HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-11-19 ConCom Minutes for November 19,2020,adopted Dec. 17
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
`�� � `. PUBLIC MEETING
•
2 Bathing Beach Road
•" Nantucket,Massachusetts 02554
,: ,
iH►tr+" www.nantucket-ma.gov , , ' _
Thursday,November 19,2020—5:00 p.m. L: v J
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; Tern-
Norton,Town Minutes Taker
Attending Members: Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale
Agenda adopted by unanimous consents
*Matter has not been heard
1. PUBLIC MEETING
A. Announcements
B. Public Comment—None
IL PUBLIC HEARING
A. Notice of Intent
1. Eli Zabar—47 Squam Road(13-22) SE48-3253 (Cont. 12/03/2020)
2. Nantucket Islands Land Bank—All Land Bank Properties (Various) 5E48-3337 (Cont.12/17/2020)
3. *Peter E. Halle and Carolyn B.Lamm—24 Pilgrim Road(41-94) 5E48-3347
Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale
Documentation Site and topographical plans,photos,requisite departmental reports and correspondence.
Representative Leo Asadoorian,Blackwell&Assoc.
Arthur Reade,Reade,Gullicksen,Hanley,&Gifford LLP
Public None
Discussion(5:06) Asadoorian—There was an application for an addition to the garage; during the review,it was learned there
was an infringement on the southerly boarder. We've had the wetland area re-delineated. The addition is now
59.5 feet away from the wetlands. Also, the granite steps are not being moved as previously requested. The
foundation is proposed to be concrete piers; we might go with helical. A fire pit has been added. The brick
walkway in the south east corner will be eliminated. Down where the infringement is on the south side, we
will be putting in a path offset by 50%within the 50-foot buffer.
Erisman—Asked about the disturbance between the 50-and 25-foot buffers.
Asadoorian — Most of the disturbance was at the southerly wetland; any area stippled on the plan will be
mulched and seeded with native grasses.
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
4. George L.Balboa—7 1 R 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(5:16) Santos — Reviewed the proposal; part of the 100-foot buffer encroaches on the property. This is for
construction of a driveway and part of the single-family dwelling. We did some groundwater testing and will
not be seeking a groundwater waiver; the foundation will be designed to meet the 2-foot separation. We are
filling the low spot and putting the foundation at the high point. There was concern about density on the lot;
much of the density is outside ConCom jurisdiction. The pool is also outside the 100-foot buffer, but he
understands ConCom's concern about drainage toward the resource area. The driveway will be shell or some
pervious material.
Beale—Asked if the parking will be constructed as shown.
Carlson — Read comments from Ethan Griffin, about runoff control and the site being over 75°
impermeable.Karen Padir asked how rain runoff will be handled.
Santos — There is a low point that will be adjacent to the right of way filled; there will be a swale on the
property at contour 36 with grading away from the Padir and Hamblin Road properties.
Carlson—From Brownhurst,this is a small lot with difficult access.
Page 1 of 12
ConCom Minutes for November 19,2020,adopted Dec. 17
Erisman—Asked where construction vehicles would park so as not to be within the wetland buffer. There is
no ability to park on the access road.They will have to find somewhere off-site to park.
Beale — About pool runoff, it appears the slope is toward the wetland; asked if we can require the pool
discharge be pumped into a truck.
Carlson — Farther from the Brownhursts, there is minimal access; construction vehicles would he in the
wetland.
Erisman—' 7e can condition that construction vehicles will not be allowed to park on the road.
Carlson—Ms.Padir asked about the groundwater testing.
Santos—He has water table tests.
Phillips—The neighboring property is also up for tonight,the Padirs.She's not sure whether if there is access
issue for the Padir application.
Staff Even if you have a condition,no site water can be discharged into area of jurisdiction.
Have everything needed to close.
Motion Motion to Close. (made by:Phillips) (seconded)
Roll-call Vote Carried 6-0//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips-aye;Topham-recused
5. *56 Monomoy Nominee Trust—56 Monomoy Road (43-41) SE48-3362
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(5:31) Santos — This is for a proposed addition and alteration to an existing structure and reconfiguration of the
driveway and associated hardscaping within the buffer to a policy coastal bank.There is a bordering vegetated
wetland east of the property. Not seeking any waivers. All house work is within the existing footprint and all
work is above the FEMA flood zone. He received calls from adjacent abutters, 60 Monomoy and 54
Monomov.
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-aye
6. *Town of Nantucket(DPW)—Town Wide(Various) SE48-3366
Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale
Documentation Site and topographical plans,photos,requisite departmental reports and correspondence.
Representative Rob McNeil,DPW Director
Tori Brown,VHB Environmental Scientist
Gene Crouch,VHB
Public None
Discussion(5:35) McNeil—This is for programmatic operations and maintenance activities within the Town on roadways,bike
paths, bridges, sidewalks, vegetation management, signage, road markings, Parks and Recreation, drainage,
and public beach activities.
Brown — A large portion of the Island is within endangered species management areas. This is split into 3
types of activities: activities exempt under :MESA, non-exempt activities, and other typical activities.
Explained the vegetation management plan in relation to intersection site lines. Listed types of other typical
activities.
Engelbourg—This represents a positive,holistic approach.There are a few items on this list which probably
need further scrutiny; i.e. vista or sight-line pruning; he'd want height limits set and photos of conditions
before and after. For structural maintenance of bridges and walls,we need oversight in that area, so we know
what is considered maintenance and what is repair. Any structures to be improved, we need schematics of
current conditions,so we can recognize any work beyond maintenance.
Phillips—Two of the bridges listed here are Ames Avenue and Massasoit;they are on the list for more than
maintenance. Going forward, all those things Mr. Engelbourg mentioned are important and are vital to the
neighborhoods,which should be aware of what's going on.This is a step in the right direction.
Golding—Asked if VHB is addressing use of signs on the bike path.
McNeil—This is not a signage project at all.
Beale — If this were in effect, asked what impact it would have had on the work on Saccacha Pond. That
came forward with no permits for work and was on Massachusetts Audubon property. He'd be more
comfortable with a specific plan for maintenance of the three bridges.
McNeil— Feels the effort put into this speaks to the intent. Everyday DPW is performing activities around
the Island which are expected of us. Many resources are in need of scheduled work with special sensitivity to
the surrounding area.The intent of this is to more specifically define what we are doing to ensure that work is
sensitive to the areas.
Topham—He thinks we are quick to act when DPW comes forth with emergency orders;that should be part
of their checklist as well.
Erisman—She gets concerned when she sees blanket pruning height;she understands it's for visibility around
corners. However, for bike paths, it might not be necessary; asked to be careful when cutting trees. If a tree
Page 2 of 12
ConCom Minutes for November 19,2020,adopted Dec. 1'
must come out,it should be replaced with a native species. Some cities are building out plants to slow traffic,
the DPW should keep that in mind.Regarding beach raking,asked what that involves.
McNeil—When he came on board the road and right of way system had been left to its own devices and was
overgrown. Starting with Milestone Road, there was cutting to remove dangerous trees close to the traveled
way.While we allow native species to thrive,we have to maintain safe corridors.We are planting along a lot of
areas using native vegetation whenever we can. Substantial input and feedback from around the Island has
resulted from incidents along the bike paths and roads.Beach raking happens on a limited basis;we have been
mobilized to Jetties Beach,Children's Beach,and Nobadeer Beach.The purpose of raking is to remove debris
accumulated over the winter.
Engelbourg—Another relevant topic related to bike paths and road edge maintenance is the use of clean fill.
It's cumbersome to ask the DPW to provide sampling but feels it is necessary to ensure we have solid clean
fill from a reliable source.
McNeil—That is another very topical subject;during the recent construction of the Monomoy bike path, the
contractor put back material that populated an invasive weed. It was brought to our attention by the Land
Bank. He instructed the contractor to remove that completely;now we are aware of that,we will continue to
watch it. We worked well with Land Bank out in Madaket to relocate the bike path along Eel Point Road and
removing invasive species; the likelihood of native species growing back has now been increased. Current
practice regarding invasive species,we've develop procedures to minimize invasive species along the 35 miles
of Islands bike paths. Cited steps by the DPW to minimize the spread of invasive species.
Engelbourg—He's part of the group of people who helped remove invasive species from the bike paths. He
thinks standards could be added to any Order of Conditions regarding handling of invasive species as we do
with many projects.
Golding—Asked if this plan had been reviewed by Town Counsel or a consultant on what ConCom would
be giving up if it's approved in its current form.
McNeil—This is an opportunity to have an open discussion and get feedback from the Commission. We will
be before you every three years to review what we've done and provide changes. This is to cover normal
operations maintenance;it isn't to replace NOI filings.
Golding — He understands that. As he reads this, the emphasis seems to be on temporary operations;
however, the summary states it could cause minor disturbance to the environment but is necessary. He's
reluctant to sign off on something so general.
Erisman—She also worries about a blanket approval.
Crouch —The intent is to codify maintenance, not repair work or new work which would require an NOI.
This also allows the commission the opportunity to add conditions. Repair or replacement of a bridge would
require an NOI. Control of invasive species requires a filing under State law. This plan addresses activities
commonly undertaken Island wide and are exempt under the State Wetlands Protection Act.
Beale—Asked for an explanation from Mr. McNeil on the training employees get; some are voung, summer
hires.
McNeil—DPW has training documents and it comes down to operations managers and foremen to instruct
the crew on procedures.
Golding— On page 3 it lists the 3 bridges DPW maintains;it says any work within 10 feet of water or with
water view requires a ConCom permit. If we give the go-ahead, it indicates that a distance of 11'3" doesn't
required ConCom review. He's concerned that installation of adequate protection would slip by the wayside.
Crouch—We aren't talking about work in or near the water or paving the bridge; these are activities where
machinery is not in the water and extend the life of the bridge. This provides the opportunity to require
netting and/or silt fencing.
Engelbourg — He feels some of the proposed activities would require more oversight. This could be
conditioned but he'd like a better definition of maintenance and repairs.
Erisman—Agrees on that point.
Carlson—Burton Balkind asked at what point DPW would come to ConCom for an NOI. Mark Poor asked
how storm drain projects would be prioritized
McNeil—We have storm drainage issues all over the Island,they are prioritized based upon the tributary area
and our ability to get at the area for a complete repair to the point they function well. Listed up-coming
projects that would require an NOI. Full replacement of the Madaket bridges is not the recommended
approach in the face of sea-level rise;when we have more data,we could take more appropriate action. Work
to protect the Ames Avenue bridge abutments would require an NOI as well as the pedestrian extension for
Massasoit.
Erisman—This has to continue for Massachusetts Natural Heritage.
Crouch — Asked for a 2-week extension. If there is an aspect of concern the ConCom considers needs a
condition,suggested that could be included when it comes back up.
Page 3 of 12
ConCom Minutes for November 19,2020,adopted Dec. 17
Staff He doesn't think this would have impacted Saccacha Pond Road work. For any activity that is not general
maintenance,they would need an NOI.
In the mid-2000s, the Town contracted beach raking out with a substantial beach-raking regime; it's been
scaled back to occurring just around events.
This plan hasn't gone to Town Counsel; a lot of these activities are going on without commission oversight.
The intent isn't for the commission to give anything up but to know work is being done correctly.
Motion Continued to December 3rd
Roll-call Vote N/A
7. *Killian—10 Mayhew Lane (41-443) SE48-3356
Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale
Documentation Site and topographical plans,photos,requisite departmental reports and correspondence.
Representative Brian Madden,LEC Environmental
Don Bracken,Bracken Engineering
Public None
Discussion(6:38) Madden — The resource areas are a bordering vegetated wetland north of Mayhew, an isolated vegetated
wetland within southern portion of the site with diminished function and values based upon its size. Work
involves a 12X20 pool with dry-laid patio; driveway improvements, walkway,landscaping updates; expanded
front stoop, southerly deck expansion, new deck on the east, relocate A/C units, remove deck abutting
southeast corner of the garage/cottage.There are no structural aspects within the 50-foot buffer. There is no
viable alternative location for the pool. \'e listed plants to be used in the 2382sf restoration area. Feels the
project results in a long-term net benefit.
Engelbourg—The proposed patio is within 30 feet of the wetlands. .
Bracken—A patio is not a structure;a pool is a structure.
Engelbourg—He is very uncomfortable allowing a pool within the 50-foot buffer.
Madden—The pool is outside the 50-foot to the bordering vegetated wetland but within the 50-foot of the
isolated vegetated wetland. The pool will maintain the 2-foot separation; we requested the waiver to be
cautious; he doesn't believe dewatering will be necessary. Feels impact to the isolated vegetated wetland will
be diminimis and mitigated by the restoration work. Suggested the commissioners make a site visit to
investigate the wetlands.
Erisman — We had an extensive drought this year which would cause the water table to be lower than
normal.
Topham —Asked if this has gone to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). He'd prefer they go to the ZBA
first.
Erisman—We would want to have a true wetlands assessment before approving this.
Golding—He shares those sentiments.Asked if the pool could run north and south where the patio is so the
pool is outside the 50-foot setback.
Bracken —The setback doesn't allow that. There is also an underground electric line and propane tank that
would have to be moved.
Phillips — She concurs with the comments. There is a dotted line going diagonally through the proposed
patio,noted pools don't have to be rectangle;it could be smaller and/or a different shape. Agrees they should
go to the ZBA and that wetlands have priority. The isolated vegetated wetland surrounded by lawn might
have been impacted in its ability to grow; she'd be pleased if the owner considered revegetating that lawn area
and adapted to the wetland rather than around it. Within the 50-foot buffer, confirmed they are removing a
spa and installing a firepit; asked what the disturbance would entail. This is an aggressive plan, which she is
not prepared to approve with a pool.
Madden—It is all on an existing deck platform.
Topham—If the pool were moved outside the 50 only a small portion would be within the 30;that would he
a better argument for the ZBA.
Golding—He's curious how and when the spa got permitted.
Madden—It was permitted in 2014;configuration of the wetland has changed since then and believes it was
outside areas of concerns at that time.
Engelbourg — Appreciates Mr. Golding's questions. We've been in a Category 3 drought. Agrees with Ms.
Phillips about changing the pool so it's outside the 50-foot buffer. Every wetland is different;he'd like to see
the isolated vegetated wetland restored,but from a regulatory perspective,we must apply the same standards.
Topham — It seems there was an oversight when the spa was installed; he'd now have trouble permitting
anything in that area and the patio should be removed.
Bracken — About the boring, he went down about 32"; where we found a perched water table with a clay
layer above it.
Carlson—R.J. Turcotte,Nantucket Land Council,Inc. asked if the applicant considered an above-ground or
partially above ground pool options as a reasonable alternative; though the isolated vegetated wetland is
impaired,it is not a valid reason to build a pool on this site.Peter Devlin said that according to application the
separation would be 14"not 2 feet.
Madden—Asked for a 2-week continuance.
Staff None
Page 4 of 12
ConCom Minutes for November 19,2020,adopted Dec. 1•'
Motion Continued to December 3rd.
Roll-call Vote N/A
8. *Norton—24 North Cambridge Street(38-20)SE48-3358
Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale
Documentation Site and topographical plans,photos,requisite departmental reports and correspondence.
Representative Brian Madden,LEC Environmental
Don Bracken,Bracken Engineering
Public None
Discussion (7:04) Madden — Resources are land subject to flooding, a bordering vegetated wetland around a salt marsh, and
wetlands across Little Neck Way.The 2015 order of conditions approved additions onto an existing structure,
septic upgrade, a pool, and relocation of a driveway. By the time an as-built was prepared, there were
inconsistencies in the location of the pool. It was originally on the north side of the property but was built on
the south side.A deck was expanded,and the driveway slightly altered.The installed pool fence is between the
50 and 25-foot buffer directly north of the pool.Willing to relocate the fence outside the 50-foot buffer but a
small portion would be kept within the 50-foot buffer in historically lawn area.
Engelbourg—Asked if the deck intruding into the 50-foot buffer is part of the 2015 NOI.
Madden—It was not previously approved;the expansion is new.
Engelbourg—From an ease of access point of view,he understands why the pool fence is being kept but he
wants it relocated outside the 50-foot buffer since this is an after the fact approval when the pool could have
been in the approved location.
Madden—There are no support posts for the deck that extend into the 50-foot buffer. If the fence hugs the
deck,you would need to add steps onto the deck for egress and that would be within the 50-foot buffer.
Engelbourg — The deck was built without permit; the most beneficial thing to do would be remove that
portion of the deck and move the fence.
Erisman — Agrees with Mr. Engelbourg. Projects like this are a concern; the representative presents
responsibly, and we add conditions then the applicant does what they want. That deck needs to be removed.
Wants to know about the amount of disturbance between the 25 and 50.
Madden—With the mitigation,he presumes the it would be above 50%of undisturbed land.
Topham—Asked that details from the original NOI be added to this plan.
Bracken—We can add the septic;the advantage of this system is it can be 5 feet from the foundation.
Phillips — Agrees with Mr. Engelbourg's point about approving an as-built. Moving the pool was a big
decision. She has no sympathy since this is a problem of their own making. The deck portion should be
removed,and they should deal with the issues they created.
Madden—Asked for a 2-week continuance.
Staff None
Motion Continued to December 3rd
Roll-call Vote N/A
9. 'Monomoy Creek Nominee Trust—10 Monomoy Creek Road(54-54.2) SE48-3357
Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale
Documentation Site and topographical plans,photos,requisite departmental reports and correspondence.
Representative Brian Madden,LEC Environmental
Don Bracken,Bracken Engineering
Public None
Discussion (7:78) Madden— No waiver proposed for a small pool and spa with deck and patio reconfiguration all outside the
50-foot buffer. Runoff will be routed to a subsurface infiltration system.
Engelbourg—Asked if the steps to the pool are structural features.
Bracken—That area is level,those aren't steps.
Staff We did a site inspection of the restoration area and found it in compliance.; all plants are in good health and
markers are obvious.
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
10. *14 North Road,LLC—14 North Road (43-83) 5E48-3359
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 (7:22) Madden—This is to a raze the existing structure and rebuild of a single-family dwelling and appurtenances.
The existing is within 9 feet of the coastal bank, which is vegetated and stable. Pool outside the 50-foot
buffer.A drvwell is proposed northeast of the structure;the slope is toward the road.As designed,we feel the
project provides a long-term benefit.
Engelbourg—Appreciates the desire to move the house away from the coastal bank; this isn't a raze/rebuild,
this is adding a number of structures and a pool with 80%of the buffer zone being altered.
Page 5 of 12
ConCom Minutes for November 19,2020,adopted Dec. 17
Beale —This is an ideal situation where the whole property could be corrected with all structures outside the
100-foot buffer.
Golding—He absolutely agrees it should be outside the 50-foot buffer.
Erisman — Agrees with moving it outside the 50-foot buffer. With sea-level rise, that's what homeowners
should be considering.
LaFleur—Asked why it can't be moved south to the edge of the 50-foot buffer.
Madden—The application as proposed is for no reasonable alternative/no adverse impact and is a significant
improvement. Pushing it outside the 50, the slope descends in a southerly direction and the owners want a
water view; moving it down grade would cause the building to be taller. Feels the amount of disturbance is
equitable.
Phillips — To her this is similar to the Easton Street application. She doesn't see removal of one structure
helps this proposal meet the performance standards. She's also concerned about the overall level of
development.
Madden —There is a steep,well-vegetated bank, a dune at the toe of the dune and farther to the north the
mean high-water elevation where the harbor starts. Cited the differences between this and the Easton Street
project.We are providing drainage to capture runoff.
Phillips—It is advisable to take things outside the 25-foot buffer;it would be the sensible thing to do and she
sees it as a benefit. However, looking at the proposed work within the 50-foot buffer, it is too much. It's
advisable to move it back as far as possible.
Beale—If you want to see end-scouring,look one lot east.
Golding— Ms. Phillips is correct; the existing house to be razed is not entitled to protection. The difference
with moving it outside it's propose location is about 4 feet, so he doesn't see moving it outside the 50-foot
buffer as an imposition and it is something we require.
Topham—We need to see architectural drawings for this packet.
Phillips—Asked what the structure left of the house is.
Madden—It's a wing with a connector to the main mass.
Phillips—Wants a site view.
Topham—This is before the Historic District Commission so there are architectural plans.
Golding—How does the design of the house have anything to do with the footprint.
Topham—He wants to see a cross section to understand what's underground and the amount of excavation
that would be require.
Engelbourg — The more information we have about this plan, including schematics, the better. Regardless
the amount of structure,it would be better for it to be outside the 50-foot buffer.
LaFleur—Mr.Topham's question related to moving it south.
Madden—asked for 2-week continuance
Staff When taking into consideration structural area,there is significant below-grade construction with lawn on top.
At some point the commission will have to contemplate a finding that below-grade are is structural.
Motion Continued to December 3rd.
Roll-call Vote N/A
11.*Medouie 15 Capital,LLC—15 Medouie Creek Road(20-3) SE48-3365
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 (7:47) Haines —A previous RDA included approval of the septic and maintain the leach field; the current owner
wants to upgrade the septic to I/A and move the leach field outside the buffer.Also asking for an expansion
of the peastone driveway, add parking, put in a fence, paths and additional plantings. The site is within
Massachusetts Natural Heritage mapped area. Work around the house is exempt. The septic, leach, and
parking are in a previously disturbed meadow area; Massachusetts Natural Heritage ruled no adverse impact.
No waivers required.
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-aye
12.'New England Development—21 Old South Wharf(42.2.4-2) SE48-3360
Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale
Documentation Site and topographical plans,photos,requisite departmental reports and correspondence.
Representative Katie Barnicle,AeCom
Mike Duffy,NIR
Public None
Discussion(7:51) Bantlele—This is for renovation for Bar Yoshi to expand into the full building with half walls on 3 sides to
keep the place viable during COVID restrictions; also asking to expand an existing wooden deck for 3
additional tables. Resource is Coastal land. No waivers are requested. Also improving access points to be
ADA compliant.
Phillips—Thinks this is a positive and helpful move that will help sustain the area. It's wise use of the space.
Page 6 of 12
ConCom Minutes for November 19,2020,adopted Dec. 1'
Topham—Agrees with Ms.Phillips.Asked if there is a plan for serving people who live here year-round.
Barnicle—Assumes there would be clear-plastic drop down
Duffy—There would be vinyl drop downs for inclement weather.
Staff Have everything needed to close.
Motion Motion to Close. (made by:Topham) (seconded)
Roll-call Vote Carried unan/Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-ave
13.*Halil&Padir—69.5 Cliff Road(3-204) SE48-3361
Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale
Documentation Site and topographical plans,photos,requisite departmental reports and correspondence.
Representative Don Bracken,Bracken Engineering
Public None
Discussion(7:59) Bracken — Work is between 50- and 100-foot buffers: relocated driveway, porch, install an infiltration to
handle porch runoff.
Carlson — Ethan Griffin appreciates the inclusion of the infiltration system. Ms. Padir said they have no
interest in putting in a pool.
Staff Have everything needed to close.
Motion Motion to Close. (made by:Engelbourg) (seconded)
Roll-call Vote Carried 6-0//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,and Phillips-aye;and Topham-recused
14.*Weissenberger—84 Pocomo Road(15-40) SE48-3364
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 (8:03) Gasbarro—This is for sand-drift fencing set off from the toe of a coastal bank. There is an existing fiber roll
array,which runs under the beach stairs. The owners hope this will discourage dogs and people from running
up the bank onto the nourishment area.Access would be from Pocomo Point.
Erisman — When they recover the rolls, they work from the front; asked how the sandcover would be
maintained with the fence in front.
Gasbarro—We would lift the sand over the fence with a rubber-tired bucket loader.The alternative would be
to install snow fencing,but that doesn't hold up against the higher tides.
Erisman — She's uncomfortable with this as she recalls Ernie Steinauer's discussion on assemblage of
materials.It seems unfortunate to place this fence in front of a more natural array.Asked if the owner thought
of signage noting that this is a dune restoration project.
Gasbarro—They mentioned dogs,but he can suggest it.
Engelbourg— This will make a physical and visual impediment; wild life will jump over it as will dogs. He
wants to believe people would heed signage but fears they won't care about the signs.
Gasbarro —Because it isn't going against the fiber rolls and being put in as a stabilization project, it doesn't
have to be considered a coastal engineering structure.This entire shoreline has this type of fencing; this is the
only gap.
Engelbourg—The sand-drift fencing defeats the purpose of the fiber rolls and would normally be reluctant.
However,since this fencing already exists across the other properties,this could be permitted.
Beale —Asked if the other properties also have the fiber rolls. (No.) He's not sure he likes the idea of both
the fence and the rolls.
Erisman—We'd have to make a finding as to why this isn't a coastal engineering structure. This isn't a pre-
1978 house so doesn't qualify for protection.
Golding—Under the circumstances, they don't want to remove the fiber rolls. Suggested an electric fence to
keep the dogs away.He's not unsympathetic but our regulations box us into denying this.
Phillips—She was thinking about the fact the rest of the properties have a fence,people might think this is an
opening where they can go up the bank. She would give some thought to the value of discouraging people and
their dogs from going up the bank. Asked if there is an idea that would help consider this as not a coastal
engineering structure.
Golding — He was under the impression that there are permanent stairs; people aren't clambering up the
bank,but their dogs are being a nuisance.
Gasbarro—This seems to be an area of the bank that is being walked on. He believes assemblage of materials
the posts were installed right up against to provide structural support;that isn't the case here.
Golding—Suggested typical beach fencing;it will keep people away.They could put it up in May and remove
it in September.
LaFleur — In the past, we've had issues with posts at the base of coir bags where they are part of the
structural component.
Erisman—Suggested no trespassing signs on the bank and a trail camera at the top of the bank.
Gasbarro—No-trespassing signs is a hot item on the Island today.A polite sign noting it is a restoration area is
better.
Topham—Suggested a set of 4X4s with a rope between them with restoration signage would be a start.
Gasbarro—Requested a 2-week continuance.
Page 7 of 12
ConCom Minutes for November 19,2020,adopted Dec. 1�
Staff Whether or not it is a coastal engineering structure is the crux. The finding would have to explain whether or
not the 6-feet separation constitutes a second structure.
\lotion Continued to December 3rd
Roll-call Vote N/A
15. 'r5 Sherburne Way,LLC—5 Sherburne Way (30-38) SE48-3363
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(8:32) Gasbarro — This is for a residential redevelopment within the buffer to the top of a stable, non-eroding
coastal bank.The existing structure would be removed from within the 50-foot buffer and disposed of offsite;
a new, smaller structure would be built between the 25 and 50-foot buffers. There are no adverse impacts to
the area and the reduction represents a net benefit.This area is served by Town water and sewer.
Phillips— Her concern is that the existing structure is more within the 50-foot buffer but wonders what the
issue is with the new structure being moved outside the 50-foot buffer.
Golding — He would prefer it was pulled outside the 50-foot buffer for consistency; there seems to be
enough room to do that.
Engelbourg — Agrees there's room to put everything outside the 50-foot buffer. There's also room to
remediate intrusion into the 50-foot buffer.
Gasbarro—Asked for a 2-week continuance.
Staff None
Motion Continued to December 3rd
Roll-call Vote N/A
B.Amended Order of Conditions
1. K.-11\L-1DIF,LLC—32 Dukes Road (56-188) SE48-2356
Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale
Documentation Site and topographical plans,photos,requisite departmental reports and correspondence.
Representative Jeff Blackwell,Blackwell&Assoc.
Public None
Discussion(8:39) Blackwell — A landscape wall south of the pool was constructed about 70 feet from a wetland on the
neighboring property.This would bring the project into conformance.
Staff None
Motion Motion to Approve. (made by:Beale) (seconded)
Roll-call Vote Carried unanimously//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-aye
I11. PUBLIC MEETING
C. Minor Modification
1. Cressman—3 Wauwinet Road(20-11.1) SE48-3071
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
Discussion (8:42) Gasbarro — This is to modify the footprint of the addition; it's no closer to the wetlands than previously
approved.They are also proposing as patio between the 50-and 100-foot buffer
Staff None
Motion Motion to Approve. (made by:Topham) (seconded)
Roll-call Vote Carried unanimously//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-aye
2. Van Den Born— 135 Wauwinet Road (11-12) 5E48-2961
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
Discussion (8:44) Gasbarro—This is to revert the location of the walkway to where it was prior to the Order of Conditions.
Staff None
Motion Motion to Approve. (made by:Topham) (seconded)
Roll-call Vote Carried unanimously//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-aye
3. Robert Furdak,Trustee—26 West Chester Street(42.4.3-56) SE48-3345
Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale
Documentation Site and topographical plans,photos,requisite departmental reports and correspondence.
Representative Brian Madden,LEC Environmental
Discussion(8:45) Madden—This is for a new planting plan as required by the Order of Conditions.
Engelbourg—Compliments the planting plan;picked up some beautiful workhorses.
Staff None
Motion Motion to Approve. (made by:Beale) (seconded)
Roll-call Vote Carried unanimously//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-aye
ConCom Minutes for November 19,2020,adopted Dec. 17
4. Kristin Engle,Trustee—90 Pocomo Road (15-43) SE48-2945
Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale
Documentation Site and topographical plans,photos,requisite departmental reports and correspondence.
Representative Paul Santos,Nantucket Surveyors
Discussion(8:48) Santos—This is to insert this as the proposed landscaping plan:pool was rotated outside the 100-foot buffer
leaving a small pool/win the 100-foot buffer.
Engelbourg—Asked about the plants.
Santos—There is an extensive planting plan;he will submit that as part of this
Staff None
Motion Motion to Approve. (made by:Phillips) (seconded)
Roll-call Vote Carried unanimously//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-ave
D. Certificates of Compliance
1. BFP Properties,LP- 13 Easton Street(42.1.4-26) SE48-2490
Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale
Staff None
Discussion(8:51) Art Gasbarro,Nantucket Engineering&Survey—Requested a 2-week continuance.
Motion Continued to December 3rd.
Roll-call Vote N/A
2. Bel Air Nominee Trust—9 Willard St(42.4.1-16) SE48-3123
Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale
Staff Recommend issuance
Discussion (8:52) Art Gasbarro, Nantucket Engineering& Survey—This is a residential redevelopment;work is in substantial
compliance.
Motion Motion to Issue. (made by:Topham) (seconded)
Roll-call Vote Carried unanimously//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-aye
3. Houlihan Swift Rock,LLC—28 Swift Rock Road(40-43) SE48-2997
Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale
Public This was residential development; the project was constructed in compliance. Recommend issuance with on-
going Conditions 19,20,21,and 22.
Discussion(8:53) None
Motion Motion to Issue with ongoing Conditions 19,20,21,and 22. (made by:Beale) (seconded)
Roll-call Vote Carried unanimously//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-ave
E. Orders of Condition
1. Peter E.Halle and Carolyn B.Lamm—24 Pilgrim Road (41-94) SE48-3347
Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale
Documentation Draft Order of Conditions.
Staff Only conditions he included involved monitoring of the restoration area. It's a small area,if we see issues,we
can call them in.
Discussion (8:55) Golding—Asked if we need failure criteria for the restoration area.
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. George L.Balboa—71R Cliff Road (30-160.1)SE48-3354
Documentation Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale
Staff Draft Order of Conditions.
Public Condition 19 will restrict construction vehicle parking to the property.
Condition 20 will require all water generated from on-site source, including the pool, is to be infiltrated and
not be allowed to leave the locus.
Discussion (8:57) Engelbourg—We wanted a condition prohibiting construction vehicles from parking into the travelled way.
Thinks"locus"is the wrong word to use;thinks all water should be infiltrated outside the 100-foot buffer.
Golding—Asked if there was a pool discharge issue.
Discussion about wording for Condition 20.
Motion Motion to Approve as amended. (made by:LaFleur) (seconded)
Roll-call Vote Carried 6-0//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips-aye;Topham-recused
3. 56 Monomoy Nominee Trust—56 Monomoy Road (43-41) SE48-3362
Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale
Documentation Draft Order of Conditions.
Staff No special conditions.
Discussion (9:03) None
Motion Motion to Approve as drafted. (made by: Golding) (seconded)
Roll-call Vote Carried unanimously//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-aye
Page 9 of 12
ConCom Minutes for November 19,2020,adopted Dec. 17
4. Monomoy Creek Nominee Trust—10 Monomoy Creek Road (54-54.2) SE48-3357
Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale
Documentation Draft Order of Conditions.
Staff Added the new standard pool Condition 23 requiring registering the name of the pool maintenance company.
Discussion(9:04) None
Motion Motion to Approve as drafted. (made bv:LaFleur) (seconded)
Roll-call Vote Carried unanimously//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-aye
5. Medouie 15 Capital,LLC—15 Medouie Creek Road(20-3)SE48-3365
Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale
Documentation Draft Order of Conditions.
Staff No conditions and no waivers
Discussion (9:06) None
Motion Motion to Approve as drafted. (made by:Phillips) (seconded)
Roll-call Vote Carried unanimously//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-aye
6. New England Development—21 Old South Wharf(42.2.4-2) SE48-3360
Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale
Documentation Draft Order of Conditions.
Staff Including findings:costal bank is man-made and land under the ocean abuts the locus.
Granted a waiver for work adjacent to the coastal bank.
Will add Condition 19 requiring construction materials to be moved prior to a flooding event. Condition 20-
will require materials and debris to be secured at the end of the day.
Discussion(9:07) Erisman—Asked if it needs to be conditions to move material in the event of flooding.
Topham—Asked if there is a concern about construction debris falling into water at end of day.
Motion Motion to Approve as amended. (made by: Golding) (seconded)
Roll-call Vote Carried unanimously//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-ave
7. Halil&Padir—69.5 Cliff Road(3-204) SE48-3361
Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale
Documentation Draft Order of Conditions.
Staff No conditions.
Discussion(9:10) None
Motion Motion to Approve as drafted. (made by: Golding) (seconded)
Roll-call Vote Carried 6-0/Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips-aye;Topham-recused
F. Extension of Orders
1. 36 Lily Street,LLC—36&36B Lily Street(42.4.3-93&94) SE48-3005
Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale
Documentation Order of Conditions
Staff None
Discussion(9:11) Brian Madden, LEC Environmental — Reviewed the project and reasons work was delayed. Explained
efforts to resolve current issues and moving forward.
Golding— He considers this site a disaster zone; he's sympathetic to the abutters and their letters. Feels the
reason for the extension should be proved. Something has interfered with the drainage characteristics; often
you need boots to walk through that area and flooding like that wasn't a prior condition. The Town drainage
had functioned well; feels the pilings have contributed to the condition; also, those temporary steel retaining
walls were supposed to be temporary but have been there for 3 years.
Madden — We vetted all these issues; there are no new issues. The information submitted by the abutters
revolves around the standing water in the foundation;once it's removed,there should be no further concerns.
Beale—Asked the material for the new parking area. (gravel or peastone) Right now it's asphalt.That place is
a wreck and its underwater half the time; for him that's very troubling and been going on for 3 years.
Questions they can be done in two weeks.
Erisman — She's concerned the rain garden and drainage need to be reassessed. She's uncomfortable with
allowing the extension before the drainage is resolved.
Madden —The Town drainage is not working as it should; that is being worked on but will take years. The
raingarden will provide flood storage for this site. He doesn't believe the flooding conditions have changed
since the original approval.
Engelbourg— His 1st point is the applicant allowed an open foundation not to be secured and thus fill with
water. His 2'1d point is the whole Lily Pond drainage system needs to be resolved. He doesn't see an issue with
this project continuing. The 3rd point,he agrees about the raingarden,we need to permit better technology to
capture and disburse water based upon the volume.
Topham — This has been idle for a couple of years; wonders what they were doing; it seems the applicant
intentionally dragged their feet. Now you have a house falling apart and an incomplete project. This was an
emergency and they could have gone to the Building Commissioner to get permission to work the site during
the COVID shutdown. He's having concerns about granting an extension. They need to go back and figure
out what is best for this lot. If these drains aren't going to work in conjunction with water-level rise, this site
Page 10 of 12
ConCom Minutes for November 19,2020,adopted Dec. 17
will only get worse.Maybe we should reevaluate the project under a new application. He feels there has been a
lot of neglect on the applicant's part.
Phillips—Thanked Mr.Topham for expressing her concerns. She too feels this request is a last-minute thing.
She doesn't see any evidence the applicant has been respectful of the process or the neighbors. Agrees this
project should go back to the drawing board.To her it makes sense to deny this and tell them to reapply.
Golding—Asked Mr.McNeil of he can add anything to this discussion.
McNeil—He's been in Mr.Madden's shoes. Offered the information of the Town's involvement to date. Lily
Pond is a complex area where water discharges through the drainage system to Center Street; it runs across
three properties with no easements and is a clay pipe installed in 1900s. He believes trees over the pipes have
matured and roots occupy pipe space thus decreasing the capacity of the pipe. There are other examples of
similar drainage issues around Town.We are working with the 5 property owners to get the easements, so we
can replace the pipes and restore Lily Pond in concert with the Land Bank.
Carlson — The Land Bank sent in a comment: the existing Order of Conditions has granted the owner
permission to do work that is damaging our property; access has become impassible to the Lily Pond; they
have not contained water to their own property; they should come back with a plan showing how they will
contain the water onto their property; they have repeatedly refused to cooperate. Read the regulations
regarding denial of an extension: A) no work has begun unless delay unavoidable; B) new information not
available at the time indicates permit not adequate;C) incomplete work is causing damage to interests; and D)
extension is not timely,a minimum of 30 days prior to expiration.If you deny this,you need to explain why it
qualifies.
Consensus agrees the denial is justified under Sections B&C.
Madden—Asked for a 2-week continuance to allow the owners to present.
Engelbourg—The expiration date is November 29th,asked if it can be continued.
Carlson—Since the extension was filed in a timely manner,it would be okay to continue.
Beale—The owner could have been here tonight.He wants to proceed with a denial.
Topham—Wonders what Town Counsel would recommend,if they would suggest a 2-week extension.
Carlson—Having clear findings in writing for grounds for denial would make sense.
Phillips—If we continue this to December 3rd,that isn't the same as granting an extension. She would rather
know more about the information that came in and the incomplete work that is causing damage to Land Bank
property. Going to December 3rd gives us the time to create a solid denial.
Beale—He thinks continuing December 3rd is an invitation for a lawsuit by the applicant who might argue the
for a Constructive Grant for not acting on the request.
Golding—He takes Mr. Beale's point.Asked if in the ensuing two weeks,fir. Carlson would write up all the
reasons to deny this. He feels the applicant had plenty of time to be here himself and sees no reason not to
deny the extension based upon Sections B&C.
Topham—He would like Staff to have a denial ready to go for a vote and to be signed on December 3rd but
the applicant should have the chance to review the letter.
Engelbourg—A continuance makes sense for a lot of reasons.
Madden — He would like to review the discussion with the owner and review the comments by the Land
Bank. Asked for a 2-week continuance of the hearing. The permit expires November 29th unless the
commission issues an extension.
Carlson —The applicant through his representative has granted the commission permission to continue the
discussion.
Phillips — Unless we decide to give them an extension, the permit expires on November 29th; we are not
going to grant that extension. If we agree to continue the discussion on December 3rd,that is not the same as
a constructive grant. On December 3rd it is up to the applicant to make a case to grant an extension.
Tomorrow Staff can call Mr.Pucci to see what he thinks.
Golding—Wants the continued discussion to be contingent on Town Counsel advice.
Erisman—We are going to continue this for two weeks.
Motion Continued to December 3rd contingent on Town Counsel opinion.
Roll-call Vote N/A
2. Hurd et al—10 Brant Point Road(29-148) SE48-3036
3. Hurd et al—10 Brant Point Road (29-148) SE48-3056
Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale
Documentation Order of Conditions
Staff Work is in progress and site in compliance.Asking for 3 1-year extension.
Discussion(10:03) None
Motion Motion to Grant the three 1-year extensions. (made by:Engelbourg) (seconded)
Roll-call Vote Carried unanimously//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-aye
Page 11 of 12
ConCom Minutes for November 19,2020,adopted Dec. 1
G. Other Business
1. Approval of Minutes 11/12/2020:
Carlson:on page 7 there's a mention of pier they are"concrete blocks."
Engelbourg: Page 2, comment at the bottom about adding a list of local plants; Ms. Erisman said, "no non-native plants
within the 100-foot buffer."
Motion Motion to Approve as amended. (made by:Phillips) (seconded)
Roll-call Vote Carried unanimously//Beale,Engelbourg,Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Phillips,and Topham-ave
2. Reports:
a. CPC,Topham
3. Enforcement update
a. Saccacha Pond
Sitting Erisman,Golding,LaFleur,Topham,Engelbourg,Phillips,Beale
Documentation Order of Conditions
Staff Since the last meeting,Mr. McNeil,Mr. Kefferstan,and I have discussed how these would precede. As late as
today Massachusetts Natural Heritage sent out their notice of non-compliance.
Discussion(tutus) Rob McNeil — After the last meeting, we discussed options. Until any new plans develop, the Town has
permitted opening the pond as often as necessary to maintain acceptable water levels. In the interim,we will
work out a short-term and long-term plan.Along with Natural Resources and Audubon,we have worked on a
living shoreline project, part of which would be installing bay balls to dissipate energy. No work will
commence without requisite permits. We will work on the pond water level. Long-term plans look at raising
the road way and upsizing the culverts in keeping with the Town Hazardous Mitigation Plan.
Sam Kefferstan, Mass Audubon — We've laid out our expectations on how to move forward. We are
committed to finding a reasonable resolution and looking at long-term plan.
Carlson—We will provide this as a by-weekly update unless there is something significant.
4. Commissioners Comment
a. Golding — There are a number of aspects we didn't discuss about our regulations; adjust the 50°o
restoration or whether or not bulkheads should be dealt with 78 houses.He'll send Mr. Carlson an email
b.Engelbourg—He'd like to have a lengthier discussion about bulkheads. One thing he'd be interested in being applied
is having a total disturbance percentage within the Zero to 100-foot buffer not just the 50%disturbance within the 25-
and 50-foot buffers.
5. Administrator/Staff Reports
a. None
H. Adjournment
Motion Motion to Adjourn at 10: 19 p.m. (made by:LaFleur) (seconded)
Roll-call Vote Carried unanimous)y//Beale;Engelbourg;Erisman;Golding;LaFleur;Phillips;Topham-ave
Submitted by:
Terry L.Norton
Page 12 of 12