HomeMy WebLinkAboutSE48_2824 AS SENT LETTER TO JUDGE WILKINS NLC NCC GREENHILLS
THE GREENHILL
FAMILY
AS SENT
May 3, 2021
The Honorable Douglas H. Wilkins
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Superior Court
Nantucket
Via Electronic Communication
RE: Siasconset Beach Preservation Fund (SBPF) vs Nantucket Conservation Commission
and the Town of Nantucket, Superior Court Civil Action No.1975CV00027
Dear Judge Wilkins:
Together we, the Nantucket Land Council, a non-profit conservation organization with a
mission to protect and preserve Nantucket’s natural resource areas, the Nantucket Coastal
Conservancy, a non-profit group that focuses on the preservation of Nantucket’s coastal
resources, and the Greenhill Family, who, along with Mass Audubon, are the largest land
owners just north of the project site central to this matter, are writing to express our
collective dismay at and opposition to the Motion to continue the hearing, which was filed
on April 29, 2021. We have been observing and participating in the various permitting
processes related to this matter since its inception, as well as in earlier considerations
regarding the same area of our shoreline. We are taking the unusual step of writing to the
Court directly because we believe that we represent the concerns of thousands of our
fellow islanders.
Since this case was filed nearly two years ago in July 2019, the deadlines have been
repeatedly extended and the hearing — originally set for January 20, 2021 — has already
been postponed by over three months. We strongly urge you to proceed with the hearing
on May 6, 2021, which was scheduled to accommodate the parties’ request for a view, and
that you issue a decision in this matter.
This legal matter is of enormous public importance to the residents of Nantucket, who were
given ownership of the relevant beach by the Proprietors who established Nantucket. The
Letter to Judge Wilkins 2
underlying issues relating to the use and destruction of publicly owned beaches for the
purpose of erosion control and protection of the private property of powerful individuals
has been a source of tremendous community tension. The community of Nantucket awaits
the long-delayed decision of the Superior Court in this matter. (We who live on Nantucket
had already arranged our work and lives to ensure we would be available to attend the
scheduled Court’s viewing.) We implore you not to delay any longer this important legal
process in which Natucketers have a vested interest.
If the Court were to entertain another postponement, it should not be on the false premise
that the legal disputes may somehow become mooted by the results of a consulting
contract. The record in this matter is the record; no consultants’ report will change the
record.
Contrary to the contentions of the SBPF, the pending work of the Arcadis consultants will in
no way resolve the issues in dispute in this matter. Indeed, the reverse is true. The
resolution of this matter and the important legal issues under the island’s local Wetland
Bylaw is an essential pre-requisite to the Arcadis consultants’ ability to make informed
recommendations regarding alternative approaches to coastal erosion in the area of the
Sconset bluff.
The Arcadis Baxter Road work for the Town of Nantucket has absolutely nothing to do with
the SBPF application to expand the geotubes on the publicly owned beach beneath Sconset
bluff; that application was denied by the Nantucket Conservation Commission and is the
subject of the matter before you. Moreover, to the extent that geotubes beneath the bluff
are within the realm of the possible alternatives Arcadis might propose, the legality of the
geotubes must first be determined by this Court.
This latest request to postpone is nothing more than another delay tactic by SBPF that also
undermines enforcement of the Order of Conditions for the current geotube project, the
proposed extension of which is presently before the Court. (We note that in the Motion to
Continue, the existing project is referred to as a “joint project” between the Town and SBPF.
To the contrary, the applicant for the existing geotube installation was solely SBPF.) We are
deeply concerned that the Conservation Commission’s continuing oversight of the existing
project — which is presently before the Commission on an active enforcement matter for
non-compliance — has been hampered by the lack of a resolution of the case at issue
before this Court. As a result, we who live on Nantucket must live with the ongoing impact
of the project’s erosion of our beach and bluff.
Letter to Judge Wilkins 3
While we understand that some of these concerns are outside the scope of this Court’s
review in this matter, we nonetheless urge that you not permit the parties to evade timely
review and resolution of issues of such importance to the citizens of Nantucket.
Sincerely,
Emily Molden
Executive Director
Nantucket Land Council
D. Anne R. Atherton
Administrative Coordinator
Nantucket Coastal Conservancy
Robert F. Greenhill
The Greenhill Family
Robert F. Greenhill, Jr.
The Greenhill Family
COPIES VIA ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION: Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the
Defendants
Glenn A. Wood
gwood@rubinrudman.com
Michele A. Hunton
mhunton@rubinrudman.com
George X. Pucci
mailto:gpucci@k-plaw.com