HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-06-11 Special Meeting
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
Town and County Building
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
':S'\..\Y\<.
~ 11, 1985
The public meeting of the Nantucket Conservation Commission was called to
order at 5:00 p.m. Members present were: M. Arnold, P. Waine, P. Dunwiddie,
L. Leske, A. Silva and L. Dunn. Members absent were: C. Pearl
Subject: Long Pond Realty Trust - SE48282, 286-294 - 9 lot subdivision.
P. Waine - Motioned to deny the 9 projects as filed.
M. Arnold - Would like to see the information sited in the Perkins Jordan
study as the Commissions source of credible evidence. We need
stronger limitation than Title V gives us to protect this
wetland. We must sy in the denial that this does not rul on any
other application that the applicant may file on a later date.
The Commission - feels that even though they did not ask for any specific
studies from the applicant it was clear through conversation
at the hearings that we wanted any information that would
prove to the Commission that these projects would be safe to
the ground water supply. The applicant never did bring in
any supporting evidence.
L. Leske - At the May 9th public hearing Carl Borchert made a point about the
Madaket regulations used to protect an area that was critical.
M. Arnold - No geologic / hydrologic study was asked for from the applicant.
P. Dunwiddie
Concearned about the legality of using a Town paid for study
(Perkins Jordan) as credible evidence. No one has proved that
it isn't a credible source and any study paid for by the
applicant would be considered credible unless proved otherwise.
L. Dunn - Madea motion to deny the 9 applications on the probabe pollution of
ground water of the wetland in the area, based on information on the
Madaket Regulations, the Perkins Jordan Study and the testimony of
John Roe and the lac of disproving evidence from the applicant.
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
Town and County Building
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
May 11, 1985
page 2
M. Arnold - We should also use wording on page 120 and 121 of the guide book
about the (1) public harm and (2) No safeguards that would prevent
harm. Also use wording of the State laws 10.03.
Are there any conditions that would allow these applications to go
through now ?
The consensus of the Commissioners was no. There has not been
enough evidence brought befor the commission to allow them to
make a judgement on how many bedrooms this critical area will support.
L. Leske - Concearned about the problem of having to deny each application
individually. It might be that we need only deny 6 and the other
3 would go through.
The motion to deny these nine applications was approved by L. Dunn, P. Waine,
L. Leske and P. Dunwiddie.
Al Silva and M. Arnold did not participate in the voting.