HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-12-14
-
~
.
,
.....-U'..U""11
;F'r' ..lITUC'- "~
!t'~'" ...~e-).~
i' 0" "","~'
.\".(0 ..-s.\
:0:11 \ ~ ':
iOt _~lJIt
!; l- to ~:~!i 1. ;
I..~, -_;~~
11.;... :;. - :A"";:
\1-c:... ~ -.....~..i
.. 0'" ." ,,~'"
"" /?1'I.........c \). ~
:l1o:rORAl ~ .......
........IIU""~
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228-7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 14. 1989
The meeting was called to order at 7:03 PM in the Large Group
Instruction Room at the Nantucket High School. Present were
Commissioners William Willet, Granville Cranston, Carl Borchert,
Henry Wasierski, Donald Visco. Also present were Ben McKelway,
Administrator and Bruce Perry, Secretary.
~ COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS FROM PRESS AND PUBLIC
Mr. steve Bender was present with some comments. He told
the Commission that he wanted to give an update concerning the
continued pollution of Nantucket Harbor. In 1988, thousands of
gallons of sewage was pumped into Nantucket Harbor. After that
summer the Board of Health passed a regulation that prohibited
the pumping of "grey water, treated and untreated sewage" into
the harbor. In the winter of 1989 First Winthrop, operator of
the Nantucket Boat Basin among other operations, constructed a
new pump out facility to handle the cruise ships that come to
the island. The Board of Health allowed this expansion of
their existing sewer permit by requiring them to pump out
after midnight when the load was the lowest. It was discovered
during the winter that the cruise ship Nantucket Clipper did
not have enough holding capacity for even one meal. They were
observed numerous times and by various people pumping out into
the harbor. In addition to these incidents, there numerous
boats that tie up in the boat basin that do not have any
holding tanks. The position of the Board of Health is that it
is within the spirit of the law if the people living on boats
have access to the shore facilities, i.e. have keys to the
bathrooms and showers. This seems to'me to be a little absurd.
I have also asked the Health Officer why he does not take any
water tests from the Boat Basin during the summer. He has
responded tome that he knows that it would show up polluted.
H~ blames the pollution on the presence of both birds and
human contamination. I suggested some simple testing to be
done in the area but he has been resistant to it. What this
issue needs is an agency like the Commission to get interested
in the issue and put some pressure on the Health Department to
enforce its regulations.
(
Mr. Wasierski asks if he is aware of the use of metal
plates to shield the discharge holes from public view.
.,
· ~""""'t
'~~!l-TU el(f!"'~
~~ ..~-...,,>-
#, (,/ ". -s. 'So
~ .:e.. ... ... ..
! :t:!1\'UI ~
to;, _jlJli
t-.:.. -,~:. ::
.\., ~;:.
~".. ... -l^-~I
,...."'... ~- ..'~ ~
"' .'0.... ..... "'!fI."
'~ 19 1":.......... \). ,,'fii
'<It;rORAit ....",.
...,....1111'.\
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228-7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes December 14, 1989 Page 2
Mr. Bender responds he is unaware of any such plates and
comments that the dumping was very blatant.
Mr. Visco asks if he has copies of the correspondence with
the Health Department?
Mr. Bender responds affirmatively and states that he will
make the copies available to the Commission.
~ PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Old North Wharf - SE48-549 (42.3.1-29,30,32,33,34,225>
Present were Edward and Alfred Sanford, applicants,
and Melissa Philbrick of Vaughan, Dale ~ Philbrick,
counsel.
Mr. McKelway comments that there have been two additional
letters received by the Commission since the last public
hearing.
Mr. Willet reads one letter from Olive Butman opposing the
project.
Mr. Borchert reads one letter from Cybil Goldsmith in
favor of the project.
Mr. A. Sanford submits the alternatives that they are
reviewing as a result of the feedback from the State and local
agencies with the following discussion:
1. Version 1 (Vi): the original submission.
2. Version 2 (V2): Modification that has been
submitted to the HDC. This plan has eliminated the use of
the solid fill pier and replaced it with timber supported
pier. Some of the larger buildings have been removed and
some others have been reduced in scale. The entire project
has been moved behind the line from the last dolphin to
the buoy. Some members of the HDC felt that the plan
changes resulted in the lack in authenticity without the
solid fill.
If"
. ",,"'U'='I,
+'~~~!.~t~~
I:;r'l. ..(. ~"
.. ..oS- ~
:of 'y'$
iOi' \~i
,....:'":~i. ;
...\..?.-.= "1:.;-"
,.....\ ~ - ..".....1
,,~\ - - ~".,:
.. ('..... _.,;,:,. .........'0 ~
';,...o.l? ;,-........;; ~. ,,4'
"'",",',rORAl w ....."
......,....."...
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228-7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes December 14, 1989
Page 3
3. Version 3 (V3): Is a combination of solid
pile-supported pier using much the same footprint
original filing (the solid fill portion was shown
pink) .
fill and
as the
in
4. Version 4 (V4): Is an abandonment of the historic
reconstruction project. It entails a pier with all water
dependent uses.
Mr. Visco comments that this is the first time the
Commission has had the opportunity to these plan changes. I
think that it would be inappropriate for the Commission to
comment on the plans until there has been more time to review
them.
Mr. A. Sanford agrees with Mr. Visco and adds that the
intent is to explain the plans and then allow the Commission
more time for review.
Mr. Sanford further explains that some of the HDC members
felt that the combination of pile and solid fill in V3 might
be possible. Some were upset with the loss of the historic
buildings and solid fill in V2. They commented that the
reconstruction would be fake if it varied .too far from the
original wharf. Obviously, the concerns of the Conservation
and the Historic Districts commission are at odds over the
type of pier construction that will make each of them happy.
Mr. Visco responds that the HDC is under different laws.
This Commission does not predicate its decision based on what
some other Commission will allow. We need to concentrate on
the positive aspects of this project and its effect on the
Easy Street Basin. Push the aesthetics aside from our
considerations.
Mr. A. Sanford adds that these are the alternatives that
MEPA had requested us to investigate.
Mr. William Straus of Straus, Lang, etc., counsel
representing an group of abutters, comments that it was his
understanding that the hearing had been continued to allow the
applicants to do some studies. These studies are not done
.
. ""....~4
.JIll' ..~TUC...I.~
h~,.;,:~/*-...::. e-)-
,~ 0/ '"'"1-'5.
~fi \"p ~
0:1 ~U\l
:. :IJI.
l- i"'''' . -J' .
. \~ ~ ~f
-:::.\ "-. -. -;" I
\;y", ~ . ..' '0 ;:
.. 0'" ." "'~"
if.,., ~';'''''''';, \l' ","
.,....',,-ORA1'" ........
....,.,....n"'..
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228-7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes December 14, 1989 Page 4
today. I would like to reiterate our worries at the loss of
public review. The Commission is losing its control of its
review aspects. It should be concerned with the environment,
not aesthetics. The Commission has the authority under CMR
10.55 to set a hearing date and allow 21 days for public
notice. This would allow the applicants enough time, once a
date can be agreed upon, to prepare all of its information and
present it a specific hearing. This method would allow for the
public to receive the needed information all at once instead
long process that exists now.
Mr. Willet responds that the Commission was aware from the
beginning that the process would be a long one and that the
Commission is aware of its responsibilities to the
environment.
Mrs. Philbrick adds that the notice of this meeting was
published in the Inquirer and Mirror's "Development Watch"
section and there was an article in both papers last week
about the project. It was my hope for this meeting to show the
Commission the direction that the DEIR is going to take. It
was never our intention to have the DEIR completed at this
time.
Mr. Scot Lang asks what the procedure will be from this
point. Has V4 been submitted as the project replacing the
project in the Notice of Intent or is it just a proposal?
Mrs. Philbrick comments that the DEIR will consider all
the alternative submitted tonight. This has been requested at
the State level as a requirement of the study. In addition, I
have the latest list of information that Ben made up for this
meeting. It is similar to the list that we have made ourselves
to study. I would like to suggest that the Commission study
the various plans and respond at the next meeting on December
28.
Mr. John Moore, an abutter to the project, comments that
date would be very difficult for a number of people to attend.
He suggests that the meeting after would be better.
~'tc'~l
'r~"''''~14TUCJrt'''&
it>'" ~A'
l~ \7'"
~ , \~~
t"O!. ilJll
t:l"',- -'-. ,
\ ........" I..:;:
~~.. ........::- /" ;:
('.....~ -..........'O~
w..,OJj>:;-...........<;l. ~..
..,,.~ORA1~ .,,~"
............,"'.
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228-7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes December 14, 1989 Page 5
MOTION: To continue the hearing until the regularly
scheduled meeting on January 11, 1990 for more information
at the applicant's request was made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
Mrs. Marie Schnetzler is recognized in the audience and
comments that there seems to be some conflict between the
Commission and the HDC concerning the pier's construction.
There needs to be some resolution of this conflict. Who has
more authority and could supercede the other? In my opinion
the Conservation Commission should have more authority because
they are protecting the environment.
Mrs. Philbrick states that she wants to clarify that the
HDC has not stated a consensus on the solid versus piles
issue. It was stated by some members that they felt that solid
fill pier was more historic than the pile-supported pier. But
that is not an official opinion of the entire Historic
District Commission.
2. Nancy Claflin
35 Wauwinet Road - (20-34)
MOTION: To continue the hearing at the applicant's
request was made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
3. Francis - 41 Dukes Road - NAN89-003 (56-327)
MOTION: To continue the hearing at the applicant's
request was made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
Reopen Cabral - 10 Pond Street - SE48-555 (56-294)
Present was applicant Herb Cabral, Jr. and John
Shugrue, agent.
Mr. Shugrue submits a new plan. He explains that the plan
shows the house has been rotated slightly and the leach pits
'lli,......"'1J
~ "ltTUCt...~'+..
"", <.'7-~~'
'" ()/ "'1- \
It I \"P'!
#0:' _:~i
{I-:"_ ~i' :
. \ ~~1 : I
~\ "- .-- ~",,"'i
".y........ ~..:;:!:o-- -..,'0 :'
~ ""0". ." "'..'Ii
'.... '9".........:,,~. ~
.'.......-ORA1.. ~~.....
..............,,,..
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228-7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes'December 14, 1989 Page 6
have been mov~d so th~t th.y are 50 feet away from the
wetlands. In addition, I have talked with Richard Ray and he
has stated that he would allow leach pits instead of trenches
in this case but would limit the size of the house to three
bedrooms.
Mr. Bob Lang, abutter to the property, comments that the
local regulations require that there be a 200-foot separation
between septic systems on lots that abut inland ponds. The
system will be approximately 20 feet from my system. After
periods of rain there is standing water in that area.
Mr. Shugrue responds that below the clay layer there is an
area of clean sand. The Commission needs to decide whether the
pond is significant. The pond is manmade and we will not ask
for a waiver from the regulation until the Commission decide
on its significance. The pond is approximately one acre total.
Mr. Borchert asks if it drys up in the summer.
Mr. Cabral responds that it does not dry up.
Mr. Visco states that he is familiar with the hydrology of
the area. The water is perched above a layer of clay.
Underneath there is medium to course sand to allow adequate
drainage of the effluent.
Mr. Borchert responds that whether or not it is perched is
not significant. The area must be treated as a wetland. In dry
periods the water that is perched slowly trickles down into
the ground water. So any pollution is not isolated from the
ground water. I want to find this pond a significant wetland.
Mr. Visco adds that the pond is manmade to allow drainage
for the road.
Mr. Borchert states that it does not matter that it is man
made or not. The leach pit is located 100 feet from the pond
water; 80 feet from the wetland boundary;, and 50 feet from the
winterberry bushes as measured on the plan. The plan does not
meet the lOO-foot separation rule and will need a waiver.
. .....',,,"""",
!?:i~l\TUC ~
~ ~ ~--!!.r~
I. C)/ ~.;\
It I '"P"
.0.1 \U\";,
\...i~~ :~!
.' , .
. \~_ _ ~- I::'
~'A'" ~~- _ - i" 1
~"'"...~. ..' ~ ~
" 0....... '" '!te'fi
"4 I9p.........C \). '!t,.""
"IiL" ORAl.. ..........
.......,.......
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228-7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes December 14, 1989 Page 7
Mr. Lang adds that the proposed system is also far less
than 200 feet from mine and the septic systems of at least two
other neighbors, the regulations require 200 feet.
Mr.'Borchert asks the elevation of the groundwater. It
does not show on the plans.
Mr. Shugrue responds that the bottom of the leach pit is
in excess of six feet above the ground water.
Mr. Walter Wasnick, an abutter from 12 Pond Street,
comments that presently the lot is 75 percent iced over. Does
the applicant propose to raise the elevation of the lot?
Mr. Willet responds that there is no proposal to fill the
10 t .
Mr. Lang questions whether the proposed septic system will
affect his expansion area when the present system fails,
with the less than 200 foot separation.
Mr. Borchert responds that the 200-foot regulation was
intended to prevent nitrogen loading from leaching facilities
on ponds. The hydrology of this lot will allow the leachate to
go underneath the perched pond.
Mr. McKelway asks the Commission to clarify that it will
allow waiver from the following regulations:
1. Driveway - less than 25 foot undisturbed buffer.
2. House - less than 50 feet from the wetland.
3. Grading to the pond - no 25-foot undisturbed
buffer with the wetland (pond).
4. Septic system - less than the 200-foot separation
regulation on lots fronting on ponds.
5. Septic system - less than the 100-foot separation
between the septic leach facility and a vegetated wetland (the
bushes near the road.
bfi'....-
\\ft.NTU e:/!..,
, ()r~~~
~ti '"piS
-C" \U\;,
t 1 ,_'IJI~
t- .';.'"' ,I' ;
.\, ...
~ ~_ t.......
~~.. ~ /.."- i
$.<....^... ~ .-"'0:'
~ "0'" - .... '>; ~...
~# ~;:........:,..... ~
""''','-ORAlv v....,...
-"".",..",.-'
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228-7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes. December 14, 1989 Page B
Ms. Cheryl Creighton of the Nantucket Land Council state
that there are many cases in both Superior Court and the State
Supreme Court supporting wetland regulations. The inland
regulations' goal is to control flood and pollution damage. A
property can be subject to reasonable restraints without an
unconstitutional taking. The issue of a taking relates to the
elimination of all the uses of a property, not just some of
the uses or the most financially viable project. To deny this
project would not be a total denial for the property, just for
this specific use.
Mr. Visco states that Mr. Cabral is not going to pollute
the wetlands. All the applicant wants is reasonable use of his
property. He has already restricted the use by limiting the
number of bedrooms. The septic system meets health codes and
will not pollute the pond in any way.
At this point there was a motion from Mr. Visco to close the
hearing. This motion failed. An ensuing motion to leave the
hearing open until a later time during this meeting so the
applicant could present the Commission with a written request for
the required waivers for the project to be approved was made,
seconded, and unanimously approved.
LA TER. . . .
Mr. Shugrue submits a letter requesting the five waivers
required for the project. He explains that these waivers will
allow the lot to be used as intended. The lot was created in
the early 1970's; allow a new septic leach facility to be
within 100 feet of a wetland and agree to limit the size to
three bedrooms; the wetlands will be protected and the soil
conditions are such that due to the perched nature of the
wetlands, the septic system will not adversely effect the
wetlands.
Mr. McKelway comments that in spite of the hydrology of
the area, the Commission will be setting a precedent of
granting the first waiver from the 100 foot septic rule (for a
vacant lot). The By-Law does not speak to the age of the lot.
The use of the unconstitutional taking issue is only scare
tactics by the applicant. It is not easy or as clear cut as
expressed by the applicant to get a Commission's actions to be
;()""U"""
~TUC 'll
A ...~-~~
~. cr ..:' ~1.
titl_\~\
...1, -:IJI.
....'-. - ,. If
. :~ ~_"*d.. ~ I. ~ ,
'~... ~~ ~--~~I
'\1-....:... '"'Tt-~-....,o :'
...."'0.... ." ... ~
-....., 11)>" ........:" ~. :Ie"
"'4lo.'rORA1~ it.....
..............".
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228-7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes December 14, 1989 Page 9
declared a taking. Would the Commission like to request the
applicant make the house smaller to eliminate the need for the
waiver from the 50-foot regulation?
Mr. Cabral responds that his wetland expert, Wes Tiffany,
has over fifteen years experience and he does not feel that
this is a significant wetland. I do not want to get into an
argument with the Commission's wetland expert, but I feel that
my expert is right.
MOTION: To close the hearing and draft an Order of
Conditions was made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
5. David Jay - 17 Quaise Pasture Road - SE48- (26-20.3)
Mr. McKelway states that the applicant has requested that
the hearing be continued until January 25 meeting.
Mr. John Hussey, a resident in the area, comments that he
has great concern that the proposed project is too intensive
for the area. I am alarmed at the prospect of 30 house that
close to Polpis Harbor. His right to develop the property
should not override the health of Polpis Harbor.
Mr. McKelway adds that the file is not entirely complete
and the hearings have been continued since they were opened in
July. The Commission needs to keep this in mind in light of
the Commission's recent denial of the application from
Longview Realty Trust.
MOTION: To continue the hearing until the January 25,
1990 meeting at the request of the applicant was made and
seconded.
UNANIMOUS
* 6. H.C.D.,Inc. - 24 Tennessee Ave. - (60.1.2-27)
Present for the applicant was Tom King, designer for
Milton Rowland Associates.
I
",,"t"""I,
~ ...~TUeLo'<<~
iT"'''' _'11:'>-
() ~1-'So
If \"p~
"0:' ~U\l
t.....: :IJI..
'~\":: -,'. I
...,....,_ - I ...
~.... "- - /,..:"';
\'Y^, --T"= ~- - .' '0 ~
it ,"'0". -- .... 1\ ~'ti
itf... t '1/"'.......... \). "
.."~,,rORA1\ ,.....,.
..........",,,.
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228-7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minute~ December 14, 1989 Page 10
Mr. King comments that the proposed project is the same as
in the RFD presented last meeting. The applicants want to add
a second story to the existing house and expand the front deck
along the length of the house without going any closer to the
coastal bank.
Mr. Willet asks if there will be any change in the septic
system; are you using the same footprint as existing; and what
is the ridge height?
Mr. King responds that there is no planned expansion in
the number of bedrooms. The footprint will be the same as
existing and that the ridge height will be 21 feet.
Mr. Borchert comments that he would like to see an outline
of the old versus the new building. We need to clearly see
what is old and what is new. We do not need any surprises
later in the project.
Mr. Visco states that he would like to see the HDC
approved plans if they are available.
Mr. King responds that the only footprint change i? the
removal of the small "wart" in the front that will be replaced
with the deck. The roof will be removed and the second story
added; the house is not going to be demolished.
MOTION: To continue the hearing for additional
information and a DEP file number was made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
* 7. Sandra Gillies - 145 Wauwinet Road - (11-7)
Present for the applicant was Tom King, designer for
Milton Rowland Associates.
Mr. King requests that the hearing be continued at the
applicant's request to allow more time for the applicant to
talk with abutters and make some design changes to the
project.
".'..a....,ll
A~llTUCJr;~
tr",-<l-
<) .""~ 1- "J.
:!t \"p~
nO: .,~~<e,2
. L-.... . ' : _
*~\.~ ~i""
\ .... ~ ~ - :A"';:
~~...~...-o:>-. ....~..$
\.- .. ....~ ~
o >9 ~"''''''.. '\). ~
I"ORA1~ ....~'Ii
.........".
Town of
Conservation
Nantucket
Commission
(S08) 228-7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
.\
Meeting Minutes'December 14, 1989 Page 11
MOTION: To continue the hearing at the request of the
applicant was made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
~ REGULAR MEETING
1. REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION
a. Ritchie - 29 Baxter Road - (49.2.3 - 9)
Present for the applicant was Adrianna Davidson,
caretaker for the owner.
Mr. McKelway comments that this is an after-the-fact
filing. The brush cutting was done in the early fall.
Ms. Davidson comments that this work was to remove the
blackberry vines that were killing the hedge. Only this year
my son gota little overzealous in his trimming. The root
system is still there and the plants will be back next spring.
Mr. McKelway states that there is some bare earth that
could erode down the bank.
Ms. Davidson responds that they have been throwing the
clippings over the bank for years and have been building up
the bank. This should not be a problem.
Mr. Willet comments that the Commission could approve the
work with the condition that the area be inspected in June
1990.
MOTION: To issue a negative determination with the
condition that the property be inspected next June to
ensure that revegetation has occurred was made and
seconded.
UNANIMOUS
b. Nantucket DPW - Landfill water pipe - (39-14)
.
""H"~
~,;~lJ.E![;'t""
I~ 0/ .....-So"."
1~1 '"piS
I~'; 1 \U\\
__ _ : VI _
.... .-.. .0 -,' !l'
~ . \~ ~ I~.
1$.,,\ ... -."A"'~
\A.', "'":::,..._ _ ..."..
.Y"", -r--.....=-- .' '0 ;:
'" ...'0.... ....... ~
.....' ~h''''''''''~' ii
~""',rORA1" ,....'fi
-........,"~
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(S08) 228-7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes'December 14, 1989 Page 12
Present was Jeff Willet, Superintendent of the
Nantucket Department of Public Works.
Mr. McKelway comments that this is also an after-the-fact
filing. The work consisted of the installation of an
underground water pipe across a wetland without notifying the
Commission.
MOTION: To issue a negative Determination commenting
that the work is within an area subject to protection but
will not alter the area was made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
c. O'Neil and McKearin - North Beach Street - (30-55,56)
Present for the applicant was David Moretti of
Glidden and Moretti, counsel.
Mr. Willet abstains from the discussion and vote.
Mr. Wasierski reads the inspection report.
Mr. Visco asks if the vegetation meets the 50% rule and
about how much standing water could the area hold?
Mr. McKelway responds that the vegetation is over 50%
wetland plants in some places on the lot, but the size of this
isolated wetland is probably not big enough to meet the state
levels.
Mr. Visco stated that to issue a positive Determination
the Commission must conclude that a project at the site "will
alter" the wetland, not just that 'it would be "likely to
alter," as previously worded in the regulations. We need to be
more specific in the Determination.
Mr. Moretti states it might be possible to delineate the
wetlands along the roads and make a determination on those
guidelines.
Mr. Wasierski states that he would not want to see the
parcel divided into two uS projected by the applicant lots
. .4Jl':.,....."'"
~~!'~TUCJr~~,
,# Or~~~~
Ttl '."p~
to: 1 \U\;
\1-10 -IIJI!
i......, ~:. .
. .. "J _ "!. I ~I
...-.\ ~. --It-.......'
1.1-...:,..;.;:.::: 0 - ,.''0 ~
~"O....... -- ....""~..
......' '9 ".........., ~. ~..
.''''',rORA1.. ......
...,........u...
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(S08) 228-7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes December 14, 1989 Page 13
with the wetlands on one of them and make that one
unbuildable. He further comments that he would not want to
determine the wetlands as being significant if it is not. I
would suggest that this be continued to next meeting so the
entire Commission could inspect the lot.
Mr. Borchert comments that there is a small spring that
comes out by the road. The Commission needs more specific
information on house location, driveways, accurate lot lines
to mention a few.
Mr. Moretti confers with Mr. Hayes. He states that he
needs a determination on the property tonight because of other
ti~e constraints and commitments. He adds that the inspection
report is thorough and suggests that the Commission accept the
inspector's recommendation.
MOTION: To accept the recommendation of the
inspecting team and issue a positive Determination that
requires the filing of a Notice of Intent be filed for
work on the lot was made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
2. ORDERS OF CONDITIONS
a. Longview Realty Trust Madaket Rd. SE48-546 (41-326).
There was nobody representing the applicant present.
Mr. McKelway comments that he had sent the draft or the
denial to James Glidden, agent for the applicants and told him
that it would be discussed at this meeting. I also saw him on
the street and he apologized to me for putting the Commission
through this effort without any results.
Mr. Wasierski asks if this denial will keep us out of
litigation?
Mr. Willet responds that we are denying the project due to
the lack of information and response from the applicant even
after we had asked several times for the work to be done. This
denial does not say that some kind of project would not have
~..t"'"
,~,..~TUeJ/.~~,
l'~~""'.-t~~
it~ \v~
t..o; _:~l
.- . ..
1-:-:,-, ,,' !p
.\~ 'r../~'
..-........-. ---I.A.~I
,\1-~.....;,;;..::: . - ... '0 ;:
lI! 0'" ." .... ~..
~....' '9...........;" \). ~
~~'.,..ORA1.. ,.......
............,,,.
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228-7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes December 14, 1989 Page 14
been permitted, only that we do not have enough information to
make a determination of the proposed project.
MOTION: To issue the project denial as drafted was
made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
PROJECT DENIAL
JAMES K. GLIDDEN, ESQ., APPLICANT
SHIRLI JONES, TRUSTEE, LONGVIEW REALTY TRUST, OWNER
DEQE FILE NUMBER SE48 - 546
ASSESSOR'S MAP 41, PARCEL 326
53 MADAKET ROAD
UNDER THE MASSACHUSETTS WETLANDS PROTECTION ACT
( MGL CHAPTER 131, SECTION 40 )
AND THE WETLANDS BYLAW OF THE TOWN OF NANTUCKET
( CHAPTER 136 )
FINDINGS
Public hearings on the above Notice of Intent lasted from May 25,
1989, to November 30, 1989. Based on the lack of testimony
presented at those hearings, verbally and in writing, from the
applicant, the Nantucket Conservation Commission makes the
following findings:
1) The Notice of Intent said the project "will not damage or
change (the) existing ditch," but at the first public hearing
the applicant submitted a new plan that represented a
significant change in the application. Under this new
proposal, the ditch was to be put in a pipe and a new pond was
to be created on the lot. The project appeared likely to have
significant impacts on interests protected under the Wetlands
Protection Act and the Nantucket Wetlands Bylaw.
2) At the first public hearing the Commission clearly stated
that it needed the wetlands on the parcel flagged,
surveyed, and added to a revised version of the plan.
~"'''If'''~
fl.14TUei(: ~'-
L~-~~~
iff \"p';,
t.o: ,:CC,!
.....:~.-. ~ "}-. =
. \ ~ - -~ ~ I
~\ "'- -l~1
,\"y"... -'-'ft:=.....=-- - .' '0 :'
~o". ........!>..
~^.......... ~. r
";,I"'ORA1\ ~..,,~
..........."".
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228-7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes December 14, 1989 Page 15
3) At the first public hearing the Commission clearly stated
that it needed more specifics on the proposal, including
the location of the driveway.
4) The applicant failed to attend the next nine public
hearings on the application. Each time, the hearing was
continued until the Commission's next meeting. The
applicant was reminded of the ongoing public hearings on
various occasions by the Commission's administrator, who
inquired as to the status of the application.
5) After being urged to provide the needed information by
letter, by telephone, and in person by the Commission's
administrator, the applicant attended the October 12
public hearing. However, he submitted no revised plan,
and the wetlands on the parcel had not been flagged. The
Commission voted to have the applicant delineate the
wetlands immediately.
6) The applicant failed to attend the next two public
hearings, and on November 15, on instructions from the
Commission, the Commission's administrator sent the
applicant a letter stating that the public hearing would
be closed November 30 if no representative were present at
that meeting and the wetlands on the parcel were not
flagged by November 27. The letter stated that if the
wetland were flagged in time, someone should meet the
Commissioners for the field inspection November 27. On
the morning of November 27 the Commission's administrator
called the applicant's office and left a message on an
answering machine tape reminding the applicant that the
field inspection was scheduled for 3:00 p.m. that
afternoon.
7) No representative for this application met the two
Commissioners for the November 27 field inspection. These
Commissioners discovered at the site that the wetlands
were only partially flagged. Part of the "footprint" of
the house proposed on the original plan had been staked
earlier, but the "footprint" of the house proposed on the
plan submitted May 25 was not staked.
I
...,,"t..~
~ "~TUCt..'*",,
~\ol,<o~-~>-"
,,~ ".-s.'~
lfi \"p~
Eo: 1 ~U\l
..L-:H . _:tn.
...\-,-,~...", .
I.~., ~/:!
i. ........ - .,....;.
\,A'... -~~- l"- ;:
'y........ -'-'ft:=.....::::-- .-'0 ~
iI! ,"'0'-. ...... ~
"~ 19,:........;; ~. ",'Iii
~-',.ORA1'lO ,.....
....................'
,'>
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228-7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes December 14, 1989 Page 16
8) On November 30, the applicant failed to attend the public
hearing. The Commission voted to close the hearing.
9) The applicants have failed to obtain or apply for other
permit5 for the proposed project, as mandated by Section
136-3(C) of the Nantucket Wetlands Bylaw and by 310 CMR
10.05 ( 4) ( e) .
DISCUSSION
The behavior of the applicant was not typical. Failure to
attend scheduled public hearings after repeated reminders and
inquiries from the Commission's administrator and failure, after
being asked by the Commission, to have all the wetlands on the
parcel flagged and to provide a more detailed plan for the
project left the Commission no choice but to deny the application
for lack of information. The Commission was patient to allow
such a nonproductive process to run as long as it did.
Typically, the public hearing process is an unfolding of the
proposed project until the Commission learns all it needs to
learn about the proposed work and its possible impact on the
wetland interests the Commission is charged with protecting.
Typically, as requested information is submitted new questions
arise, and the hearing may be continued in order to allow the
applicant time to find the answers. For instance, in this case
the Commission probably would have asked many more questions
about the proposed pond. Building a pond correctly can be a
complex undertaking, so it has to be properly engineered.
Another example is access to the town's sewer line. The
Commission probably would have wanted assurance in writing that
no septic system would be necessary on the property. Typically,
the applicant or a representative is present at each hearing to
answer questions and to provide whatever materials are needed by
the Commission.
CONCLUSIONS
The Commission hereby denies the Notice of Intent filed under
the Massachusetts Wetland5 Protection Act and the Nantucket
Wetlands Bylaw. This denial is without prejudice; the applicant
is free to file a new Notice of Intent.
.~""".,,...
~,NTUC""'~
!'t....r"'~ -...![e-'t"-
'- ~ ~1-'\
~~ 'y"
"i.x-/1 \U\~
ioi. ,..11J1!
:1-\,--, ~" ,
I..~., 'i./~~
· ...... ~ - i.~~
'\. '1-..:... -Y';;: _. - .' '- i
"I;. "'. _.. -c-- .... "V ~
,0~.............1)' ~
",,'."ORA1~ ,..~
.............,,,.
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228-7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes December 14, 1989 Page 17
This denial supersedes any wording on Form 5 (attached) which
implies that some work will be permitted under this Order.
This denial shall apply to any successor in interest or
successor in control of the property.
###
b. Hempleman - 49 Hulbert Ave. - SE48-570 (29-14)
Present for the applicant was John Shugrue, agent.
Mr. Shugrue had the following comments on the draft Order
of Conditions:
# 12 - asks to allow extend the permitted deck from 8
feet to 9' 6", counting built-in benches.
# 14 - does not understand. Mr Cranston explains that
this has to with intrusion into the view easement. Mr.
Shugrue responds that such intrusion has nothing to do
with the Commission's enforcement powers. Recommends
delete the entire section.
# 15 - asks for a two-foot-high seat back or railing
instead of three-foot, so not to interrupt the view from
the house.
# 16 - asks that this section state that the stairs
be no higher than one foot above the dune. Delete "deck
and the" and "both".
MOTION: #1 - Allow the deck to be 9' 6" wide
including all seats, railings, posts, etc. was made and
seconded. Mr. McKelway reminded the Commission that the
8-foot figure was an average of what the Commissioners
wanted to allow when polled by telephone.
Passed. Mr. Borchert opposed, the remaining
Commissioners in favor.
~t"""'IIt.
",,~..~..u.E!!}~
;I. 'Y ,,: ~
If, \"p~
10:1 ~U\i
L -:tn.
I-.~, .' f!
t.:- :..
" I ....
..... ~ ~ - :""...::
...._-"".. ~- .~~....
~,..C'... ~. -....'0;:
lII! 0'" ." ... ~..
;,'.... ~".........;, ~. ~
......'rORA1~ ..,....
.......,..."".
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228-7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes'December 14, 1989 Page 18
#2 - Delete Section 14 and add a new
Condition #14 that would an ongoing condition that would
allow for continued work for beach nourishment and prior
notification of the Commission before the work is to
commence was made and seconded.
Passed Mr. Borchert opposed, the remaining
Commissioners in favor.
#3 - To accept Mr. Shugrue's suggested
changes for Conditions #15 and #16 as outlined above and
to issue the Order of Conditions as amended was made and
seconded.
Mr. Borchert opposed, the remaining Commissioner's in
favor.
ADDITIONAL SPECIAL CONDITIONS
PHILIP J. & COLLEEN G. HEMPLEMAN
DEQE FILE NUMBER SE48 - 570
ASSESSOR'S MAP 29, PARCEL 14 & 14.1
49 HULBERT AVENUE
UNDER THE MASSACHUSETTS WETLANDS PROTECTION ACT
( MGL CHAPTER 131, SECTION 40 )
AND THE WETLANDS BYLAW OF THE TOWN OF NANTUCKET
( CHAPTER 136 )
3. The final, approved plan for this project is titled "Dune
Enhancement Plan," (#2822) by John J. Shugrue, revised
November 1, 1989, and received by the Conservation Commission
November 9, 1989.
4. An as-built plan, signed and stamped by a registered
professional engineer or land surveyor in the Commonwealtry of
Massachusetts, shall be submitted to the Commission at the
same time as a written request for a Certificate of Compliance
and shall specify how, if at all, the completed plan differs
from the final approved plan. The as-built plan shall
include, but not be limited to, the limits of fill or
alteration; the location of all structures and pavement within
100 feet of any wetland resource area, the edge of the
J
o 11ft.,....~
<; ~p..lI.T~;.~
r ..~~
If, \"P\
,,~:'~U\,,"
t..... .IJI~
t-i~',:,; :. :
.\, ioa
'j,\, ~- _ ~~'i
'S..'~... ~ . .''0 ~
'\ "'0" - ...... ~
if.._, 19~""'''';, ~. ~
v,,#a."!,ORA1~ ..."
..........."".
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228- 7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes December 14, 1989 Page 19
resource area, and the grade contours within 100 feet of the
resource area.
5. Members, employees, and agents of the Commission shall have
the right to enter and inspect the premises to evaluate
compliance with the conditiDns and performance standards
stated in this Order, the Nantucket Wetlands Bylaw, the
Regulations promulgated under the Bylaw, the Massachusetts
Wetlands Protection Act, and pertinent Massachusetts
regulations (310 CMR 10.00 through 10.99). The Commission may
require the submittal of any data deemed necessary by the
Commission for that evaluation.
6. The app 1 i cant, owners, succeSSOl-S or assignees shall be
responsible for maintaining all on-site drainage structures
and outfalls, assuring the lasting integrity of vegetative
cover on the site and monitoring site activities so as to
prevent erosion, siltation, sedimentation, chemical
contamination or other detrimental impact to the on-site
wetland and/or off-site resource areas. It shall be the
responsibility of the property owner of record to see that the
maintenance conditions are complied with as required by this
order.
7. This document shall be included in all construction contracts
and subcontracts dealing with the work proposed and shall
supersede other contract requirements.
8. Used petroleum products from the maintenance of construction
equipment, construction debris, and unused paint and paint-
related products shall be collected and disposed of
respnnsibly off the site. No on-site disposal of these items
is allowed.
9. Any refuse material found on the site shall be disposed of at
an approved landfill and in no case will these materials be
buried or disposed of in or near a wetland.
10. This Order of Conditions shall apply to any successor in
interest or successor in control of the property.
11. The addition of sand to the dune and beach shall be done
in early spring. All areas disturbed by this project
- ---"'''"......~
,.iP::~IJ.E![.~~.
~. ()/ .t~
itl \"p~
-0: 1 ~U\t
t.....L , _'E:IJI.
i~ ~:'. ,
. \ ~_ ~ I ...
........ :;;;s''''::_ -lit' 1
'10..1-^, -;'O.::~. .' .... '~
...~. .. --- ..- ,,"'~
~o~j;''''''''~~' #
~~'ORA1~ ,,,~
......,..,.,'"
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228-7230
"
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes'December 14, 1989 Page 20
shall be revegetated with native plants as soon as
possible, to minimize erosion.
12. Contrary to the plan, the deck is not permitted to extend
more than 9 feet, 6 inches from the outer wall of the
house, including any overhangs or seats.
13. Almost all of the sand to be deposited on the dune and
beach must be brought in from off the site. This sand
must be clean and must be compatible in color and grain
size with the existing sand at the site. No more than 6
inches of the sand to be deposited by this project may be
from underneath the house or deck.
14. In the future, ongoing beach nourishment similar to what
is proposed in the approved plan is permitted, but the
Commission must be notified in advance each time.
15. A railing 2 feet high shall be constructed along the outer
edge of the entire deck, to discourage people from walking
on the dune. A side-view drawing of the deck acceptable
to the Commission, drawn to scale and showing the railing,
lattice work, and a typical piling in detail must be
submitted to the Commission before work on the deck can
begin.
16. The walkway across the dune shall be elevated at least one
foot above grade, and shall have a minimum spacing of one-
half inch between planks, to allow light to penetrate and
thus encourage the growth of vegetation which could help
anchor the sand.
17. No coastal engineering structure of any kind shall be
permitted on the property in the future to protect the
project allowed by this Order. Section 310 CMR 10.30 (3)
of the Wetlands Regulations, promulgated under MGL Chapter
131, Section 40, requires that no coastal engineering
structure, such as bulkhead, revetment, or seawall, shall
be permitted on an eroding bank at any time in the future
to protect the project allowed by this Order of
Conditions.
.
.. -"""'''''1
.t//# "llTUC'-"~
A~~-~<''>-
'.0/ .....:.1- '$
~tJ. '''P~
!o: 1 \lfti
t......=- - ;IJI.
I.~' . .... ..
-\., "" i~!
....\ ~ h....;:
~_...-.. -. .r~~'"
"'........... ~ - ..' '0 ~
""'0'" ...... ",00
.,~ 'l/p........'fr ~. '!Jt'tl
";.' ORAiv ,..'"
............',,-
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228-7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes'December 14, 1989 Page 21
UNDER THE NANTUCKET WETLANDS BYLAW ONLY:
The Commission hereby grants the applicant waivers from Section
2.02(B)(4) and Section 2.03(B)(2) of the Wetlands Protection
Regulations of the Town of Nantucket, under the Nantucket
Wetlands Bylaw (Chapter 136). Section 2.02(B)(4) prohibits
filling on or within 25 feet of a coastal beach, except for
certain water-dependent projects. This section is waived for the
dune nourishment portion of this project. Section 2.03(B)(2)
requires a 25-foot natural undisturbed area adjacent to a coastal
dune and a distance of 50 feet between a dune and a non-water
dependent structure. This section is waived for the expansion of
the deck. There has been a clear and convincing showing by the
a~plicant that there are no reasonable conditions or alternatives
that would allow the project to proceed in compliance with the
regulations and that the proposed project will not have any
adverse effect upon any of the interests protected by the Bylaw.
Therefore, these waivers are granted under the authority of
Section 1.03(F)(1)(a) of the Wetlands Protection Regulations of
the Town of Nantucket.
###
3. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
a. Barnett - 87 Baxter Road - SE48-529 (49-8)
MOTION: To issue the Certificate of Compliance with
Section 8 from the Order of Conditions to continue as an
ongoing condition was made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
4. OTHER BUSINESS
a. Public Hearing on Regulation changes Jan. 18, 1990 in
the Large Group Instruction Room of Nantucket High
School at 7:00 PM
b. Appointment to the Planning Commission
II'
. *'.....~
rJj"'r~~1{T~~
'- C) ~~$
if \"P~
"Q:~~(/ll
I~i',- t1ftj:":
\. . \ ~_ ~ i~ S
V;.. ~~I
~ (\~ -'-'ft:=.....=--..........,o J'
iI'.t, C -9 ;,-........., ~. ~'"
......,rORAi'" ~..,..
..,........",,'
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228-7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nan tucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes'December 14, 1989 Page 22
MOTION: To accept Mr. Wasierski's resignation from
the Planning Commission and to appoint Commissioner Lee
Dunn to the Planning Commission was made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
c. Cattails Removal contract recommendation and approval
Mr. McKelway recommends the work as specified in a letter,
to Holdgate and Coletti with a $900 maximum. The estimate was
for $600.
MOTION: To accept the r~commendation of the
Administrator was made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
5. CORRESPONDENCE
6. MINUTES: for November 30, 1989
MOTION: To approve as drafted was made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
7. BILLS TO BE PAID
8. FIELD INSPECTIONS ~ Commissioner's Pleasure
At this the Commissioners were polled and unanimously
voted to go into executive session to discuss litigation and
approve minutes and that they would not be coming back into
open sess ion.
9:32 PM
~ EXECUTIVE SESSION
a. Litigation
b. Approval minutes November 30, 1989