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.
###
~ ~