HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-10-09
..~
~~"TUCJr~~
~~ ~1:.'
~~\~
~ -iUl1
t: ~.., -'!Co ~,.. i
~- - 1....1:
~~.. ~~-=--I.I\ ;:
("... .;.:;ot:--:=>- - ,.'~ ro .F
() i;p........;; Ii)' 10'
ORA1.. .~..
........',,-
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
Town and County Building
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Agenda October 9, 1986
A. Public Hearings
1. John Kessler - 19 Wanoma Way
2. Anthony Hoffman - Tautemo Way
3. William C. Cox Jr. - Easton Street
4. Marie Schnetzler - Eel Point Road
5. Heinz & Rooney - Hinkley Lane
6. Bruce Failing - Hulbert Ave.
7. Nantucket Commons Trust - SE48-365
B. Regular Meeting
1. Minutes of September 25, 1986
2. Request for Determination
a. Salomon
3. Planning Board Referral
a. David Benedict
4. Certificate of Compliance
a. Robert Elliott - SE48-361
5. Other Business
a. Frank and James Powers
b. Sankaty Bluff Erosion Control
c. Moorlands Management District
6. Correspondence
a. Planning Board - Commons Recommendation
b. NP & EDC - Tuckernuck Island
c. Schlesingers - Nantucket Commons Trust
d. MACC Newsletter
e. MACC - Support letter
f. Division of Marine Fisheries News
g. Conservation Officer
7. Field Inspections
a. Robert Sarvis - De Wolf Associates
b. Dionis Dunes Project
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
Town and County Building
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Minutes of October 9, 1986
9r--c.s-e. ,,,\\- \)o'c"'~, \- \0",- ,....." ....,,). \\-e.-+-t- J~sc-o Le5-~ ~
A. Public Hearings
1. John Kessler - 19 Wanoma Way. Donald Visco moved to continue the
hearing for a file number to be issued by DEQE. SO voted.
2. Anthony Hoffman - Tautemo Way. Glenn Wills was present as the agent.
In response to concerns expressed by the Commission on the field
inspection revised plans were submitted showing the location of the
house as far back as it can be moved with zoning requirements. The
new deck is now one foot closer to wetland, there is a 17 foot sep-
eration from the deck. The applicant will not be filling or changing
the grade. Lee Dunn expressed opposition to moving the deck any closer
than shown on plans. The building of an existing bulkhead was discussed.
Donald Visco feels that this was just a repair of an existing bulkhead
and not a new project. Lee Dunn moved to continue the hearing for a
file number to be issued by DEQE. SO voted.
3. William C. Cox Jr. - Easton Street. Mr. Borchert read the field inspec-
tion report. John Shugrue was present as the agent. L. Leske moved to
continue the hearing for a file number to be issued by DEQE and for
the agent to obtain information from both owners on repair of existing
groins. So voted.
4. Marie Schnetzler - Eel Point Road. Glenn Wills was present as the agent.
Planting plans were submitted. Site has been seeded to stabilize the
area. Ms. Schnetzler would like to start plantings as soon as possible.
Leske moved to continue the hearing for a file number~to be issued
by DEQE and to allow planting now. So voted.
5. Heinz and Rooney - Hinkley Lane - The field inspection report was read.
Mr. Robert Emack was present as the agent. Mr. Emack asked direction
from the Commission for stabilization of the top of the bank. L. Leske
moved to continue the hearing for a file number to be issued by DEQE
and better contour plans, a cross section of the bank, and landscape
architects plans. So voted.
6. Bruce Failing- Hulbert Ave. - The field inspection report was read.
John Shugrue was present as the agent. L. Leske moved to continue for
a file number to be issued by DEQE. SO voted.
\
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
Town and County Building
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Minutes of October 9, 86
page 2
7. Nantucket Commons Trust - SE48-365 - Mr. Philip Notopoulos, attorney
for the applicant, presented revised plans showing a total of nine
buildings, which are larger than previous plans show. The parking area
has been re4~~~ by 56 spaces and the impervious surface area has been
reduced by ~ feet. The Interior sq. ftg. has been reduced by 8000
feet. Plans show a 25 foot buffer around the project except for build-
ing number three. The minimum setback is now approximately ten feet,
minimum distance from any roadway is approximatly 13 feet. The distance
between parking and lower blue area is five feet.
New plans are color coded as follows: green - replication area.
Red - area to be filled. Blue - discresionary fill area if the Commission
wants a 25' buffer.
Mr. Gerald Buzanoski of Schofield Brothers stated that one additional
oil seperator had been added to the plan and the total square footage
of fill and replication is now approximately 2000 sq. ft. He explained
that the cross patches shown on the plan are sheeting areas of grass
to be used for overflow after the five year storm.
Mr. Borchert asked how much of the buffer zone was natural vegetation.
Mr. Buzanoski responded with information on the slope stating that
there is a 2 to 1 slope therefore erosion is not a problem.
Mr. Notopoulos submitted a report on first flush, five year storm
volume calculations, site specific soil study and catch basin plans.
Mr. Buzanoski stated that site specific soil tests were done on
Tuesday, September 30th. Water levels ranged from 6.1 to 5.6. Soils
were found to be clean sandy loam fill. Elevations were lower than
assumed. Assumed ground water was set at 7 when designing leaching
facilities. Leaching bottoms were set no lower than 7~ feet. Leaching
was calculated only from the side walls, no credit was taken from
the bottom.
In response to Arlene Wilsons concern with the catch basins being
open bottom, Mr Buzanoski stated that catch basins that are leaching
bottoms are not located near any parking areas. All roadways are
bermed to the oil seperators or the grassy areas for overflow after
the five year storm.
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
Town and County Building
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Minutes of October 9, 86
page 3
Mr. Dunn addressed the question again of how much of the wetland is to
be disturbed. Mr. Sarvis stated that between five and 15 feet. Lee
stated that at the end of the last meeting he stated that he would
like to have 25 feet of undisturbed buffer. Mr Tillotson stated that
the configuration of the wetlands does not allow the runoff from the
project into the oil seperators unless some disturbance of the area
is allowed.
Flood storage capacity was reverted back to the original plan because
grass pavers would have taken care of any flooding occuring from the
town sewer but now without pavers detention basins are needed again
at the higher elevation of 11.9. Mr. Borchert stated that a compenstory
flood level study was asked for.
Mr. Buzanoski responded to Mr. Sevie's letter stating that if he feels
that there is less water coming from off site than calculations show
then calculations are conservative. Data shows only runoff generated
from on site.
Water levels during wet years were discussed. Carl feels that the
ground water levels are approximately 2 feet below normal now. Mr.
Buzanoski stated that leaching designs allow 1 to 1~ buffer of what
the ground water level actually is.
Erosion and Sediment control plan for revised plans are not available.
The commission asked to see actual plans to review what the buffer
area is to be made up of. In response to how the Commission feels about
the blue area, Lee Dunn stated again that he wants a 25 foot totally
undisturbed buffer from wetland. Leske stated that it is counter
productive to fill an area so you can protect it. Carl stated that if
it is filled than there is not really a 25' buffer as stated earlier.
The Commission questioned how much linear feet are to be disturbed in
the blue area.
Mr. Sarvis stated that the project is designed to handle up to 2 inches
of runoff which is critical in ponding, 90% of rainfall comes in 1 inch
volume. We can take care of 97% of pollutants in oil seperators in the
five year storm. The amount of pollutants going into the wetlands will
be negligible.
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
Town and County Building
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Minutes of October 9, 86
page 4
Mr. Notopoulos stated that the primary interest of this site is
wildlife not pollution. He feels that the buffer proposed adequately
addresses this interest. Mr. Borchert wants time to review the first
flush study before he is satisfied that the project adequately
addresses pollution.
The maintenance schedule for the Condo Association was discussed. Mr.
Notopoulos stated that he would have Mr. Hall of IEP write the
Commission stating maintenance requirements for the project.
Mr. Borchert read the letter of October 3, 1986 from the Nantucket
Planning Board asking for the Commissions recommendations for
appropriate setbacks from the wetland. The Commission voted unanimously
to write the Planning Board stating that a twenty five foot undisturbed
buffer of vegetation between all wetlans and construction of any kind
had been requested but that no decision had been made by the Commission
with regard to the outcome of the Nantucket Commons project.
The letter of September 25, 1986 from the Shellfish Advisory Board
concerning setbacks was read. The Schlesinger's letter of October 6,86
was read supporting the Commission.
Mr. Robert Daylor of BSC was present representing Marine Home Center
and Sherburne Associates. He advised the Commission to require
Hydrologic reports of the area to determine how it effects the project's
design. ~Vhat are the actual perc rates and what is the regime? He
also advised the Commission to require sediment and erosion control
plans showing the sequence and how the project is to be built. Wnere
are the spoils going to be placed during construction. Mr. Daylor
stated that the nature of the slopes should be looked at when determin-
ing the buffer zone. He feels that the project may be too dense to
provide adequate buffers. Transitional plants are at least five feet
wide so a 25' buffer is not unreasonable to protect wildlife. The
edges of the wetlands are most productive for the wildlife using the
area, altering the edge would change the characteristics of the wetland.
Mr. Don Polvere was present to voice his support for the project and
asked the Commission what basis were they using for asking for a 25'
buffer when reports had been submitted testifying that a 15' buffer
was adequate. Mr. Borchert read letters from John Roe and Arlene Wilson
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
Town and County Building
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Minutes of October 9, 86
page 5
stating reasons why the Commission should require a 25' buffer.
Bob Stoham and Sid Conway requested that letters supporting the 15'
buffer be read. Mr. Borchert read IEP's letter supporting the 15'
buffer. Henry Coffin asked what kind of wildlife is present in the
area. Mr. Andy Oats of Bear Street was present and stated that he
witnesses many species of wildlife using the area. Mr. Sarvis stated
that any of the 25' buffer that is disturbed will be replanted.
Nancy Green was present to voice her opposition to the project. Mrs.
Berkheimer presented more signatures asking the Commission to require
at least a 100' buffer.
Lucy Leske moved to continue the hearing for the following information:
1) A complete sedimentation and erosion plan for construction
phase and post-construction.
2) Further hydrologic studies
3) A complete maintenance plan for oil seperators and catch basins
4) Plans showing a more natural perimeter of wetlands.
So voted.
B. Regular Meeting
1. Lee Dunn moved to approve the minutes of September 25, 1986. So voted
2. Requests for Determination
a. Salomon - Lee Dunn moved to issue a negative determination stating
that the area is subject to protection under the Act but the proposed
project will not alter that area. So voted. Haybales shall be erected
20' downslope of the building site.
3. Planning Board Referral
a. Benedict - Lee Dunn moved to send a letter advising the Board
that the subdivision is not subject to protection under the Act.
So voted.
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
Town and County Building
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Minutes of October 9, 86
page 6
4. Other Business
a. Frank and James Powers - The Powers could not attend the meeting
due to medical reasons.
b. Sankaty Bluff Erosion Project - The field inspection report of
September 29, 1986 was read. Carl Borchert moved to write Mr.
Philip Shea of the DPW stating that the Commission voted to
approve the continuation of the project with the remaing funds.
However, the Commission felt that the erosion on the Sconset
bluff is only getting worse due to recent changes in offshore currents.
The bluff is being undermined by heavy wave action as quickly as
it is being stabilized from above . The Commission felt that future
erosion control funds might be better utilized in other areas of the
island where erosion can be brought under control more effectively
and economically.
c. Moorlands Management District - Lee Dunn moved to send a letter to
the Planning Board advising them that the lot is subject to
protection under the Act. So voted.
d. The Commission voted unanimously
Office of Environmental Affairs
the personell of DEQE.
to send a letter to the Executive
supporting the need to increase
e. Inquireries have been made to the Dukes County Selectmen's Office
about a grant for hiring a full time Conservation Officer.
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.