; the third fee is the serious
enforcement action related work.
Golding—Asked if the fees for Barnstable posted were sent around.
Carlson —We're compiling a list of those fees. We are one of the more affordable filing fees commission.
Local filing fees haven't changed in 20 years. He doesn't want to price people out of filing but something
more realistic would be helpful.
1 Beale—Suggested asking other Cape and Island commissions about their filing fees.
4 Topham—The ConCom Seminary was an education about the varied dealings with enforcement and filing
fees;we should at least match the Cape.
} Carlson—He will try to get the update before Christmas; he'd like it wrapped up in early 2021. Once the
commission votes it through,we have to advertise for 30 days for before it goes into effect.
a Erisman—Having a stronger definition of dune fields and dunes would help;there's been a lot of cloudiness
around those two resource areas and their performance standards.
Carlson — It might make sense to separate Coastal dune from Costal Dune Field; some of the dune
performance standards don't apply to the dune field.We need to continue this for a public hearing suggested
to the first meeting in January of 2021.
Motion Continued to January 7,2021.
1 Roll-call Vote N/A
I III. PUBLIC MEETING
C. Orders of Condition
1. 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 He prepared a denial under the State and Local Bylaws. Identified the resource areas within the Findings
section.Covered the State Act first then the Local Bylaws.Noted some spelling errors.
1 Discussion(6:20) Golding—Apart from spelling areas noted another typo.
Engelbourg—It is very thorough.
9
Motion Motion to accept the denial as amended. (made by:Engelbourg) (seconded)
l Roll-call Vote Carried unanimously//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-aye
D. Other Business
i 1. Approval of Minutes 10/29/2020&11/5/2020:
Motion Motion to Approve as drafted. (made by:Golding) (seconded)
Roll-call Vote Carried unanimously//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-aye
2. Commissioners Comment
a.Topham—The structure that blew up across the elementary school, the demolition was reviewed by the HDC.The
Woodbury structure will also have to go to the HDC;Mr. Carlson might want to get on that regarding an emergency
permit due to its proximity to wetlands.
Erisman—Asked about the possibility of chemicals having been released into the resource area by the explosion.
j Carlson—First is to secure the site then the investigation. If there is a discharge into the resource area,Department of
Environmental Protection will hear about it and respond.
Golding—No. 14 Woodbury Lane was also damaged;asked if they should apply to ConCom for any repair work.
Carlson — They should contact the office. As long as there is not any major repair work; we're happy to talk to
everyone about that.The Fire Chief Steve Murphy is quick about securing a site for our inspection.
b.Golding—A member of the public called him about work in Madaket, a concrete block or walkway going in and
mowing a wetland and using pesticides;the DEP number is SE48-2438.
1
I
j Page 3 of 4
ConCom Minutes for November 12,2020,adopted Nov. 19
Carlson—The project was permitted for installation of a board walk and invasive species removaL We will check it out
tomorrow. It is an unpopular project but appears to be in compliance.
c.Erisman — Asked if the Marsh Master has just gone through the south side of Hummock Pond; she noticed the
cutting.
Carlson—Yes,it was their follow-up cutting.
3. Administrator/Staff Reports
a.Did a site inspection of 59 Squam Road,it was clear they went outside their permitted scope of work;it looks like an
area that was vegetated wetland was damaged in installation of lawn area. We plan to issue the Enforcement Order.
Asked that be ratified this evening.
Motion Motion to Ratify the Enforcement Order. (made by:Golding) (seconded)
Roll-call Vote Carried unanimously//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-aye
E. Adjournment
Motion Motion to Adjourn at 6:41 p.m. (made by:Topham)(seconded)
Roll-call Vote Carried unanimously//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-aye
Submitted by:
Terry L.Norton
Page 4 of 4