Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-05-25 ......',.."~ ,.~~14TUCJr;'+~ t;~r-~~\ a-~1. \"'J" ~ "'o'~'U\i t I ilJl. t-;r:~"., \ ..........~~- /..:~ \~-.. ~~"'"- i" ;: -,,^... -'-'ft:=.,...",." .' '0 ;: >>."0' .. .... ... ~.. ...~;;.......... ~. " ORA1~ :t"~ .....'". Town of Nantucket Conservation Commission 4 North Water Street Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 AGENDA FOR MAY 25, 1989 A. COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS FROM PRESS AND PUBLIC B. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. John Gifford - SE48-535 - Shimmo Road (28-9) 2. M & E Bonner - SE~8-5~1, 28 L. Beach Rd(7~-53) 3. Bovenzi/Beacon Nominee Trust - SE48-543 - 3 Beacon Lane (21-26.9) ~. Donald McCullough - 95 & 99 Eel Point Road (32-8&9) - cont. to .Qi], 5. CMS Realty Trust - 120,122,12~ T.N. Rd. (91-~3,~3.1,~3.2) 6. **Anne D. Plukas - 147 Great Point Rd. (11-6) 7. *Sankaty Head Golf Club - SElj,8-5l1-8 - Hoick I s Hollow Road (23-9) 8. *Old North Wharf - Old North Wharf (42.3.1-225,29,30,32,33,34) 9. *Longview Realty Trust - SE~8-546 - 53 Madaket Road (~1-326) C. REGULAR MEETING 1. Requests for Determination a. M/M Lowell Bryan - off Millbrook Rd (~0-79.1) b. Bernard Bartlett - 25 N. Cambridge St (38-25) 2. Certificates of Compliance a. Dupont (Hollings) - SE48-460 - (73.2.~ - 12) b. Nantucket Commons - SE48-365 - Bldg. #1 - (55-14lj,) 3. Orders of Conditions a. Stephen J. Kotalac - SE48-536 - 8 Wamasquid Place (56-113.5) b. Gifford/McKechnie - SE48-5~5 - 19 Kimball Avenue (30-29) ~. Other Business a. Woodbury Lane R.T. - SE48-312 (41-5~3) - mlnor mod. b. Sam Stark - Det. 7 Paradise Drive (56-314) - mlnor mod. c. Robert M. Kaye - SE48-305 - Topgale Lane (27-7) - discussion d. Monomoy Harbor R.T. - SE48-~65 (43-111) - replication plans e. J. & V. Nightingale - SE48-498 (20-42) r8fer to Town Counsel? f. Alan Costa - SE48-52 (67-49) discussion g. Application fees - hold hearing to amend local regs'? h. Barbara Charleton - SE~8-537 (~9.2.3-6) - minor modification i. Sharp/Kilvert - SE48-519 (26-22) - minor modifications 5. Correspondence 6. Minutes of May 11, 1989 7. Bills to be paid 8. Field Inspections - Monday, June 5, at 4 PM D. EXECUTIVE SESSION to discuss pending litigation * denotes new application ** abutter notification mailed late or overdue at preVlOUS meeting ~ ~ ofl, /~I'I. j}$I-- Town of' Nantllcl:et Conservation Commission 4 North Water Street Nantucket. M :lSSachusetts 02554 Minutes of May 25, 1989 Page 1 MINUTES OF MAY 25, 1989 The public hearings of May 25, 1989 were called to order at 7:3~ PM. Members present were: Bill Willet - Chairman, Carl Borchert, Lee Dunn Granville Cranston, and Peter Dunwiddie. Members absent were: Donald Visco and Henry Wasierski. Administrator present: Ben McKelway. A. COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS FROM PRESS AND PUBLIC . . . . none B. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. John Gifford - SE~8-535 - Shimmo Road (28-9) - Attorney Melissa Philbrick and scientific consultant Lisa Standley represented the applicant. Philbrick presented a map showing the lots for which John Gifford played a role in their acquisition by the Nantucket Conservat~ort Foundation. The land was subdivided in order to raise its value and thus increase the amount of the tax writeoff that could be gained from giving the land to the Foundation, she said. There are rumors that more land will be given to the foundation in the future, she added. Philbrick said she didn't know what this has to do with the interests to be protected under the law in regard to this application, but the Commission had asked for this information. Standley submitted a report on the impact of the proposed project on wildlife. A cover letter outlined her qualifications. Summarizing the report, she said the state and local regulations protect wildlife habitat, not wildlife per se. Ben McKelway disagreed, contending that the local bylaw speaks of protecting wildlife in general. Standley went on to say that the coastal bank at this site is not a typical steep, unvegetated bank with overhanging vegetation and therefore does not provide habitat for nesting birds that need that sort of bank. This means, she said, that the proposed project will have no adverse effect on the habitat characteristics deemed by the regulations to be critical to wildlife habitat on coastal banks. However, she did acknowledge that the bank is used by many other species. On questioning from Peter Dunwiddie, she admitted that the house and its occupants and attendant pets could have an impact on species such as deer. But these, she sa~d, are upland species, and the regulations only protect wetland habitat. 6~"':~:.r."" . . ;".11 uc;. .~, ,\7'--":"::'-';' -!.. ~ ,,~~). ~l' \"y ~. .. . . ,. \l.'~ o !;;.!IZ' '. J ~rllJl., I-~.. ;,'-<.,>~jO';-".Yt't J' ,'I . -..._~,.... ~- . . ~-- ;.--. '.".".-." ~.~~~-I."'" i "" ~~'/...'O:: o~p ._~ 'V.:-" ORAl.. ...v ......" Town of'l'Tantuck:ct Conservation Commission 4 North Water Street Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 Minutes of May 25, 1989 Page 2 Lee Dunn asked Standley if she didn't think the project would affect wetland species nesting on the saltmarsh. She said the house will be over SO feet away from the marsh, thus meeting the performance standards for a salt marsh. Peter said that is not the question. Standley then said no, the house would have no effect on the wildlife in the marsh. Lee said what about the lights at night. Standley said there would be no impact, and that she had read studies indicating that outdoor lighting is not a problem for wildlife. Lee said he finds that incredible, and that it doesn't match what he has read on the subject. Standley said any outdoor lights will be on the other side of the house, landward of the salt marsh. Ben asked if the lights would have an impact on the wildlife on the landward side of the house, the wildlife in the freshwater marsh and on the bank leading down to it. Standley replied that the house would be more than 50 feet away from the marsh and that the regulations do not protect wildlife habitat on inland banks. Lee said he had hoped this application would not have to be argued so strenuously; he had hoped Philbrick would have a stronger argument on behalf of Gifford's efforts to preserve nearby land in the past. Philbrick repeated that Gifford had played a significant role, and that only seven lots will be developed. Standley also submitted a new plan in which the garage is incorporated into the house, saying this change amounts to a 20-percent decrease in overall footprint if you count decks and driveway as well as buildings. Because construction will still be within 25 feet of the top of the bank, the applicant is still asking for a waiver from the local SO-foot setback. Standley said the construction will have no adverse effect on bank height, bank stability, bank steepness, or soil grain size and compaction. Other work close to vegetated wetlands, such as the installation of utility lines, will be temporary, she said, and the disturbed area will be revegetated. Cheryl Creighton, of the Nantucket Land Council, said the project will break up wildlife habitat in a very sensitive area. Standley agreed that there would be some impact, some loss, but added that there are undeveloped areas nearby. Peter said this is a special site, virtually an island. Certainly the intent of the regulations was to protect sites like this, he said, adding ~trt;!;:~'!.,~ e"~~~1'Ji-::::~l" rC) r ~ '!.. :-..-/ -~.-?o '. F. Y" ..i.c-/~.-- <1..I.'~t 10 r...,. ....> , '. 1(,,1.. l- X' ,.I,"'~,b.,,-"-:~ " ::1" $' ;/" ..~::;~~~~I :.~ .; ~~~~- ."':: ~.. ~~ I/\, '. -....('~ ~./,,() ~ 01?~'''''c '\). ~ "ORAI" .~ ,....&,,-- TOVln or' l'T a:1tl.1Clcet Conserv a tio.._ Commission 4 North Water Street Nantucket. M assach usetts 02554 Minutes of May 25, 1989 Page 3 that birds don't like cars, kids, pets, etc. Carl Borchert asked Standley to tell the Commission why the applicant should get a waiver from the SO-foot setback from the coastal bank. Paraphrasing: Standley: Because the project will not have an impact on the bank. Carl: But the reason for the SO-foot setback was also to protect wildlife. Standley: The wildlife there is not special; it is typical upland wildlife. There is no place for swallows to burrow and nest. ,. Carl: What animals did you find there? Standley: The list is in the March 30th memo. Lee: You have chosen to address only the wildlife on the bank. Standley: That's right, but we are also taking other species into account. Lee: How? Just by assertion? Standley: By assertion and by deciding the project won't impact the other species. Lee: I know that when we wrote the local regulations we had more in mind that what you do now. (He read from the regulations.) Ben pointed out that according to the minutes of the April 20th meeting, Les Smith had promised to supply the Concom with copies of wildlife impact reports Standley has done for other towns. However, the Commission said they didn't need them after all. Stephen Bender asked about the impact of nitrates from the septic system on the salt marsh. Standley said the system is TOv'ln of' }Tantllcl~et Conservation Commission 4 North Water Street Nantucket. M assach usetts 02554 Minutes of May 25, 1989 Page ~ at least 1,000 feet from any water body and about 120 feet from the marsh. Bender asked how long it takes nitrates to leach? Standley said she didn't know because it varies with the soil, but she emphasized that the project meets state and local minimum requirements. Bender replied that we are in a transition period, and we are finding that those requirements are obsolete. . . Peter said the Nantucket setback requirement for a leaching field (100 feet from a wetland) is minimal. He asked Standley if she knew that the town of Edgartown, on Martha's Vineyard, has a setback of 200 feet and is contemplating the increase of that to ~oo feet. Standley said she did not know that. Ben brought up the interest of recreation in regard to hunting. He said that because of a state law prohibiting hunting within SOO feet of a house, the project would deprive hunters of a circle of land at l~~t 1,000 feet in diameter. Philbrick said the outer boundary of that circle would still be on private land, not conservation land, and therefore the point is irrelevant, since a private landowner could prohibit hunting anywhere on the lot. She went further to say that hunting without permission from the owner could be seen as illegal trespass even if the land were not posted. Ben said if that is the case, illegal hunting could still be seen as recreation. Creighton introduced Christine Coughanowr, a scientific consultant who had been hired by the Nantucket Land Council to evaluate the application. She submitted a report in the form of a letter to Lynn Zimmerman, of the Land Council. Ben asked Coughanowr for her credentials, for the record. She promised to supply those, and the credentials for Susan Trull, an associate who focused on the wildlife values of the site, at a later date. Summarizing her report, Coughanowr said additional information on soils, ground water elevations, existing utilities, and proposed areas of cut and fill should be provided by the applicant. She pointed out that the Notice of Intent was never signed by the applicant. She said groundsel should be included as wetland in this case. Coughanowr had her own map of the site, on which she placed the coastal bank in a different location. She discussed this map To-vvn of' ~TanbJcl~et Conservation Commission 4 North Water Street Nantucket. Massachusetts 02554 Minutes of May 25, 1989 Page 5 . . . . and displayed it to the Commission, but did not submit it as evidence for the file. She said the proposed septic system leaching pit is only 33 feet from the top of the coastal bank, and therefore would require a waiver from the 100-foot minimum required by the Conservation Commission regulations and the Board of Health regulations and also from the 50-foot minimum required by Title V. Detailed, site specific information should be required of the applicant, she said, including test borings, a water table map, calculation of travel time of the sewage effluent, and calculations to assure than no break-out on the face of the bank will occur. Futhermore, she pointed out that the proposed system is designed for a flow rate of 550 gallons per day, to be discharged to a leaching pit. Board of Health regulations set a maximum design flow of 330 gallons per day and require a leaching trench or leachfield instead of a pit. As for wildlife concerns, Coughanowr said wildlife uses of the wetland and aquatic~a~eas have not been discussed at all. Marshes are good food sources, she said, especially for insect-eating birds and mammals. She explained that the property as a whole includes prime wildlife habitat for passerine birds, small mammals, and waterfowl, due to the combination of freshwater marsh, salt marsh, salt pond, and upland thicket. The thicket, she said, provides good shelter for songbirds and small mammals, as well as browse for white-tailed deer and food for some mammals and birds. She said the proposed construction would remove 63 percent of this upland thicket, significantly decreasing the available cover and forcing species to emigrate, thereby increasing competition in nearby areas. The proposed construction would fragment the available habitat, Coughanowr explained. She said that under existing conditions, the upland area house site is functionally an island, providing access to the wetland and aquatic resources. After construction, this area would be restricted. She said the applicant has not addressed this problem and has not looked at the parcel as interconnected habitats. Coughanowr's report lists wildlife species using the area, as based on a brief site visit May 9th. Among the animals sighted that day was a Northern Harrier, or marsh hawk, a species on the state list of rare wetland species. Coughanowr said the vegetation suggests the site may also provide habitat for Minutes of May 25, 1989 Page 6 ospreys, which are also on the rare species list. Ben urged her to report the marsh hawk sighting to the Natural Heritage Program. Coughanowr said the uniqueness of the site necessitates a full wildlife survey listing the species using each resource area, whether migratory, resident, or transient users, and describing the changes expected from the proposed project. Standley responded to Coughanowr's report. She said groundsel is not an indicator species. She said her definition of coastal bank is different. There was discussion about the different definitions of "bank" in the various sets of regulations and differing interpretation based on the placement of punctuation. Responding to a request from Carl, Standley said she would provide the Commission with a map showing the spring high-tide line. Philbrick promised to address the ,question of differing definitions at a future meeting Responding to a question from Peter, Coughanowr said the project would clearly have an impact on wildlife in the wetland and in the buffer zone. Peter asked her to get more specific next time, and she said she would. Lee said the key issue is the protection of wildlife by the local bylaw. Carl said there is also the question of why we have a 50-foot setback -- the building could disturb the face of the bank. Lee agreed, and pointed out that wetland scenic views would be another consideration. The hearing was continued for more information. 2. M & E Bonner - SE~8-5~1, 28 Low Beach Rd. (74-53) Continued to June 8 at the request of the applicant's representative, John Shugrue. 3. Bovenzi/Beacon Nominee Trust - SE~8-543 - 3 Beacon Lane (21-26.9) Bill read the most recent field inspection report. Christine Coughanowr, a scientific consultant representing the applicant, said the proposed building envelope is intended to include the TOv\ln of' ~Tantllcl(et Conservation Commission 4 North Water Street Nantucket. Massachusetts 0255-1 Minutes of May 25, 198Q Page 7 whole building. She summarized the proposal, which she said attempts to meet all the regulations. . . . . Coughanowr agreed to keep the ridge height of the house to ~5 feet above sea level. She presented photographs showing the view of the house already constructed on the lot next door, which she said is about the same height and yet is difficult to see from across the pond. Peter Dunwiddie pointed out that the house next door is further back from the pond than the house the applicant proposes. He asked if the applicant would be willing to place the house 100 feet back from the coastal bank. Coughanowr said she doubted it, or he would be here at the meeting. Lee Dunn asked for a setback of 75 feet. There was no answer. The Commission agreetl~o the wetland boundary as surveyed on the plan. Coughanowr promised the septic system would be 100 feet from any resource area. It was agreed that the operative wetland boundary closest to the pond will be the coastal bank line as shown on the plan. Peter said he is concerned because there is room on the lot to build the whole house outside of the Commission's jurisdiction, while approving the proposed envelope would permit the construction of an offensive house without the Concom's review. He said he would rather see the envelope exclude the two hills. Coughanowr said the owner does have the right to build on the hills and that the Commission has approved similar plans in the past. Carl Borchert said he was willing to leave the rest of it up the the Historic District Commission. Peter said he thinks the applicant is asking too much. Ben asked about the driveway, and Coughanowr agreed to a condition consistent with the local regulations, which require 25 feet of undisturbed area between the driveway and the wetland. The hearing was closed. ~. Donald McCullough - 95 &99 Eel Point Rd. (32-8&9) Continued to June 8 at the request of the applicant's attorney, Melissa Philbrick. Tov\Tn of' ~Tantllck:et Conservation Commission 4 North Water Street Nantucket. Massachusetts 02554 Minutes of May 25, 1989 Page 8 5. CMS Realty Trust - 120, 122, 12~ Tom Nevers Rd. (91-~3.~3.1.~3.2) Continued to June 8 at the request of the applicant's representative, John Shugrue. . . . . 6. Anne D. Plukas - 147 Great Point Rd. (11-6) Bill Willet read the field inspection report. John Shugrue, an engineer representing the applicant, explained the proposed project. He said he hoped the Commission would let him start work soon, before the Order of Conditions is issued. There was no response to that from the Commission, but the project was discussed briefly. The hearing was continued to June 8 for lack of a DEQE file number. 7. Sankaty Head Golf Cltlb~- SE~8-548 - Hoick's Hollow Road (23-9) Ben McKelway explained that the some buildings were moved back from the edge of the coastal bank without the Concom's knowledge or review, a violation of local and state wetlands protection laws. The applicant was required to file a Notice of Intent after the fact. Ben pointed out that the edge of the bank had been damaged slightly during the work, and that the weight of haybales placed at the edge had caused another chunk of earth to fall to the beach. He said grass was still not growing well in the disturbed areas, which should be revegetated. Peter Dunwiddie said it is to the applicant's own advantage to get something growing there, to slow down the erosion somewhat. Robert Malavase, the club's manager, said the area would be reseeded. The hearing was closed. 8. Old North Wharf Trust - SE~8-5~9 (~2.3.1-225,29,30,32,33,3~) Alfred Sanford brought in a model of the proposed pier and summarized the proposal. He said the project is now before the Historic District Commission after gaining the approval of the Planning Board, which deferred to the Concom on the question of water quality impacts. Wherever these minutes refer to "Sanford," it is Alfred Sanford, though his brother Edward was also present at the meeting. Sanford said the 18~6 fire burned the bulkheads and the TO\\ln of' ~Tantllc}~et Conservation Commission 4 North Water Street N antueket. M assaehusetts 02554 Minutes of May 25, 1989 Page 9 solid-fill pier collapsed. This was the only pier that was never rebuilt. He said that the reconstructed pier will have to be solid fill to be historically correct. A pier built on pilings would be a phony, he said, adding that other advantages of a solid-fill pier include the protection of the Easy Street Basin, the chance to install catch basins that would keep oil from leaking vehicles out of the harbor, and a longer life for the pier itself. . . . . Sanford wants the pier to be a credit to Nantucket. To preserve the traditional view from the ferry, he proposes to move several residential cottages out toward the end of the new pier. He said he realizes this would require a waiver from our regulations for non-water-dependent uses. Sanford went on to say there is presently no way to bring a pickup truck up beside a fishing boat. By allowing that and similar activities, ~tBe proposed pier would help people who make their living on the water, he explained. Peter Dunwiddie questioned the narrow passageway between the new pier and the Steamship Authority's concrete "dolphin". Lee Dunn asked what controls are in place to make sure the pier will always be available for marine-related industries. Sanford responded that it is in the Planning Board decision. Ben McKelway pointed out that the Planning Board frequently reverses its previous decisions. Melissa Philbrick, an attorney representing the applicant, said that protests from the community would prevent such a reversal in this case. Ben replied that such community protest had no effect on the recent Planning Board decision to allow the expansion of the Westender Restaurant, on Madaket Road. Sanford explained that dredging is proposed for Easy Street Basin, as close to the perimeter as can be allowed without damaging existing bulkheads. Carl said he doesn't think a solid-fill pier is allowed under the regulations. Philbrick said the division of DEQE that grants Chapter 91 licenses does not prefer it, but if the community wants it, that could influence them. Carl said he meant the regulations under the Wetlands Protection Act. He recalled that several years ago, when the Airport Commission TOv'ln of' }Tanb..lcl~et Conservation Commission 4 North Water Street Nantucket. Massachusetts 02554 Minutes of May 25, 1989 Page 10 was proposing a solid-fill pier next to Nantucket Shipyard, he learned that DEQE would deny such a pier even if the Concom allowed it. . . . . Philbrick said there is no prohibition against a solid-fill pier in the laws. Carl said stagnation is a factor. Philbrick said said more data is coming to show that the pier will not hurt the environment. She said she expects sediment analysis data will be available at the next meeting, and the results of a water circulation study will be available thereafter. Carl asked if Nantucket Harbor is an Area of Critical Environmental Concern. Cheryl Creighton, of the Nantucket Land Council, said no. It may be an Ocean Sanctuary, she said, but she was not sure. Christine Coughano~, ~a scientific consultant representing the applicant, said the application has a DEQE file number. There hasn't been an application like this for years, she asserted. Sanford said there will be a sluiceway for flushing action, to prevent the stagnation of Easy Street Basin. In addition, he has agreed to fix the local sewer line and provide a public pumpout station for boat sewage holding tanks. Peter asks what can be done if the pier is built and water quality gets worse and worse. Sanford replied that his studies will show that it will never get as bad as the Boat Basin. Or, if they have to, they could put more pipes through the pier, connecting the basin to the harbor with more than one sluiceway. Carl said even Straight Wharf could not be built today - the wetland protection laws date from 197~. Stan White, president of Ocean and Coastal Consultants, of Trumbull CT, speaking for the applicant, said the circulation of Easy Street Basin could be stimulated with a propellar in the sluiceway if needed. But that shouldn't be necessary, he said, given the depth of the dredged basin. The studies in progess will help them design the sluiceway, he explained. He promised to submit his resume to the Commission. Lee Dunn announced that he had just checked the regulations and TOv'ln of' }Tanb..1cket Conservation Commission 4 North Water Street Nantucket. Massachusetts 02554 Minutes of May 25, 1989 Page 11 found firm prohibitions against new bulkheads in the state regs and the local regs. Peter wondered if they apply in this case, which could be considered a reconstruction. Coughanowr said they know they need more than one waiver for the project. Carl asked for the list, and Philbrick went through it. This document is attached to the Notice of Intent. . . , . Rob Garrison, of Nantucket Shellfish, Inc., spoke in favor of the proposed project. He said he does not think it will have any major effect on marine life in the area because circulation is not so good now anyway. Also, he said, he wishes the Commission could see that the project is very appropriate for Nantucket, in terms of supplying something other than more boutiques and other tourist-oriented shops. Richard Lovelace subm1~ed a letter and voiced some concerns. He said the applicant is asking the Town to give up about 1 and one-half acres of underwater property, in other words taking public waters and converting them to private use. He said any fuel dock is subject to spills by human error -- it happens every day in evert part of the world. He said he knows this because he is a marine engineer. If the wind is right, he added, the residential end of the pier will be subject to pollution. Paraphrasing: Sanford: Dredging will not take away people's mooring space. Lee: Do you own the land you want to build on? Sanford: It's very complicated. Whatever isn't ours and is below the low tide line requires a Chapter 91 license from the state. Edward Sanford (Alfred's brother): I refer you to the Planning Board decision. We're asking for a license for going into the water because the state owns that area. You could see it as a long-term lease. Ben: The Commission has received more letters on this proposal, which are in the file. TOv'ln of' NanbJcl~et Conservation Commission 4 North Water Street Nantucket. M assach usetts 02554 Minutes of May 25, 1989 Page 12 Caroline Jackson: I am an abutter living nearby. How much do you want to dredge? Sanford: The Planning Board asked us to dredge as much as possible without interfering with anyone else's bulkhead. We will be happy to cooperate with anybody. Peter: Could you describe the proposed wave fence? . . . . Sanford: a series of 3x8s, 16 inches on center vertically to dissipate waves. Peter: How long will it take to build? Sanford: The pier could be built one winter, the structures the next. As much work as possible will be done from the water. We want to do the bulkheads in granite, but I haven't yet found anyone who knows ho~.~ White: About 9,900 cubic yards of fill will be needed for the pier. We will use part of the sediment dredged from East Street Basin. Peter: Could someone respond to Mr. Lovelace's statement that you will be taking public land? Sanford: Yes, we will be. That's what a Chapter 91 license is all about. The question is whether the public benefits make it a good project. The basin is decaying as it is now. We have an incredible opportunity to rebuild this historic wharf. Peter: What about gates restricting public access? Sanford: There will be a some small gates to protect private yards on the pier, but not to restrict people from the main pier itself. Peter: Will it attract tourists and their cars, leading to a traffic problem? Sanford: Traffic will be controlled by a limited parking area. People can only drive out as far as the last dolphin,. not quite that far. The gate that is now at the base of the wharf would be removed. Tovvn of' ~Tantllc}~et Conservation Commission 4 North Water Street Nantucket. Massachusetts 02554 Minutes of May 25, 1989 Page 13 Peter: Will there be new benches at the end of the new wharf? Sanford: Yes, a public pavillion will supply people with a view of the harbor. . . Commissioners read aloud all letters addressed directly to the Concom regarding this project. Philbrick elaborated on the viewing pavillion. Carl said the applicant has to admit that the project will cut off the open water view from Easy Street. Edward Sanford admitted that, but again pointed out the pavillion designed to replace the Easy Street viewpoint. Alfred Sanford added that the new view from Easy Street will be interesting because it will be a view of a working wharf. There was discussion about the part of the Planning Board decision that requires affordable rents for local marine-oriented busi~esses. Stephen Bender said he is wholeheartedly in favor of the proposed project, which exceeds his expectations. He said at present there is no place to unload fish or buy ice. Peter Kaiser added his support. He said he has been told that in the Chapter 91 license application the Sanfords have to say what facilities will be there and then it has to stay that way if the license is granted. He said the pier should be open all day and all night if it is really to serve the fishing industry. Right now, he said, if you have a young person who wants to fish for a living, there is just no way for him to do it. The Boat Basin is not set up for it. Carl asks what guarantee we have that the affordable rentals and marine-related uses will be written into the Chapter 91 application. Kaiser offered to find out more on the subject and to confirm whether or not it can all be made permanent. The Commission said such information would be welcome. Philbrick said she expects the license to incorporate the Planning Board decision as to use by the local fishing industry. Carl said he can't believe Chapter 91 would be that specific. Philbrick replied that Chapter 91 is a use permit as much as as structural permit. Paraphrasing: TOY\ln of' }Tantllc}~et Conservation Commission 4 North Water Street Nantucket. Massachusetts 0255-1 Minutes of May 25, 1989 Page 1~ Peter: I'm concerned about the potential of pollution from the fuel dock. What sort of safeguards do you have? Sanford: We will install a state-of-the-art fuel dock. Ben: Can you give us the specifications for that? Sanford: They are included in the drawings. . . . . White: The boom will be easy to deploy in the event of a spill. Sanford: The Concom could monitor the facility, too. Bender: Stringent controls on the fuel dock would force the Boat Basin to modernize their fuel dock. Ben: How? ~ ~ Bender: Because the licenses say no spills and that's not being complied with. Carl: Then we could end up with another license that won't be complied with. Edward Sanford: If you think we won't comply, then that's the end of it right there. You have to trust us to some extent. Carl: It may not be you -- you could sell the whole thing. Edward Sanford: That's true. Peter suggested that the Commission try not to repeat discussions, and instead focus on new issues or data every time this application comes up again at future meetings. Philbrick agreed. Lee requested really specific wording as to the grounds for a waiver from the prohibition against solid-fill piers in the local regulations. Continued to June 8. 9. Longview Realty Trust - SE~8-546 - 53 Madaket Rd. (~1-326) Bill Willet read the field inspection report. James Glidden, an attorney representing the applicant, submitted a new plan showing the ditch on the lot filled in and a new pond for TOv'Tn of' }Tantllcl~et Conservation Commission 4 North Water Street Nantucket. M llSSach usetts 02554 Minutes of May 25, 1989 Page 15 . . . . replication. Jan Thoran, a designer representing the applicant, said the ditch is not functioning; the flow is blocked, and mosquitos may be breeding there. She said she had read that ponds are better for mosquito control, and she distributed a copy of an article about the Open Marsh Water Management System in the newsletter of the Nantucket Land Council. Thoran proposed a "self-contained ecosystem," a "santuary area." She said her clients have been victimized because they bought the property after the whole previous controversy over the ditch. She said the pond she would create would be like the one on Granger Frost's land. Peter Dunwiddie said he had lunch at that pond, and there were many mosquitos. Thoran said maybe he needs carp in his pond. Peter said he doesn't think that would be a good idea, especially not for a pond that is connected to a larger pond, such as Hummock Pond. ~ ~ Thoran said the ditch is incredibly unattractive, full of slime, and completely disfunctional. It has slumping banks, she said; it just isn't healthy looking. It is unsafe. Peter said the pipe doesn't come out where you might think it does on the other side of the road. It comes out further down the road, and he saw it flowing well earlier this spring. It connects to Millbrook Swamp and Hummock Pond. Glidden pointed out that the Commission has provisions for granting waivers in order to avoid a taking without compensation. Thoran said even if a house could be built on the lot as it is, it wouldn't be all that great to be living next to a ditch. Peter said we should divorce this proposal from the Open Marsh Water Management System because that system is designed for salt marshes only. Aside from that, he said he is willing to think about the idea of creating a pond as a tradeoff for putting the ditch into a buried pipe. Paraphrasing: Carl: I'd like to see the pond three times as big. TOv'ln Conservation of'tTantllck:et Commission 4 North Water Street N antueket. M assaeh usetts 02554 Minutes of May 25, 1989 Page 16 Bill: We need the wetlands delineated and surveyed onto the plan. Peter: Get a consultant to do this. In a borderline situation like this, it will save everyone a lot of time. Also, the proposed driveway should be shown on the plan. . . . . Thoran: The driveway could be at the far left of the lot if the ditch is filled in. But if the pond is too big, it will dry out. Peter: The main problem is depth and what material is beneath the pond. Glidden: Maybe we should brushcut the lot. Peter: No, it is mudh~easier to define the wetlands with the vegetation still there. Ben: Here is what we need for next time: l)The wetlands flagged, surveyed, and added to the plan; 2) more specifics on your proposal, including the driveway. Thoran: These expenses are of great concern. Peter: Ask Ben for the minimal requirements and a list of local consultants who can flag wetlands. Continued to June 8 for more information. REGULAR MEETING 1. Requests for Determination a. M/M Lowell Bryan - off Millbrook Rd. (~0-79.1) Continued to June 8 at the request of Christine Coughanowr, representing the applicant. b. Bernard Bartlett - 25 N. Cambridge St. (38-25) Lee Dunn abstains from this discussion. Bill Willet read the field inspection report. The proposal was discussed.. .Bartlett agreed to move the proposed envelope back far enough so that a waiver would not be necessary, in order to get a negative determination. The north side of the envelope is to be moved 50 TOY\ln of' }Tantllc}~et Conservation Commission . . 4 North Water Street Nantucket., Massachusetts 02554 Minutes of May 25, 1989 Page 17 feet back from the wetland edge, or 26 feet south of the northernmost deck line of the existing house. A negative determination was signed, with this condition to be added. 2. Certificates of Compliance . . . . a. Dupont (Hollings) SE~8-~60 - (73.2.~-12) Put off until special meeting June 1. b. Nantucket Commons - SE48-365 (55-1~~) Bill Willet read the field inspection report. Theodore Tillotson, an attorney representing the applicant, explained that a Certificate for Building #1 only was requested, though several jobs need to be completed: 1) The area between the parking lot and the siltation fence needs to be revegetated, with the fence move~ hack to provide a more gentle slope; 2)A drywell must be installed at the corner of the building that is within the 100-foot buffer zone. Tillotson presented the two contracts for maintenance of the catch basin oil separators, required by the Order of Conditions, and an as-built plan of Building #1, stamped by Richard Earle. The Commission signed the Certificate on the stipulation that it would not be issued until all work was complete within 100 feet of the wetland. The settlement agreement for the lawsuit brought against the Commission by Thomas Taylor was signed with some discussion in open session instead of at an executive session scheduled for the end of the meeting. 3. Orders of Conditions -- (postponed until special meeting June 1) ~. Other business e. J. & V. Nightingale - SE~8-~98 (20-~2) Ralph Hardy, who said he is a landscape architect, spoke in behalf of Mr. Nightingale, who was also present. He said they would need a full-size front-end loader to plant the trees on the clearcut site. He then outlined a counter-proposal. Hardy said the suckers on the red maple stumps are 5 to 7 feet high, on most tupelo stumps ~ to 6 inches high, and on most sassafras stumps 4 feet high. If the idea is to disturb the TOv'ln of' }Tantllcl~et Conservation Commission 4 North Water Street Nantucket. Massachusetts 02554 Minutes of May 25, 1989 Page 18 site as little as possible, he said, he doesn't see how the Commission could justify planting as many as the 67 trees required in the Order of Conditions. . . . . Bill Willet pointed out that the size of the trees to be planted was recommended by Sabatia, Nightingale's own consulting firm. William Brown, an attorney representing Nightingale, replied that it was "collective ignorance." He said he recently noticed the springs that keep the hillside wet. He said they would like to leave the site alone and plant the 3~ trees they now have on the island elsewhere. There was discussion about the difference between suckers and new trees. Hardy said the growth rate could be faster for the suckers because of the huge root systems already in place. If he were to cut away all but one sucker on each stump, he said, the remaining sucker could grow still faster. But digging holes to plant new trees co~ld harm the existing roots, which would be counterproductive. Besides, he said, it is just impossible to get the trees in by hand because they are so heavy and require such big holes, dug through root-filled soil. Then he said he knows the Commission would not let him get by with planting no new trees at all, so he offered to plant 8 trees at the site, by hand. He agreed not to use fertilizer, which could increase the nitrates flowing into Polpis Harbor. He will have to clear brush at the top of the hill to get the trees through. He will lay down plywood to get across wet areas. Jeff Blackwell said that suckers tend to be more susceptible to disease. Carl agreed that sometimes they die because the stump rots. After more discussion, Hardy agreed to prune each stump so that only two suckers remain and then paint each stump with grafting compound. He advised the Commission to require very small saplings, or "whips," the next time they order someone to plant trees. The discussion then turned to the question of what to do with the remaining 26 trees. (Only 3~ of the 67 trees required by the Order of Conditions made it to the island). Carl pointed out that they only grow in wet areas. Bill Willet said how about the performance bond. Peter said if they're not doing anything, there is no point in trying to make sure that they don't do it. Town of' Nanttlc}~et Conservation Commission 4 North Water Street Nantucket. M assach usetts 02554 Minutes of May 25, 1989 Page 19 It was decided that the remalnlng 26 trees would be offered to the town Department of Public Works, and that Ben would call Bill Brown next week to arrange a transfer if DPW is interested. . . . . Ben raised the point that Nightingale recently completed a new deck that is less than 100 feet from a wetland without filing an application with the Commission, but no action was taken. Lee Dunn left the meeting at 11:50 p.m., and there was no longer a quorum. The meeting broke up with no further business being conducted. Afterwards, Bill Willet instructed Ben to notify the members of a special meeting at ~:oo the following Thursday, June 1st, to finish up the rest of the agenda. ### ~ ~