Loading...
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.