Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-08-28 Town of Nantucket Conservation Commission Town and County Building Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 Agenda August 28, 1986 A. Public Hearings 1. Nantucket Commons Trust - SE48-365 2. Madaket Realty Trust - SE48-363 - Oakland Street 3. Thomas Barrows - SE48-367 - Cambridge and Tennessee Ave. 4. Granger Frost - 80 Madaket Road 5. John Kessler - 19 Wanoma Way 6. L. Dennis Shapiro - SE48-364 - Tristrams Ave. 7. Ralph T. Seward - SE48-366 - Eel Point Road 8. Martha Wells - Low Beach Road (Lot 28) 9. Martha Wells - Low Beach Road (Lot 36) B. Regular Meeting 1. Minutes of July 31, 1986 and August 14, 1986 2. Request for Determination a. Pocomo Citizens b. Tim Lewis - Hummock Pond Road 3. Orders of Conditions a. Stephen McMaster - SE48-362 - 26 Western Ave. b. Madaket Realty Trust - SE48-363 - Oakland Street c. Thomas Barrows - SE48-367 - Cambridge and Tennessee Ave. d. Ralph T. Seward - SE48-366 - Eel Point Road e. L. Dennis Shapiro - SE48-364 - Tristrams Ave. 4. Certificate of Compliance a. Stuart Steele - SE48-273 - 47 Hulbert Ave. b. Joseph Tellier - SE48-307 - 106 Orange Street 5. Other Business a. Agricultural Restriction Act - Frank and James Powers 6. Field Inspections a. Design Associates - Baxter Road, Siasconset b. Design Associates - 3 Tristrams Ave. c. John Shugrue - Bosworth Road d. Milton Rowland - Off Bassett Rd. Quaise e. Stuart Steele - 47 Hulbert Ave. f. Joseph Tellier - 106 Orange Street 7. Correspondence a. Mrs. W.R. Siddall - Pocomo Marsh b. Nancy M. Green - Nantucket Commons c. Quidnet Squam Association - Sesachacha Pond d. Dr. John M. Martin - Lot 28 Low Beach Rd. e. David Haines - Kaye - SE48-305 f. Brant Point Assoc - Jetties Shac g. MACC Newsletter h. MCZM - Conference i. MCZM - Calendar j. Mass. Campaign to Clean Haz.Wast k. John Shea - Det. of App. Draft POCOllO Citizens Minutes of August 28, 1986 The public hearings of the Nantucket Conservation Commission were called to order at 7:30 p.m. Members present were: C. Borchert, L. Dunn, P. Dunwiddie, L. Leske, D. \"'isco, M. J" Williams, W. Willet A. f!,JJ;!)j_c.'_,.J~_?';;jxj!..'_(:1_~';,,:;.. 1. Nantucket Commons Trust - SE48-3G5 - The Chairman reviewed the laws under which the hearing is run, the interests they protect, and the procedures on how the hearing will be held. He asked if anyone felt that this was not a legal hearing for any reason. There being no objection the hearing was called to order. Carl Borchert made a motion to begin the hearing with the topic of buffer zones. Mr. Philip Notopoulas, attorney for the applicant requested that the hearing not be limited to only one topic as the commission asked a number of questions at at its last meeting which the applicant's agents are prepared to answer tonight. L. Leske seconded the motion to begin the discussion of buffer zones. All were in favor. So voted. Mr. Notopoulas introduced Mr. Fredric King and Mr. Gerald Buzanoski of Schofield Brothers, and Mr. James Hall and Michael Marcus of IEP, who will be presenting information requested by the commission. Mr. Notopoulas asked that the hearing be continued for another two weeks as no definitive plans are re::':ldy' ::':lS yet. Mr. Notopola stated that it l~ the intention of the applicant to provide a minimum buffer zone between the buildings and t~e wetlands of not less than 15 feet and more in some places. The buffer zone will be in most cases grass with embankment and in others grass with concrete or brick pavers. Mr. James Hall reviewed the desing designed to allow small amounts of grass areas of the parking lot and pollutants entering the wetlands. of the p::'j''-'er'::;. Th(-?si:2 .::Ir. ('2 gas and oil to penetrate eliminating the chance of Mr. Michael Marcus walked the site and felt that the area is a series of isolated wetlands. Most are shrub swamp with sandy soils. The wetlands areas support a variety of wildlife where the upland portion of the site does not seem to support as much. Mr. Marcus feels that there is a good natural buffer, and recommends a minimum 10 ft. buffer to the developer to protect the wildlife interests. A siltation fence along the edge of construction should be used to reduce disturbance in the wetlands. Mr. Marcus reminded the commission that the town by-law only protects wildlife in the wetland and not the buffer zone. Mr. Borchert asked Mr. marcus to respond in writing to the use of a 50 ft. setback by the Town of Lexington By-Laws. '1 ... Mr. Notopoulos stated that the Bear Street sewer connection will not be used by the applicant on the suggestion of IEP. The wetland will be the best filtration and there is no direct connection from the wetlands to the Creeks and salt marsh. There is no direct connection under the railroad bed if Bear Street connection is used. Mr. James Hall found a channel from the catch basin on Bear Street to the salt marsh. To avoid introducing any new pollutant, applicant will be allowing spill already going into the wetland from off site to continue. The ground water does flow in the direction of the Creeks. The applicant proposes the pavers and oil separators to prevent a significant increase in gas or oil in the groundwater. Mr. Dunn asked how the pavers work when the ground is frozen. Mr. Hall stated that the grass will function as an absorber only when the ground is not frozen. Mr. Dunwiddie requested Mr. Hall to provide the commission with calculations on how much spill a parking lot of this size is likely to see and data on how successful the paver system has been in absorbing oil and gas" Mr. Notopoulos addressed the issue of replicatIon stating that the applicant plans to replicate even though the state does not require replication for an isolated wetland subject to flooding. Mr. Borchert noted that the state do~s require replication or the amount to maintain flood capacity. Ms. Leske asked for the trash maintenance information. Mr. Notopoulos stated that a trash maintenance schedule would be submitted at the next meeting. Leske also asked for the cross section of the soils in the downstream end of the wetlands. Mr. Marcus addressd this question by stating that all shrub swamp land is underlain by sand. The perched wetland is underlain by clay, and on top of that is a layer of peat. Ms. Leske asked the agents about the hydrologic study to be done. Mr. Hall stated that by rough observation the water is flowing downstream to the Creeks. Mr. Borchert stated that the commission is not asking for a full hydrologic study but only requested one from the vegetated wetland closest to the marsh on Orange street. The commission just wants to know flow rates, and where water goes into the marsh. Mr. Notopoulos stated the engineers are assuming that the water is flowing into the marsh and not disputing this, and therefore don't see the need for a hydrologic study when we have shown desings for stopping any pollutants from getting into the wetlands and have not increased the water flow. Mr. Borchert asked what if the ground is frozen and the oil separators don't work, oil spills into the wetlands. At what rate is it carried and where does it go. Michael Marcus stated 3 that if the pavers are frozen and the searators aren't working the therd line of defense would be the wetlands themselves as a filter. Mr. Hall stated that a small amount of oil and grease does not necessarily harm the wetland as these do not build up but continue to be altered.. Mr. Stephen butler of the Nantucket Planning Board recommended that the commission request an alternative plan other than the grass pavers as the Planning Board does not allow this type of parking lot in its rules and regulations and therefore might not be permitted by that board. Mr. John Roe of the Nantucket Land Councll asked Mr. Hall to provide information on how fast the oil breaks down in the grass system. Mr. Hall did not have the figures but will get them; oil that gets on leaves and stems evaporates in a matter of days. The oil which is absored in soils stays put until it is broken down. Once it gets below the organic layer it gets in the ground water. Mr. Roe asked if this amount of oil affects the diversity of plants and animals in the wetland. Mr. Marcus replied that no studies have been done that show a long term change. Mr. Roe suggested that by reducing the scope of the project, a larger buffer zone would act as a filter instead of other mechanical means. What would be the difference when a 50 ft. buffer was used, ln comparison to uSlng the grass pavers? Henry COll1n asked whether you can separate the oil that runs off from streets from the oil from the project. Margaret Berkhard objected on environmental grounds. She and others are petitioning signatures to mandate the commission to require larger (100 ft.) buffer zones.. Malcolm Soverino asked whether property owners upland from the wetland have the responsibility of changing the direction of their runoff away from the catch basins and then into the wetlands. He is also concerned with activity in Madaket. Runofff from roads into wetlands is happening allover the island but doesn't seem to adversely affect them. This project can control the runoff that goes into the wetlands and the applicant sees the need to do this. John McCormick was present as attorney for Marine Home Center and Sherburne Associates. Engineers for his clients have just been retained. Concerns will be voiced at the next hearing when there are revised plans. He raised concerns with the logic of using the wetland as a third line of defense. This is the very thing the commission is supposed to protect. He also noted that the location and height of the building foundations have not been presented. He requested a map locating the flood plain, and a need for a hydrologic study to show what is going into the harbor. o. Austin is concerned with the amount of opposition to this 4 project. Why didn't this go to Town Meeting? The commission reminded her that this area is zoned commercial and if the applicant follows all the laws of the municipality~ they have the right to develop. John Austin observed that all the engineering experts are representing the applicant, and asked where are all the experts going to be 15-20 years from now? Ms. Leske asked what kind of buffer zone is there going to be between the parking lots and the wetlands. Mr. Notopoulos replied that some places will be more than 15 feet and some will be closer; these areas will have grass pavers. There are no plans showing this. Ms. Leske asked how much area is to be filled? Mr. King replied that the plans before us show that approximately 2000 sq. ft. in little spots clipping the corners. The applicant will be replicating even more and higher quality wetlands. Revised plans are not finalized so he could not provide exact figures.. Ms. Leske asked if the water runoff from the Finast and Daves St. parking lot was feeding the wetlands. Mr. King stated that during storms it is recharging the wetland. Gerald Buzanoski stated that Mr. McCormick should request information from Mr. Sarvis and not the engineers. Plans are available through the commission office. The commission feels uneasy as the plans they have are obsolete. Mr Buzanoskl stated that plans are being revised. Mr. Notopoulos stated that the applicant will ask for the hearing to be continued in writing. Mr. Borchert is concerned that the applicant is still not providing enough of a buffer zone between the parking area and the wetland. 15 feet is not what he had in mind for a buffer zone between buildings and wetlands for protecting the interests in this area. He stated that he wants it in the record that the commission is advising the applicant this before revised plans are complete. Mr. Notopoulos hopes that none of the commissioners have preconceived notions of prejUdice and will ignore the evidence provided. Mr. Dunwiddie rephrased what Mr. Borchert said. He has been going over other towns recommendations for 100 to 200 ft buffers. What is the difference between this situation and what other towns have adopted for buffers? We realize that Nantucket has not adopted these, but would like the applicant to provide information on why we should accept this 15 foot buffer zone for this project. Sid Conway stated that the area ]~ zoned for commercial use. He is concerned with contamination of the groundwater at the sewer beds. Marie Schnetzler feels that the 15 foot natural buffer zone is adequate to handle the amount of oil and gas that would come from this project. ~:. J John Roe is concerned with the increase in the five year flood of approximately 10 inches by his calculations. Mr. Notopoulos stated that calculations are in the Notice of Intent and revised plans will show less of an increase. Mr. King stated that revised plans are trying to match the existing conditions, not bringing any additional water into the area. Dunwiddie commented that the question is changing the hydrology when permeability is changed. Malcom Soverino stated that the project will be used mostly ln a time of year when the ground is not frozen. Mort Slesinger stated that he did not feel that we should be guinea pigs for finding out whether or not a IS foot buffer zone is adequate when other towns are requiring 100 to 200 it buffers. Ms. Leske request. moved to continue the hearing at the applicants So voted. 2. Madaket Realty Trust - SE48-363. Oakland St. to close the hearing. So voted. Lucy Leske moved 3. Thomas Barrows - SE48-3G7. Cambridge Borchert moved to close the hearing. and Tennessee So voted. Ave. Carl 4. Granger Frost. 80 Madaket Rd. hearing for a file number to be Lee Dunn moved to continue issued by DEQE. So voted. the 5. John Kessler - l~ Wanoma Way. Carl Borchert moved to continue the hearing as no representative was present and a file number has not been issued by DEQE. So voted. G. L. Dennis Shapiro - SE48-3G4 - Tristrams Ave. Carl Borchert moved to close the hearing. So voted. 7. Ralph T. Seward - SE48-366 - Eel Point Road. to close the hearing. So voted. Lee Dunn moved 8. Martha Wells - Low Beach Rd. Lot ~o. The commission was concerned with the possibility of the rare heathland species found on the lot being disturbed. Lee Dunn moved to write a letter to the applicant informing them of the commission findings and to continue the hearing for a file. to be issued by DEQE. So voted. 9. Martha Wells - Low Beach Rd. Lot 36. continue the hearing. So voted. Lee Dunn moved to B. Regular Meeting: 1. Lucy Leske moved to approve the minutes of July 31, 1986 as written. So voted. 2. Carl Borchert moved to approve the minutes of August 14v 6 1986 with one correction. 1. The commission asked the Nantucket Commons Trust to supply design and specs of the oil separators. 3. Request for Determinations a. Pocomo Citizens -L. Leske moved to issue a positive determination stating that the area described consists of all land within 100 ft of the saltmarsh and of the isolated freshwater wetland on the corner lot. The area also includes the saltmarsh and the isolated wetlands themselves. The 100 ft delineation will be marked on attached map. b. Tim Lewis - Hummock Pond Rd. Carl Borchert moved to issue a positive determination stating that this land is within the buffer zone of an isolated freshwater wetland and any project on this property within 75 feet from Hummock Pond Road will require athe filing of a Notice of Intent. 4. Orders of Conditions: a. Stephen McMaster - SE48-362 - 26 Western Ave. L. Leske moved to issue orders of conditions adding I)Applicant will move septic closer to the bottom of the bank, 2) A no coastal revetment clause, 3) the appicant will install snowfencing in the blowout area on the southeast corner of the property to prevent further erosion from foot traffic and wind. Carl Borchert opposed. So voted. b. Madaket Realty Trust - SE48-3G3. L. Leske moved to Issue Orders of Conditions adding: the applicant will place staked hay bales between construction/excavation and the property line to prevent siltation of White Goose Cove. So voted. c. Thomas Barrows - SE48-367. L. Leske moved to Issue standard orders of conditions. ~o Voted. d. Ralph T. Seward - SE48-3GG. L. Leske moved to issue orders of conditions adding 1) a no coastal revetment clause, 2) no part of the coastal bank will be disturbed during removal of structures and 3)all disturbed areas will be revegetated with native materials. So voted. e. L. Dennis Shapiro - SE48-3G4. Lee Dunn moved to issue orders of conditions adding I) a no coastal revetment clause, 2) stairway shall be built according to plans submitted with the addition of an elevated walkway extending from the top of the bank back 30 feet, after 30 feet, walkway may be at ground level. 3) vegetation shall be allowed to grow naturally below and around the walkway and stairway to maintain stability of the coastal bank, and 4) all disturbed areas shall be replanted with local native vegetation. So voted. 5. Field Inspections: a. Monday Sept. 2, 1986 Milton Rowland, Stuart Steele, Josaeph Teelier, Michael Sparrough. 7 b. Monday Sept 8~ 1986 Design Associates, John Shugrue G. Other Business: a. Agricultural Restriction Act. frank and James Powers. A draft of a recommendation from the Nantucket Planning Board was presented to the commission. Lee Dunn moved to sign the application expending a sum of *5,000 to assume deed restrictions on the Powers property by the conservation Commission. All in favor. So voted. b. Enforcement order. L. Leske moved to issue an enforcement order to M. P. and R. Gardner to cease removing material from a wetland. So voted. c. Brant Point Association - Jetties Beach Shack. The commission stated that they will look into this matter. 7. All correspondence on the agenda was read and the commission members suggested that a form lette be drafted stating that the commission received such letters and that they were read at the public meeting. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. 8