HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-06-08
~.....~
~~~~lUCJr~~""
L~r ~~1-"io
Itf. \.,,~
-o'~~cc.l
tt ,=-
t:r,- ~".'
.~~~~/......:
~~\ ~~","-I.." ;:
-y^... -'-'ft:=...-=- .' '0 ;:
.. '0 .... .... " ~
~~....,.........~. ~
rORA1~......~
........
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
4 North Water Street
Nantucket.. Massachusetts 02554
AGENDA FOR JUNE 8, 1989
A. COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS FROM PRESS AND P"DLIC
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. John Gifford - SE~8-535 - Shi...'o Road (28-9)
2. M & E Bonner - SE48-541, 28 L. Beach Rd(74-53)
3. Donald McCullough - 95 & 99 Eel Point Road (32-8&9)
4. CMS Realty Trust - 120,122,~2~ T.N. Rd. (91-43,43.1,43.2)
5. Anne D. Plukas - 147 Great Point Rd. (11-6)
6. '-lId North Wharf - SEll-8-5~9 (~2.3.1)
7. wongview Realty Trust - SE48-5~6 - 53 Madaket Road (~1-326)
C. REGULAR MEETING
1. Requests for Determination
a. M/M Lowell Bryan - off Millbrook Rd (~0-79.1)
* b. Hallowell/NCF - off Millbrook Rd (~0-79)
* c. Abram & Barbara King - 26 Codfish Park Rd (73.1.3-1l.t-)
* d. Estate of A.U. Crosby - Pimnys Point (l.t-3-1)
2. Orders uf Conditions
a. Stephen J. Kotalac - SE48-536 - 8 Wamasquid Place (56-113.51
b. Beacon Nominee Trust - SE48-5l.t-3 - 3 Beacon Lane (21-26.9)
c. Sankaty Head Golf Club - SE48-548 - Hoick's Hollow Road (23-9)
d. Gifford/ Mc Kechnie - SEI}8 - 5~:, - 19 Kimbal Ave ( 30-29 )
-Sign~tures required
3. Other Bus ess
a. Robert M. Kaye - SEl.t-8-305 - Topgale Lane (27-7) - discussion
b. Barbara Charleton - SE~8-537 (49.2.3-6) - minor modification
c. Sharp/Kilvert - SE48-519 (26-22) - minor modifications
d. Well Testing in Quidnet
e. Milage vouchers - Submittal needed before June 15.
4. Correspondence
5. Minutes of May 16, May 25, and June 1, 1989
6. Bills to be paid
7. Field Inspections - Monday, June 19, at ~ PM
* denotes new application
** abutter notification mailed late or overdue at preVlOUS meeting
~~ ~IU/ ,,(~ / f/1'jI;I#-
~......~
NTUC ,,~
Ar~~~ ...~~
l'~ ..1-..
~ '"piS
.. o:~S.~.AfJ\U\;'
, ' -11Jl~
l-\;.,_ ~~J' :
.." ------- -~..
.~- - h..~
~~\ ~~=-- i" ;:
'y^... -'-'ft:=....=. ..' '0 ~
.. '0 ..... ." " ~
~'P .........~. ~
ORA1~ :t"~
.....'".
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
4 North Water Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 1989
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Board of Selectmen's
Hearing room. Commissioners present were Chairman Willet, Henry
Wasierski, Peter Dunwiddie, Donald Visco, Carl Borchert, Administrator
Ben McKelway, and Secretary Bruce Perry.
A. COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS FROM PRESS AND PUBLIC - none
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. JOHN GIFFORD - SE~8-535 - SHIMMO ROAD ( 28 -9 )
Present were John Gifford, represented by Melissa Philbrick of
Vaughn, Dale and Philbrick, and Lester Smith of Daylor Consulting
Group. Mr Gifford stated that the only waiver that he was
requesting was from the local 50-foot setback requirement from a
coastal bank. He felt that this case was a special circumstance. He
said he had done a lot to preserve the area. When he purchased the
property, there was a subdivision plan that would have created 80
lots. The present subdivision plan calls for only six lots on the
parcel and the rest of the property to have deeded a conservation
restriction. The property was purchased with other people who were
sensitive to the issues in the area and this was the only way to make
the purchase affordable. He was looking for some direction from the
Commission as to their intentions.
Mr. Dunwiddie commented that he would like to see a smaller
house.
Mr. Willet stated the he would like to see increased setback from
the bank.
Mrs.Philbrick stated that the 2500-square-foot footprint included
all decks and the covered porches. The garage shown on the plans is
no longer part of project. The intent of the bank setback
requirements is to protect the slope and stability of the bank. The
work does not affect the intent of the setback requirements. (She
submits plan that shows the locus and 20 acres to be protected by a
new conservation restriction.) There will be no further subdivision or
other structures on the acreage. There has been an effort to minimize
Page 1
~...........,
NTU'C-.
Lr~~J' --t~
l~ ..1-\
~ \y~
'o/~ ~(J\ i
t:\~Jlri
.;\~~C~I."""'.~
~A," ~~~ 1."- ;:
'Y."... -'-'ft:=--:::>-- ..' '0 ~
0.... ." ... A
~,,,,,.........~. '"
rORA1~ it'''''
....""..
Town of Nantucket
Conservation COlnmission
4 North Water Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
the impact on wildlife.
Mr. Dunwiddie ask if the septic system can meet the Board of
Health set back requirements ?
Lester Smith stated thuc the proposed system was 66 feet from the
dune. Also, Figure 1 in his handout shows that the septic area is
over 300 feet from the salt marsh and the spring tide line. This is
over three times the Nantucket regulations. The elevation at the site
of the leach pit is 28 feet. The coastal bank contains the 100-year
flood and the elevation of the flood line is eight feet. The septic
site exceeds the five-foot leach pit / ground water separation
requirement.
Cheryl Creighton of the Nantucket Land Council comments that the
Nantucket septic regulations require that systems desigL~d i.n excess
of 330 gallons per day must use leach trenches instead pits.
Mr.Visco comment that the regulation was for use in areas of high
groundwater and does not apply in this case.
Mrs.Philbrick stated that the septic system is not designed at
present. The system when designed will be designed to meet Title 5
and Nantucket requirements.
Mr. Borchert commented that the Order of Conditions could contain
wording making the septic system contingent on meeting the Title 5 and
Board of Health regulations.
At the request of several Commissioners, Mr. Smith agreed to
limits of work close to the house, along and above the top of coastal
bank. He drew the limits on the plan in black ink, adding his
initials and the date.
Ben McKelway reminded the Comnission that at the last meeting
Tina Coughanower had suggested a number of items that needed more
information.
1. Additional information on soil conditions
2. Ground water elevations
Page 2
~'''I~
~~14TUCJr;~
()~ ~~?'::r\
l~v ~1-\
~f \~ \.
to' '1JI3;
....', 1 _
. -:~ - ..,-.,
.....-.= - I....;:
......~..""-.- -/." ;:
... ".......;"t;: ........'0.1
~;;p."''''':'~. ~
ORA1~....~
.....,..
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
4 North Water Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
3. Location of existing utilities
Mr. Borchert commented that he wished to see the utilities remain
on the driveway. He was concerned about the location of the abutters'
electrical service; if it were found to be in the road, the builder
may just go around and leave the road area.
Mr. Dunwiddie was concerned about the work around the house
extending over the dune are. In a couple of spots the house almost
sits on top of the coastal bank. Even if a fence is put up, the
construction will go right up to the limits of the fence.
Mr. Gifford stated that he is going to be working on the house
himself and will ensure that the site is kept neat. In addition, he
stated that he would agree to fence up to the coastal bank or 12 feet
from the house.
~. Proposed area of cut and fill
Mr. Gifford said the driveway and parking area would be the only
alterations of existing contours.
5. Wildlife uses of the wetland and aquatic area
Mr. McKelway sugested that more specific study is needed on the
effects of the work on wildlife in the area.
Mr. Dunwiddie stated that the applicant is trying to prove his
case by assertion. He could not believe that the site does not affect
wildlife. The site is surrounded by wetlands. If we allow a waiver
for a site surrounded by wetlands, what are the regulations for?
Mrs. Philbrick responded that the only waiver sought was from the
coastal bank setback. With the waiver for this item, the project will
pass all other requirements.
Mr. McKelway commented that the discussion has primarily
concerned coastal banks and not inland banks. Nantucket Regulations
on inland banks have not been addressed ( reads page 29 Section 3.01 B
1 ).
Les Smith commented that it was all coastal bank. Inland banks
Page 3
~..~
~~~TUCJr;''''e.
L ()r~~"-.,,
Itf. ,~"P~
"o:~;U\l
:r -;(.1).
tl-\-' ~' '~""
. --;;;? ~--~ -y I · ·
~- - - - ......~
\~\ ~~"'"-;" ;:
.'<:>;:'" -'-'ft:=....;:>-. ........'0 ~
"~0-9~.......;;~. #
I"'ORA1~ ,...'"
...."",
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
4 North Water Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
must have the effect
case.
of containing fresh water and this is not the
6. Septic system 33 feet from bank
Mrs. Philbrick stated that in the original submission that was
the location. We have made changes that will place the system to the
outside of the setback limits.
Mr. Visco question the status of the gravel way. Mrs. Philbrick
stated that it was an abutters' way and therefore private. Mr. Visco
commented that if this is the case, then the applicant can use the
center of the road as the property line for the setback requirements.
This might allow for greater distaLce between the septic system and
the coastal bank.
7. Calculation of travel time of septic effulent
Mr. Smich commented that the soils will test in excess of the
requirements and the septic system will meet Title 5 and local Board
of Health requirements.
Mr. McKelway commented tLdt the burden of proof is on the
applicant and not the Commission.
Mr. McKelway pointed out 'chat at the May 25th meeting, at the
Commission's request, Ms Coughanower agreed to supply more specific
information as to the project's impact on wildlife in the wetlands and
buffer zone. Ms Coughanowr replied that she had not done further work
after all because it had not been authorized by her client, the
Nantucket Land Council.
Mr. Dunwiddie asked the applicant if he would be willing to
prohibit the use of garbage grinders in the house. Mr. Gifford was
undecided on this issue.
MOTION : to Close the hearing made and seconded
in favor: Wasierski, Visco, Borchert
Page '*
~.....~
,.~~~TUC";.,,,'&.
~r~)-~'
.,.~:t: ~ "'~,
"~~ \~..':.
'0; ., / ~Uii
t""X'" -h" '-j:':
. -=-.;.;;;.. ..
~- . ..
""- .. ~,-, _- l~1
1L 1-^... ~ . - ."'0 ;:
''''0'' ."'.....~
~.::..........~. ........
rORA1~ rt'"V
......".
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
4 North Water Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
2. M & E Bonner - SEq8-5~1 - 28 LOW BEACH ROAD ( 74-53 )
MOTION: To continue at applicant's request made and seconded
Unanimous
3. DONALD MCCULLOCH - 95 & 99 EEL POINT ROAD ( 32-8,9
Present for the applicant were Donald McCulloch, Melissa
Philbrick, Tina Coughanower.
Mrs. Philbrick stated that the application is for a garage on Eel
Point Road. The Commission had approved in July 1988 the construction
for a new house to replace the existing structure. The conditions on
the site have not changed from last year and we have asked that Tina
Coughanower give the Commission an overview.
Coughanower states that she had surveyed the property for the
initJ.a.l application last year. She went back to the property this
week and confirmed that the house is in the transition area of the
dune. The garage will be located on the leeward side of the house.
The effects on wildlife and scienic views will be reduced if the
structurf is located closer to the house. The house is presently
located Gu feet from the primary dune.
Mrs.Philbrick states that the house is planned to be on pilings.
We would like to request that the garage not be on pilings. The
effect of raising the ridge line of the structure, construction of a
ramp large enough to support cars, and the fact that the garage is
located in the lee of the house should overshadow the placing of the
building on pilings. Siting the garage farther away from the house is
less practical to the home owners. It also spreads out the structures
and impacts the views.
Mr. McCulloch commented that the main reasin for the garage was
for two cars and storage. By placing the house on pilings combined
with the 23-foot ridge height had the effect of eliminating most of
the available storage space in the house. We would like to keep the
garage close to the house and therefore be able to use the storage.
After furhter discussion with the Commission, Mr. McCulloch
Page 5
4~TU'~~'e.
Lor~-s.'i.
;II ~r '"9' is
~""/~\'''-
.0: :'" i
t I > IIJI
t-;,,:_, ,',;~,.:
.\~~":..'~~ I ~I
..., ~~'"" - ,h,"';:
\...,.. - . ..~- .ro"" ..
"('... -;'L..:;:!:>.- - ......'0,/
...~O~........;;Q. ,
rORA1~ itr#
...."""
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
4 Norti ater Street
Nantucket. Massachusetts 02554
volunteered to place the following restrictions on his deed
The garage: 1. will stay unattached
2. will not be expanded
3. will not be used as living space
Mrs. Philbrick questioned whether these restrictions could be
enforcable if they were placed in the Order of Conditions. Sometime
in the future an application could be made to change the Order. She
suggested that some wording be worked up to place these restrictions
on the deed.
Mr. Visco suggested that the Order of Conditions could identify
the recorded restrictions on the deed.
MOTION : To continue and await DEQE file number and to work
on wording on restrictions. Made and Seconded
UNANIMOUS
~. CMS REALTY TTRUST 120,122,12~ TOM NEVERS ROAD
(91-~3,~3.1,~3.2)
MOTION : Continue at request of applicant. Made and
seconded
UNANIMOUS
5. ANNE D. PLUKAS 1~7 GREAT POINT ROAD ( 11-6 )
MOTION : Continue at request of applicant. Made and
seconded
UNANIMOUS
6. OLD NORTH WHARF - SE48 - 5~9, ( ~2.3.1 )
Present for the applicant Alfred and Edward Sanford and
counsel Melissa Philbrick
John Moore ( 29 Surfside Road; rents 1~ Easy Street ) was
Page 6
/1)....~
~ft.14lucJrl"1t.
r~ ~~,
l~ ~1-\
~ \"V ~
t-o: ~~i
L I _
"'X'''' ~:' !f
. ~ I ~~
'" .. "'- - - II\' I
,,~^... -'-'ft:=....=-- - .' '0 ;:
'..0'... .... 'I; ~
~"P............ ~. I'
ORA1~ it"'"
..........".
Town of Nantucket
Conservation ("ommission
4 North Water Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
recognized by the Chair and spoke in ( position to the project. He
was specifically concerned about t e c!npatability of commercial and
residential uses, increased traffic flows in the area, the overall
size of the project, and the effect on scenic views.
line Killen ( owns 3 properties on wharf ) was recognized and
spoke in opposition to the project. Specifically commenting on the
impact on scenic views from the head of the basin, the effects of the
dredging and solid fill on wildlife in the area, stagnation of the
waters due to the solid fill pier, and decrease in manuverability in
the harbor area.
Mrs. Philbrick spoke for the applicants. (puts plans on board)
Plan 1 shows existing conditions. The wharf is solid fill on all
sides. The rubble from the old wharf is exposed except on 2 hours on
either side of high tide. This area is a shoal area and listed as a
navigational hazard. She had spoken to Jim Connor at Coastal Zone
Mamagem-;nt (CZM). She reported that approval of solid fill piers is
possible. But the applicant has the burden of proof to show: 1) the
project does not adversely affect sediment transportation;
2) the project does not
adversely affect water circulation and flushing;
3) the loss of aquatic habitat
must be balanced with the benefits of the pier.
She also spoke with Mr. Langley at DEQE and he confirmed that the
regulations do not prohibit solid fill piers. Again the burden of
proof is on the applicant to prove themselves. A MEPA report is
triggered by both the dredging and the size of the project. Their
review of the Environmental Notification Form (ENF) will determine
what other reports will be required. In response to a question last
meeting, she states that part of the harbor is a ocean sanctuary but
the pier area is not included.
Mr. Visco questioned how much of the basin would be dredged and
what the benefits would be ?
Mrs. Philbrick explained the basin would be dredged as deep as
possible without undercutting the privately owned bulkheads.
Presently there are 12 residences and the project proposes 1~.
Ed Sanforo commented that the commercial fishing uses cannot
Page 7
&.........,
NTUC-'.
A ~ ~--tt,..
,~~V ,,:~io
Itf. \v~
"0' 'U\i
tL-l ...... ilJl..
.- _. ~J. !!
. ., 'tI ...
~~~.. ~~"";"'"--~It.i
'Y('~ ~ . .....~'O~:'
O~p'''._'' ~. ...4'
ORA1~....v
.....,..
Town of Ndntucket
Conservation Commission
4 North Water Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
compete directly with the residential uses. But allowing the mix in
uses will allow for the reduction in rental for the water uses due to
the fact that the other uses will support a higher rental level.
A. Sanford stated that they were interested in reconstruction
and improving the basin.
Mr. McKelway (reads from nvtes on phone conservation with Andrea
Langhauser, the project reviewer for the Chapter 91 license.) She is a
Planner with DEQE's Waterways Regulation Program, and she gave some
input to the Commission's deliberations:
1. The loss OL use and wildlife has to be offset by the
increased public benefit of the project.
2. The Commission should hold off on making its final
determination until after the EIR is filed, commented upon, and acted
on by the Secretary of Environmental Affairs. The State may make
rede: :gns and changes to the project that would necessitate the
Comml5sion changing its Order. This way the Commission will be able
to write a better Order. At least the CommissLon should send in
comments ,ring the upcoming 30-day comment period, to playa role in
the permitting process.
3. The project is new and needs to be reviewed. No way can
it be considered a reconstruction, under the law.
In other con' .mts, Mr McKelway stated that the local regulations
flatly prohibit solid fill piers and a waiver would be needed. Also
an increased wildlife survey W011d be required to satisfy the
Commission. He said all marint. nimal life in the area is treated as
wildlife under the local regulations, whether commercially valuable or
not.
Clorissa Porter ( Brother own's Austin Strong Boathouse)
questions that the residences counted were only on the Sanford's
property. Mrs. Philbrick responded affirmatively. Mrs. Porter was
concerned that the increased traffic will decrease the property
owners' desire to maintain property. Also, she was concerned that the
"window of visability" was being closed off with first the dolphin
construction and now this.
Mrs. Philbrick responded that the view issue should be considered
by the Commission. She felt that the project is different in that the
Page 8
........~
,.~~14TUCJr;'-
L~~~~~
1ft \"P\
,_., .U\.,.,
....r _jlJla
I-\.~ -:: 4. ~:. :
. .~ ~ I~!
,\ "'- -I.~I
... ~^... -'-'ft:=..,..=-" - .. '0 ;:
,,,' .. ...... !li
~~::........;;.... ,
rORA1~V:t'~
.......""..
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
4 North Water Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
loss in view is not a net loss. The change will make the view more
dramatic and the project will increase the public's access to the
water and views.
Mr. McKelway said yes, but the public would have to seek out the
view from the end of the wharf.
Mr. Wasierski questions the wharf's ability to maintain a
commercial fish use. Noting that an ice house is proposed, he
recalled his days as a commercial fisherman, when ice was supplied
from Straight Wharf. He said once the owners of that wharf realized
that yachts would bring in more money, they stopped selling ice.
"It's an awful disguise to get the permit," he said.
Ed Sanford wished to be put on record as objecting to that
assertion. Alfred Sanford said they had no intention of supplying the
large quantities of ice needed by draggers, but would cater only to
smaller boats.
Aftpr more discussion the question was asked why the project was
before the Town boards before the State permits were received ?
Mrs. Philbrick responded that the local input was important to
the MEPA process. The feeling is that the local boards have to live
with the project and therefore the imput is important.
Mr. Borchert wanted more information on the existing marine life
in the basin and at the site of the pier: What is there now, and What
will be lost by the dredging and the construction of the solid fill
pier? There needs to be a quantative study done. He said he wanted a
survey of all forms of animal life. Christine Coughanowr, the
Sanfords' scienfific consultant, took note of this request.
MOTION: to continue for more information made and seconded
UNANIMOUS
7. LONGVIEW REALTY TRUST
No representatives were present for the applicants
Page 9
~..~
~~14TUCI(t'''-
()r~~~
;t~r '"P ~
a~/~\'''-
-0' ....,
t E jlJl.
l-\-'_~~,. .
. , ~ ~/.a
\~- - ......~
~~_\ ~~"'"- '-"'- ;:
,,..,,~ -'-'ft:=......,.,..- .........'0 I
O~p-.......;;~. r.'
ORA1~ it""
...."".
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
4 North Water Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Mark B. Garnick ( an abutter ) wrote a letter to the Commission
that Mr. McKelway read. Mr. Garnick is opposed to the project. He
worries about the destruction of wetlands and its effect on wildlife
in the area. He states that the undergrowth is used for ring-necked
pheasants, and he has seen some spotted turtles ( a rare species of
special concern ).
MOTION: to continue for more information and lack of
representation made and seconded
UNANIMOUS
C. REGULAR MEETING
1. REQUESTS FOR DETERMINATION
a.) M/M LOWELL BRYAN - off MILLBROOK ROAD ( ~0-79.1 )
Applicant requests that seven more trees be cut down.
Chair reads the inspection report
MOTION: To cut the seven flagged trees made and seconded
in favor: Visco, Wasierski, Willet
opposed: Dunwiddie, Borchert
b.) HALLOWELL / NCF - off MILLBROOK ROAD ( ~0-79 )
( abutters list mailed 5/31 )
Attorney David Moretti representing applicant; Jack
Gardner representing Parks and Recreation Commission; Attorney
Melissa Philbrick representing abutters McIlvains
Mr. Dunwiddie wanted to know the size of the access to the
pond?
Mr. Gardner commented that it would be large enough to back a
boat trailer into the area
Page 10
,(;...."~
NTUC
Ar~~ -..J!t>
,~ 4) :~~'"
It \"p \
-o'~'U\l
'....h-~i!l';
..~~/..
~~~~::---i"":1
('~ -'-'ft:=..,..=-- .........'0 I
o~~.......~. !o"
"ORA1~ :t'"~
......".
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
4 North Water Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Mr. Dunwiddie wanted to know if it was to be a path or a road?
Mr. Moretti responded that the Planning Board had ordered a
16- foot gravel spec road, but since the McIlvains have built a
narrower gravel driveway, Mr. Hollowell was required to extend the
gravel to Millbrook road and install a parking area and turnout at
easements over the Nantucket Conservation Foundation (NCF) land.
He had looked at the area with Jim Lentowski of the NCF and moved
the parking areas away from the most sensitive areas. The proposal
is to brush cut, clear, level two areas for three-car parking and
turnout. The work will be overseen by NCF personnel.
Mrs. Philbrick said her clients were worried about the scope
of the work. They did not have enough information concerning the
project to understand it. The wetlands were not flagged, and they
were worried about the sensitive ditch and pond areas. They wanted
to ensure that the Commissions standards were administered equally
to all parties.
Les Smith commented that this was a wetland area and that it
would be impacted by increased foot traffic. There should be a
Notice of Intent filed, wetlands flagged, engineering plan of the
proposed road, and types of substrate used.
Mr. Gardner commented that all that was needed to clear the
access the rest of the way to the pond was a pair of clippers. No
fill was needed. He wanted this request added to the application.
Mrs. Philbrick reiterates her position that the regulations
should be administered equally to all applicants.
Mr. Dunwiddie comments that there seems to be an error on the
plans concerning the ditch location and that it is difficult to
anticipate the public use of the area but that the parking spaces
will increase the use.
Mr Gardner stated that the Town only has easements for the two
parking areas. The need for the parking areas has only come about
since the NCF and the Bryans have fenced in their area up the hill.
Mr. Moretti reiterates that the scope of the work proposed in
the Request is only to create a parking area and a small area to
Page 11
~r~14TU~'
Lo~ ~~~
If \"P~
~..o: ~<c.i
~l,,:,_ , ~ ~ll. =
. , ~- -.". .
......--=- -.,.
...~.. ~~ i~1
~^... -'-'ft:=.....",.. .' '0 ~
,"' .. ....... ~
~o~;:..........~. #
rORA1~ .......,.
......"
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
4 North Water Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
pull off the road so cars can pass, not the cutting to the pond
that Mr. Gardner wants. There will be increased damage to the
wetlands area without the work proposed in the application, because
people will be using the area with or without the parking area and
turnout. The work is in the best interest of the Community, he
said, and it would be unfair to go through the Notice of Intent
procedure.
MOTION: To approve the proposed work commenting that it is
within a buffer zone but will not alter the area was made and
seconded
IN FAVOR: VISCO, WASIERSKI, WILLET
OPPOSED: DUNWIDDIE, BORCHERT
c.) ABRAM and BARBARA KING - 26 CODFISH PARK ROAD ( 73.1.3-1~ )
Representing applicant Norman Chelicki
Mr. McKelway states that he had been out to the site and
recommands a negative determination. He also recommends that the
Commission get a specific elevation on the addition ridge height.
Mr. Chelicki responded that the addition height will be four
feet higher than the existing structure ( 17 ' 8 " ). the existing
structure is at least 80 feet from the dune line.
MOTION: To approve the proposed working commenting that
it is within the buffer zone but will not alter the area was made
and seconded
UNANIMOUS
d.) ESTATE of ARTHUR.U. CROSBY - PIMNY'S POINT ( ~3 - 1 )
( abutter notification received )
Glen Wills of Nantucket surveyors representing applicant
MOTION: To approve the work commenting that the work described
Page 12
6......~
..~UCIrl).,
0/ ~~~
If I \"p;
_ . .U\~
to: _jlJlOl
t:\": I: i
--:'\""- - iJt' /
't^~~. - .''0 i:'
,"' .... ... ro.,'"
.".. 0 ~ p ........ ~. ...4'
~~ORA1~ it"V
'............'".
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
4 North Water Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
is within a resource area but will not remove, fill dredge, or
alter that area was made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
2. ORDERS OF CONDITIONS
a. STEPHEN J. KOTALAC - 8 WAMASQUID PLACE - SE~8-536
(56-113.5)
MOTION: To continue to the June 22 meeting by the
Commission due to time constraints was made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
b. BEACON NOMINEE TRUST -3 BEACON LANE - SE~8-5~3 (21-26.9)
Applicant represented by Christine Coughanower of Horsley,
Witten, Hegemenn, Inc.
Coughanhower commented that she had reviewed a copy of the
Draft Order of Conditions and wanted to discuss with the Commission
Items 1~, 15, 16.
1~.) She asked the Commission if instead of limiting the
fertilizer application to 15 feet all around the house, they would
be willing to only restrict between the house and the wetland side.
After some discussion the Commission was unwilling to make
this change.
15.) Coughanhower felt that the driweway restrictions
were too excessive.
Mr.Wasierski commented that this was a delicate site and the
driveway was not shown on the plan before the Commission.
Mr. Duwiddie commented that it was a vague plan and the
Commission had to anticipate what might happen in the future.
The Comission was unwilling to change the draft restrictions
Page 13
~~'-
L? ~~~
it, \"P~
.0: ~U\ I
,....1. ;IJI.
'-r"- , -,' !!
. . ~_ I : !
....\ ~'S:'_ /1\' 1
~(\~ -'-'ft:=-=...........,o~
o~~......... ~. ...,
rORA1~ itV
......"..
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
4 North Water Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
16.) Coughanhower states that the present draft calls for
a ridge height of 45 feet Mean Sea Level ( MSL). She asked the
Commission if they would be willing to allow a 48 foot MSL ridge if
the structure was kept away from the high points of the property.
Mr Dunwiddie commented that with a 30 foot house the highest
ridge allowed under Nantucket code would be 42 feet.
Coughanhower comments that the intent is to keep the house at
the sa~me height as other structures in the area. She shows the
Commission a plot plan with a new more specific building envelope
shown.
Mr McKelway comments that this new evidence and not allowable
since the public hearing has closed. Commission members agree.
After some more discussion the following motion was made:
MOTION: To reopen the public hearing at the request of the
applicant and to have the applicant readvertise and notify
abutters.
Made and Seconded. UNANIMOUS
c. SANKATY HEAD GOLF CLUB - HOlCK'S HOLLOW ROAD SE48-548 (23-9)
MOTION: To continue to the June 22 meeting by the
Commission due to time constraints was made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
3. OTHER BUSINESS
a. ROBERT M. KAYE - TOPGALE LANE - SE48-30S ( 27-7 )
Representing the applicant Melissa Philbrick and David
Haines of Haines Hydrogeologic Consulting.
Background: The filling for the house and tennis court has
been done. The Order of Conditions has expired. There is no
siltation fence around the house as required by the approved plan.
The second story of the house extends out over the approved
Page 1'"
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
4 North Water Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
footprint.
Mr. Haines shows the Commission a plan with three overlays.
The plan contains the as built for the house from 1986. The plan
shows the 2~ x2~ foot footprint of the house. He stated that the
allowed footprint was to include external decks and stairs. The
old tennis court was 65 x 125 and is proposing new court that is 60
x 120. He also suggests that he be allowed to canterleiver the end
of the stairway, turn the last step onto the tennis court.
Mr. McKelway stated that the Commission during its meeting on
May 11, 1989 voted to order the removal of the exterior stairway
and fill material.
Mr. Haines suggests the following: 1) siltation fence all
around
2) A retaining wall made
out of rail road ties be constructed and the excess fill removed
four feet away from the foundation
3) Gutters and leaders
directed away from the house be used to control runoff.
The retaining wall is needed to maintain the structual
integrity of the foundation, he said. The other changes will
increase stability of the area. The applicant is willing to
replicate and restore additional areas. Mr. Haines commented that
he hoped that these changes could be procedurally through new
orders and that the Commission not require a new Notice to be
filed.
Mr. Dunwiddie commented that the Orders had run out and a new
Notice is required. He felt doubtful that the Commission would
allow the tennis court right up to the edge of a wetlands.
Mr. Visco questioned if the work was being done on a good
building permit. Mrs. Philbrick responded affirmatively. He then
asked if the septic was gravity fed or pressure line? The response
was that the septic was part of the original house and gravity fed.
Mr. Dunwiddie states that this is a sneaky way to build. He
would like to see the building match the footprint. He suggests
removal of the stairs, decks and second story overhang.
Page lS
11J.....~
r~~14TUCJr;~
() ~~'S
It \"P~
~ . .U\!I.
0....: . _:IJI<l
eio: ~ ~;. -
. ,. - -I
\~- I..:~
-'\ "- - - l";:
~^... ~ .''0;:
,"' .. .....,. '"
O~p"""""~. ,
ORA1~ it..<J>
..........",
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
4 North Water Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Mr. Visco comments that it is unfortunate that the project
went so far. It smacks of someone trying to put one over on the
Commission. He said considers porches and overhangs as part of a
footprint.
Mr. Haines asks if new Notice could include both the fixup
work and the tennis court work.
Mr. Visco states that it could be included in one Notice and
the work could be done quickly.
Mr. McKelway reminded the Commission that the DEQE recommends
against requiring a new Notice of Intent for work not likely to be
approved by the Commission. An Enforcement Order would be the
alternative.
MOTION: To have applicant re-file to finish the buildings
and the Notice may include the tennis court work. Made and
Seconded.
UNANIMOUS
b. BARBARA CHARLETON - SE~8 - 537 (~9.2.3-6)
MOTION: To continue to June 22 meeting by the Commission
due to time constraints was made and seconded. UNANIMOUS
C. SHARP / KILVERT - SE~8-519 ( 26 - 22 )
MOTION: To continue to June 22 meeting by the Commission
due to time constraints was made and seconded. UNANIMOUS
5. MEETING MINUTES
MOTION: Approval May 16, 25, June 1, 1989 made and
seconded
UNANIMOUS
7A tr E. , b
/f-~~~14'T~~~
l~ ~1-\
~. \~\
tL-E ~F jlJl.
r-\,,_ ""',' I
. .\~ -'I. !::~
~~,.. - - '-,,;:
'y^.... -.' '0 ;:
"0'"... .... "" A
~;;........:.~. r
ORA1~ ....~
.....'"
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
4 North Water Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
6. COMMISSION BILLS
a.
Marks $ 88.00 Landscaping Consue Springs
Approved UNANIMOUS
ADJoURNMENT 11: 17 PM
?A<D& \'"l