Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-07-06 _~~~"'14T~> /:O~ ~;t-~ ~t "piS oi _~VJ.i 1-\,;; , ~f'. i . ..\ ' - ~ I......~ e'" "'- ~"'"- i"- ;: <"... -'-'ft:=....=--,./, '0 ;: ~~.......~.", "ORA1~....\'Ii .....,9""' Town of Nantucket Conservation Commission (508) 228- 7230 6 Chestnut Street Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 MEETING MINUTES JULY 6, 1989 The meeting was called to order at 7:18 PM in the Selectmen's Meeting Room. Commissioners present were William Willet, Chairman~ Lee Dunn~ Henry Wasisrski3 Carl Bcrchsrts Granville Cranston; Ben McKelway, Administrator, Bruce Perry, Secretary. Absent were Commissioners Peter Dunwiddie and Donald Visco. A. COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS FROM PRESS AND PUBLIC Administrator Ben McKelway wished to comment on the Commission's jurisdiction on the dumping of grey water and treated sewage into the harbor. He had spoken to Jim Mahala from DEQE concerning this issue. Mr. Mahala said that the Commission did have some jurisdiction in the issue. He felt that it is difficult to go after individual boat owners and it is easier to enforce regulations through the marina instead. Mr. Mahale also felt that negotiations with the offending marina should take place before any enforcement order is issued. If the negotiations were to fail, then the Commission could prevent the cruise ships from coming. Mr. Wasierski commented that the Board of Health handled this issue during their meeting last night. An arrangement had been worked out between the Board, DPW and the marina concerning the pumping out of their holding tanks as long as the flows did not exceed the previous years. It is anticipated that since the cruise ships are making approximately 30 Yo fewer overnight stops in the marina then the flows should not increase. Mr. Dunn states that he feels that the Commission should maintain its awareness of this issue. He feels that the Commission has jurisdiction in the issue and might be able to enforce the wetland regulations if the Health inspector is unable. B. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. M & E BONNER 28 LOW BEACH ROAD - SE48-541 (74-53). Representing the applicant John Shugrue Mr. Shugrue recommends that the hearing be continued. ~ ~of0 1/1'1 ~. ..~ ~ ~,..14!.U elr;'~ ~r ~~i. ~'l x--~j..:.l: ~~,.. ~~"'"- i"-;: 'Y('~ -'-'ft:=.,..=. .......... '0 ~ 0-9~"''''':'~' , "'ORA1~ ~tti ......".. Town of Nantucket Conservation Commission (508) 228- 7230 6 Chestnut Street Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 Meeting Minutes July 6, 1989 page 2 Mr. Dunn asks what is happening with the project? He comments that the Order of Conditions for the project run out in September. Mr. Shugrue responds that he is still waiting for a set of plans to be drawn. There was some discussion on the Commission concerning closing the hearing due to the lack of r~sponse from the applicant. MOTION: To continue the hearing for only one more meeting was made by Mr. Wasierski and was not seconded. MOTION: To continue the hearing at the applicant's request was made and seconded. in favor: Borchert, Cranston, Dunn opposed: Wasierski 2. CMS REALTY TRUST - 120,122,124 T.N. Rd. (91- 43,43.1,43.2) MOTION: To continue at the request of the applicant and the receipt of a DEQE file number was made and seconded. UNANIMOUS 3. OLD NORTH WHARF - SE48 - 549 (42.3.1 ) Representing the applicant Edward and Alfred Sanford, Ms. Melissa Philbrick of Vaughaun, Dale & Philbrick. (Alfred Sanford will be referred to as Mr. Sanford.) Mr. Sanford hands out the results of the sediment study done at the request of DEQE. There were 18 sites sampled. They were all sampled for granular size but only sites 4, 6, 7, 15, 14, and 18 were chemically tested for toxies. The dredged soil could be deposited in the following areas depending on the toxicidity: ~~14TU~"t' r~ () .~... t "p\ Oi~~~i t:~J'. i ~~~.. ~~","-l~'1 ''(-..... -'-'ft:=..,.=-. , '0 ;: 0.9j;-.......~.~ , ORA1~...~ .....,.... Town of Nantucket Conservation Commission (508) 228- 7230 6 Chestnut Street Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 Meeting Minutes July 6, 1989 page 3 Low level= Barnstable Medium= Boston High= land based Only Sample #7 registered in the high level Mr. Borchert commented that the lead content was high for all the samples. Samples 4, 6, 13 were in the moderate range and sample 13 was in the high range, for example. He also asked if this soil were going to be used to fill in the pier? Mr. Sanford states that the Army Corps would prefer that all the material be deposited on the site. The Commissioners asked what was being done concerning the needed studies on marine life in the proposed filled area? Mr. Sanford states that they had expected to enter into an contract with David Aubrey of Woods Whole Oceanographic Institution but he had recently asked to be allowed out of the contract because he is going to be doing some work for the Town of Nantucket. At the present time we have not found a replacement. Mr. Sanford comments that they are not trying to force a solid fill pier on the Commission. They are willing to discuss varying options with the Commission concerning the amount of solid fill versus pile supported piers. The solid pier is not critical to the project. We are trying to build a structure that is in the long term interests and use of the island. There are four major reasons why we are proposing the so 1 i d fill pier: 1.) Historical reconstruction and to protect the basin. 2.) Ease of vehicle traffic access. 3.) Installation of underground utilities. 4.) Elimination of large dark hazardous area underneath. We would like some direction from the Commission concerning what and when you would like to see done in the way of studies. ..~ ~~14TUeJr;''' ~~~~f. ft ""- ~\"P is ol~.~i ~,,_ ~ 0'; · \ ~_ ' ~ J::! ~~\ ~~"'"- i"- I - 'C-...... -'-'ft:=..,..=-.,...-; '0 ;: o;;::-"._:.~.~' "'ORA1~ .v ......,,~ Town of Nantucket Conservation Commission (508) 228- 7230 6 Chestnut Street Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 Meeting Minutes July 6, 1989 page 4 Mr. Willet states that solid fill piers are difficult to get through the state agencies. But he adds the decision is up to you on what is proposed. Mr. Borchert comments that he has a problem with the solid fill aspect and with the impact on views across the harbor. Ms. Philbrick responds that this is the kind of information that the applicant needs. If the scenic views are very important, then all the studies will have no effect on the Commission's decision on the project. Mr. Sanford adds that the "L" shape is designed to follow the old outline of the pier and to add protection to the basin. Mr. Borchert adds that he sits on those benches every chance that he gets and the view will be affected by the change. Mr. Sanford comments that they are trying to revitalize the basin area so that the view will be within the basin. Presently, people look through the pier. Mr. Dunn states that he is confused with the project. What you are presenting is desireable but at the same time it flies in the face of the regulations that we are here to enforce. Mr. Sanford comments that this is a very unique place and unique project. Many of the regulations will not fit the project. This is the last of the five basins to be reconstructed historically. Ms. Philbrick comments that the regulations clearly state 'No solid fill piers'. But the waiver process is designed to allow exceptions. It is up to the applicant to clearly prove his case. The regulations are setup to protect the entire island. With a clear showing by the applicant to prove the need, a waiver can be allowed. There are only two 11ft......~ ~~14TUCJr;.' ~~~~ (fA , ~\ oi~'U\i I- ., _, ~j~- . , ","". I . I ~~~~"-~I 'Y^... -'-'ft:=-=-- .' '0 ~ ...'()~ .-"''' ~ ~p .........~. ~ ORA1~.....,. .....,.. Town of Nantucket Conservation Commission (508) 228- 7230 6 Chestnut Street Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 Meeting Minutes July 6, 1989 page 5 issues area: that need waivers whether under the water or a coastal 1. Solid fill pier and 2. The 50 foot setback requirement for non- marine uses structures. Mr. Borchert states that the 50 foot setback is more critical waiver. We need some input from DEQE concerning the marine versus non-marine uses of the buildings. If all the pier building were marine related uses then the waiver would not be necessary. M. Sanford comments that the moving of the cottages to the end of the new pier is to maintain the historic view as seen from the water entering the harbor. To make the entire project water use related would eliminate this historic view. In addition, we are not sure all the space would be needed for marine uses. Mr. Dunn asks what percentage of the project is marine related use? He also asks what mechanism is in place to preserve the marine related use of the buildings. (The Commission goes over the Planning Board plans and discusses the buildings and their uses.> Mr. Sanford explains that each building has a specific permitted use. If we want to change the use of any of the buildings, we have to go to the Planning Board and to DEQE for a change of our permit. Also, if I understand the regulations correctly, to change ownership of the project requires permission of the Army Corps of Engineers. Ms. Philbrick adds that the Planning Board would not have allowed the project its special permit without the water related uses. A change in a special permit requires a public hearing before approval. The State Chapter 91 license can be revoked without compensation. The land then goes back to state ownership. Due to the State's Public Trust Doctrine, the permit does not give the inalienable right to the waterways. It can be revoked at any time and the State may require that the land be restored to its original condition. The Commission may require in its Order of Conditions that any change in ~ ~~14TUeJr~~ r~ () .1-'" f ~~ ~(~~j~l .\~'.' .\--~/f-.';: ~~,.. ~~"'"- i"- ;: -y('..... -'-'ft:=..,..=-' ...........'0 " o~.....:.~. # ORA1~ :t"~ ...."". Town of Nantucket Conservation Commission (508) 228- 7230 6 Chestnut Street Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 Meeting Minutes July 6, 1989 page 6 building use would force the applicants to come back to the Commission for a modification to its Order. ( Commissioners read letters from the public) 1.) Nancy Newhouse Critchell, Rose Lane, Nantucket: writes opposing the project. She feels that the project does not have the interest of the island at heart. She wishes denial because of the obstruction of the view from Easy Street, possible pollution of air water, noise. and incredible traffic congestion. She is a summer resident for 43 years and former Director of John Stobart Gallery. 2.> John M. Barney, 251 Hummock Pond Road, Nantucket: Write in opposition of the project. He feels that the present polluted conditions will not improve with the approval of the project. He is the President of the Hummock Pond Association and member of the Committee of Non-voting Taxpayers. 3.> Reva and Mort Schlesinger, 45 India Street, Nantucket: write to oppose the project. Comments that the project does not have a single redeeming value concerning the harbor's ecology. They worry about increased noise, water and air pollution. The idea of installing conduits to improve water circulation is an unworkable solution and speculative in nature. The Schlesingers are year round residents of the island. 4.> Richard D. Briggs, 900 Main Street, Hartford, Conn: Writes to oppose the project. He comments that the only worthwhile aspect to the project is the potential profits by the owners. He is worried about increased traffic, water and water pollution. Mr. Rob Garrison owner of Nantucket Shellfish Farm is recognized by the chairman. He speaks in favor of the project. He feels that the project will improve water quality of the basin. The dredging and the new pier will improve access to the basin that has been limited due to the dolphins and the shoaling of the basin. The circular flow of water through the proposed conduits will improve the quality of the water in the basin. He states that he is in favor of any thing that aids Town of Nantucket Conservation Commission (508) 228- 7230 6 Chestnut Street Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 Meeting Minutes July 6, 1989 page 7 the fishing industry of the island. He has also talked with the new Town Biologist and he is in favor of expanding the shellfish production for the island. The pier commercial and family use are needed. Cheryl Creighton of the Nantucket Land Council is recognized by the chair. She comments that she is concerned about the impacts that the project will have on water quality during construction without seeing how the dredging is being done. It is also hard to determine the effects of the conduit on water circulation without doing a study on the effects. These studies and others are important to the Commission to make its decision. Another question is there enough space being allocated to the commercial fish industry or is more needed? Finally concerning Chapter 91 license, does the regulation limit the percentage of non-water related uses to only 10%of the project ? Mr. Edward Sanford responds that the Chapter 91 regulations are not specific in percentages. It is a judgement call with the state and agencies. Mr. Borchert comments that the decision is not only water dependant uses but also commercial fishing versus yacht use. Mr. E. Sanford states that they will come back with a chart showing the commercial fishing, yacht, residential uses of the buildings. Eight slips are dedicated to commercial fishing uses. He was not aware of a set percentage requirement for water versus non-water uses. Ms. Philbrick comments that in 1986 there was a new draft of the regulations. It met very stiff opposition. In the current regulations there is no specific percentages for the varying uses. The applicant is hesitant to proceed with complicated and costly studies if the non-technical issues are going to override the studies. Mr. Dunn responds that there are a number of issues concerning water quality, the wording of the waivers Town of Nantucket Conservation Commission (508) 228-7230 6 Chestnut Street Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 Meeting Minutes July 6, 1989 page 8 considering the unique balance of merits versus losses and water dependency, and the effect on scenic views. Mr. McKelway comments that the historic significance of the pier is irrelevant to the Commissioners deliberations. These studies need to be done before the Commissioners can give a drift of their feelings. MOTION: To continue the hearing until August 17, 1989 with a site visit a couple days prior to the meeting was made and seconded. UNANIMOUS Mr. E. Sanford comments that the Commission needs to stay in contact with the Army Corps because they are giving the applicants the directions to go and what studies to do. Mr. Borchert asks for the qualifications of the company that did the sediment testing. Mr. Dunn asks that the perimeter of the project be marked before the Commission views it in August. 4. LONGVIEW REALTY TRUST 53 MADAKET ROAD SE48-553 (41-327) Mr. McKelway comments that Bruce had been in contact with the agent for this case (Mr. James Glidden). He said that they are in the process of hiring a surveyor to mark the wetlands, etc. MOTION: To continue due to lack of representation was made and seconded. UNANIMOUS 5. LIEBENHAUT - 55 MADAKET ROAD - SE48-553 (41-327) Representing the applicant Susan Liebenhaut, Melissa Philbrick of Vaughan, Dale & Philbrick, John Shugue, Engineer. ~ ~~14TUeJr~~ ~~ () .1-'" f "P~ o ~~~i to- .. . _ l. .X~~J~i ~~\~~","-i~1 ('~ -'-'ft:=--:::>- - ..........'0 $ 0J?"_......~. , rORA1'"!.......~ .....,...- Town of Nantucket Conservation Commission (508) 228- 7230 6 Chestnut Street Nantucket. Massachusetts 02554 Meeting Minutes July 6, 1989 page 9 Ms. Philbrick states that a Request for Determination was received in 1983. The determination was that the work was within a buffer area but will not alter with special conditions attached. Since that time the regulations have changed. In January 1989, there was another Determination. The comments at that time were that the perk test was over two years old and that a Notice of intent be filed ( from minutes of 2/16/89 " with the results of a new percolation test to be included."). The proposed house is 68 feet and the driveway is 48 feet from the ditch on the plans. Mr. Willet reads the inspection team report: soft rush grows 20 feet from ditch, wetlands not flagged, there appear to be wetlands pockets .on the property, etc. Mr. Shugrue comments that there are wet pockets only because the ditch was not properly restored. He also responds to the question concerning the use of Town sewer by explaining that the sewer line does not come to the property. The line that the Commission is thinking about stops short of the property. Mr. Wasierski questions the delineation of the wetlands boundary. He feels that the wetlands are not only the ditch but some distance on either side of it. Ms. Philbrick comments that there might be pockets of wet areas but they do not meet the requirements of the regulations. Mr. Willet comments that the lot was not properly inspected by the Commission. They went on to the lot while inspecting the adjacent property. Mr. Borchert comments that this is a marginal lot and the wetlands need to be clearly delineated. Mr. Wasierski states that it is up to the applicant to delineate the wetlands to the approval of the Commission and not the other way around. ..~ ~~14TUeJrt" ~~~~i. ~t _ ~"PiS ol~~~i ~t~j. ; .~\~/::~ ~~_.. ~~i,,-;: ''(-... -'-'ft:=-==--- .' '0 ;: o i;::-.......~.",... "'ORA1~v:t'~ .....,,,.. Town of Nantucket Conservation Commission (508) 228- 7230 6 Chestnut Street Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 Meeting Minutes July 6, 1989 page 10 Ms. Philbrick states that if there is a large discrepancy between the Commission and the applicant then the site needs to be walked with the agent and a member of the Commission. Mr. McKelway comments that the discrepancy between the applicant and the Commission is that applicant is identifying the ditch as the limit of the wetlands. MOTION: To at the request of the applicant and to have the applicant and a member of the Commission (Peter Dunwiddie) walk the site and determine the wetlands boundaries was made and seconded. UNANIMOUS 6. TOPHAM - 52R TENNESSEE AVE - SE48-552 (54.9-93,94) Mr. Dunn reads the minutes from the state hearing that was opened during the previous meeting into the local hearing. Mr. Leo Asadoorian, representing the applicant, describes the planned work. MOTION: To close the hearing and prepare an Order of Conditions for the next meeting was made and seconded. UNANIMOUS 7. MCILVAIN - 76 MILLBROOK ROAD - ( 57-25) Representing the applicant were Les Smith of Daylor Consulting and Mark Avery of Design Associates. Mr. Dunn states that he has small interest in the case but he feels that it does not constitute a conflict. Mr. Willet reads the inspection report. The inspection team comments on the possibility that the driveway be brought closer to the house and therefore eliminate the need for the waiver. Also commented that the garage be smaller if it is only for one vehicle. ~~~14~~ ~~~f. ~1,' ~\~\ oi~ llJli I-t" - ' ~J' ; . .\ ' -~- -... ..- ~~~~'I ('~ -'-'ft:=-=-...........,o~ o~j;'..._..~. # ORA1~ ....lJ" ........ Town of Nantucket Conservation Commission (508) 228- 7230 6 Chestnut Street Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 Meeting Minutes July 6, 1989 page 11 Les Smith states that the 1987 approval included a garage. Mr. Dunn disputed that opinion. ( a review of the files showed that a garage was not included in the previous applications. ) Mr. Smith commented that the application does not require approval for the garage. What it does ask for is a waiver for a 25 square foot area of the driveway. This would allow the new driveway to be tied into the existing one and allow for a turn around area. The planned garage is to be one story, for one car, and have a footprint of approximately 22 x 22 feet. Mark Avery states that the plan is to be for a one car garage. Mr. Wasierski wonders why the outside shower is so far from the house. It seems to be a long way to run water. He adds that you run water out to garages and then they turn in to cottages in the future. Mr. Smith draws a line for the 50 foot setback on the plan. Mr. Borchert asks if the structure meets the 20 foot septic setback requirement? Mr. Avery responds that is the reason why the structure is located so far away from the house. Mr. Dunn asks for the ridge height for the structure. Mr. Avery responds that the estimated ridge height will be between 14 - 15 feet. Mr. Dunn comments that he questions the location of the 50 foot line on the pond side of the house. After construction of the house the pond moved from 35 feet to 17 feet away from the house. He felt that the property is already intensely developed and any further building would impact on the Town of Nantucket Conservation Commission (508) 228- 7230 6 Chestnut Street Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 Meeting Minutes July 6, 1989 page 12 wildlife in the area. The driveway is under water in the Spring. Mr. Smith reiterates that the only waiver requested is for the 25 square foot area of the driveway. He states that the Commission should consider the effects of cars driving on the grass versus a graveled area. Mr. Borchert comments that the proposed garage may already be within 100 feet of a wetland. Mr. Dunn comments that water covers the driveway and the electrical transformer already and that the hay bales are keeping the driveway from falling into the marsh. He adds the he would like to see the ,following items occur concerning this application: 1. Don Visco and Peter Dunwiddie view the property. 2. A 50 foot wetland line be drawn for the entire property and that the previous boundaries be revised. 3. The Commission consider what has already been done on the property relative to the wetlands in the area. Mr. Borchert states that the existing plan does not show all the wetlands on the property. You may think that an accurate boundary line for the entire property may not be germane but it is. Mr. Willet comments that he feels that this project has grown incrementally. MOTION:To continue the hearing for additional information and the receipt of a DEQE file number was made and seconded. UNANIMOUS C. REGULAR MEETING 1. REQUESTS FOR DETERMINATION a. Doucette - Grove Lane ( 41 - 441 ) ~ ~~14TUeJr~h r~ () . 'So " t "P~ ol~~'C.i 1-" stt.,- :..~~-: - ~.. )~;t ~.. ~~=- .I.,,-,~ -'(:>~ -'-'ft:=""'=-./...'O~ o-9~""""ir~. , rORA1":'......'~ ...."...- Town of Nantucket Conservation Commission (508) 228- 7230 6 Chestnut Street Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 Meeting Minutes July 6, 1989 page 13 Mr. McKelway states that this is a difficult area to determine. When he went to the site originally, he had some difficulty in identifying a plant. He has since been able to identify the plant as False Nettle or Bog Hemp (Boehemeria cylindrica). This plant was very thick at the proposed house site. Mr. Willet reads the inspection report. Sharon Doucette, property owner, comments that she bought the property with a negative determination that expired in October 1988. I thought that this process was just a formality until tonight. Mr. McKelway comments that he originally thought that the plant in question was not a wetland plant. But now that the flowering bodies have grown out, it is more easily identifiable. The plant does not cover the lot but it does cover the house site. After some discussion between Commission members and the applicant the following motion was made and seconded: MOTION: To continue the file for an additional field inspection at the request of the applicant and the Commission. UNANIMOUS b. Childs/ Work - Medouie Creek Road - ( 20-1 ) Present for the applicant were Fred Work, applicant and Robert Emack of Nantucket Surveyors, Inc. Mr. Bob Emack shows the Commission the plan identifying the wetlands on the property. The lot is 6.2 acres and after eliminating the wet areas it leaves approximately one acre. He shows the locations of the leach pit areas within two triangle shaped areas that are 100 feet from the wet areas. The proposal calls for a five bedroom house and a three bedroom garage/boathouse. The building envelopes are larger than Town of Nantucket Conservation Commission (508) 228- 7230 6 Chestnut Street Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 Meeting Minutes July 6, 1989 page 14 needed for the structures . The lot has been brush cut for the last ten years but the wet areas have not been cut. Mr. Borchert states that the Commission need more information. The applicant is proposing some major work in a very wet area. The location of the driveways are not shown on the plan. MOTION: To issue a positive determination and require the filing of a Notice of Intent for the proposed work. In addition, the wetland boundaries shown on the filed plan are approved. Made and seconded. UNANIMOUS c. Holland - 29 Broadway - ( 73.1.3 - 46 > Representing the applicant were Chris and Linda Holland. Mr. Willet reads the inspection report which recommends a negative determination. Mr. Wasierski comments that while it is near the bank, the bank does not serve any purpose. MOTION: To issue a negative determination commenting that the project is subject to but will not alter the area was made and seconded. In favor: Dunn, W~slerski, Cranston, Willet Abstain: Borchert d. Nantucket Conservation Commission - The Creeks (55- 276,415> Mr. McKelway give an overview of the process. He states that the Harbor Master had written DEQE concerning the ability of the Town to remove the boats. DEQE responded that since the value of the boats were less than $ 100 dollars that it was not under their jurisdiction. All the abutters have been notified and enclosed was a letter stating what was planned ....~ ~~14TUCJr;'~ r~ () .1-" ~ -piS oi~~~i ~--~. .\~~.J.' ~'1.:~~","- 111.":/ ('..... ~-=- ........'0 $ O~j;'.......:;~. , ORA1~ :t"~ ...."". Town of Nantucket Conservation Commission (508) 228- 7230 6 Chestnut Street Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 Meeting Minutes July 6, 1989 page 15 for the area. The intent is to pile the wrecks on the beach and burn them. What cannot be burnt will be taken to the landfill. Since the lot lines are not staked the letter was enclosed with the abutter notification to inform them that wrecks on their property may be removed and to make them if they are not to be disposed. MOTION: To issue a negative determination commenting that it is subject to the wetland regulations but the work will not alter the area. UNANIMOUS 2. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE a. Whitehead - SE48 - 468 (48 - 19 ) Mr. Willet reads the inspection report MOTION: To issue the Certificate was made and seconded. UNANIMOUS 3. EXTENSION PERMIT a. Madaket Realty,Inc.- Oakland Ave.- SE48-363 (59.323) Representing the applicant was Lindsey Perry, Jr. Mr. Perry states that they had not decided to start construction until recently for business reasons. He shows the Commission a locus plan and plan showing the building location. Three years ago they had started construction and had put the footings in the ground when they had received a stop work order from the Commission. After the filing of a notice of intent, the Commission required that the building be moved back to its present location farther away from the pond. Mr. Borchert states that a new condition be added to the old Order that the siltation fence be located between the pond and be 20 feet from the building site. ..~ ~".14TUeJr('''- ~~~ ~~ .1-\ ~r~~_ ~l~)'!"! o\~ 01 ~-;"~~"'"-~It'.1 'y('... -'-'ft:=..,..=-- ",. '0 ;: o~::-._;;~.'" rORA1~ :t'O~ ...."... Town of Nantucket Conservation Commission (508) 228- 7230 6 Chestnut Street Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 Meeting Minutes July 6, 1989 page 16 Mr. William Bradley was recognized by the Chairman. Mr. Bradley recommends that the extension be denied based on new information. The location of the building closely abuts the existing townhouses in the area. It is presently located only 30 feet from my porch. In 1986 when the Notice of Intent was reviewed, there was no consideration to Wetland Scenic Views. By locating this house where it is will effect the views for approximately ten houses. I was not notified as an abutter because of a four foot wide conservation buffer between my lot and the building lot. The Commission has located the house in the back ten percent of a 300 foot long lot. Mr. Borchert comments that private scenic views are not under the jurisdiction only the views from public ways. Mr. Perry comments that the lot has always been there. The townhouses are located such that there is a small amount of land behind the buildings. Mrs. Mary Bradley is recognized by the Chairman. She states that she has been coming to the island for 22 years and that they decided to buy their house 12 years ago. She feels that Nantucket is a special place because of its scenic beauty. The Historic District Commission and Conservation Commission are doing a excellent job in actively protecting the island. Mr. Bradley adds that the aesthetic quality needs to be part of the Commission's determinations. Mr. Wasierski comments that he is worried about the scenic views with the house being located in this spot. The four foot wide strip of conservation land is open to the public to walk upon. Mr. Perry comments that the conservation property is owned by the Madaket Conservation Land Trust and they have no financial interest whatsoever in this lot or construction. Mr. Borchert ask Mr. Perry to mark the location of the other houses on Oakland Ave. Town of Nantucket Conservation Commission (508) 228- 7230 6 Chestnut Street Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 Meeting Minutes July 6, 1989 page 17 MOTION: To approve a one year extension to the Order of Conditions was made and seconded with the following addition to the original Order of Conditions to place the siltation fence between the building site and the pond twenty feet from the building. In favor: Cranston, Dunn, Willet Opposed: Borchert, Wasierski 4. ORDERS OF CONDITIONS a. Kotalac - 8 Wamasquid Place - SE48-536 ( 56-113.5 ) MOTION: To continue the case while awaiting some more information from the applicant and to contact to find out the reason for the delay was made and seconded. UNANIMOUS 5. OTHER BUSINESS a. Robert Kaye - Topgale Lane - SE48-305 (27-7) Mr. McKelway comments that this item was included to inform the Commission that Foley Vaughan has submitted the letters that he had promised in the previous meeting. In addition, he has submitted plans that are going to be submitted to the HOC for the Commission's comment. He is scheduled for a July 11 hearing before them. b. Sharp/Kilvert - SE48-548 ( 25-22 ) Mr. Randy Sharp representing the applicant Mr. Dunn abstains from the discussion Mr. McKelway asks the applicant if there is anything else to add for the Commission ? Mr. Randy Sharp states that he viewed the bridges last Tuesday with Mr. Borchert. ~~14TUeJrl-'-- ~~~~\ ~t \"P oiB'U\i ...." ~j~- o .:lro.= r . ..Jol ~~ ~~"'"- 1,,":1 ',...^~~. ....'0;: ,"' ....,.. ~ 0-9" '-i.~.' rORA1~......'# .........- Town of Nantucket Conservation Commission (508) 228- 7230 6 Chestnut Street Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 Meeting Minutes July 6, 1989 page 18 Mr. Borchert comments that the bridges are marginally below the Polpis Road surface. He asks the applicant if he would be willing to plant screening of evergreens? Mr. Sharp states that he will be willing to do this. Mr. Willet states that he would like to see marked on a plan the location, number of the trees and type of trees to used in the screening. MOTION: To determine that the change is a minor modification and requiring the submission and Commission approval of plans showing the number, location and type of trees to be used in the screening was made and seconded. UNANIMOUS ( 3 - 0 ) c. Roll/Dorian - SE48-533 ( 92.4-86 modification minor Aileen Barth of Aileen Barth Associates represents the applicants. Ms. Barth reviews with the Commission the changes that she has made to he proposed house. She comments that she has pulled the roof lines down and added a covered porch in the front (beach) side. The changes are not increasing the approved footprint (Comment: Ms. Barth means the foundation footprint and is not includinq the decks within her footprint), but are not as far out towards the top of the bank as the previous building. Mr. Dunn comments that the changes move the roof closer than the old design. The roof has been extended towards the bluff to incorporate the decks. Ms. Barth responds that the decks are no further than the old decks but are now covered. Mr. Dunn responds that by extending the roofs to cover the decks you have made the house look bigger Town of Nantucket Conservation Commission (508) 228- 7230 6 Chestnut Street Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 Meeting Minutes July 6, 1989 page 19 Ms. Barth adds that the North side will be seem from the public way, the South side will be seen from the beach and the ridge height will be no higher than the old building. Mr. Dunn asks if the Commission approved a footprint that was the same as the old building? Mr. McKelway said the approved footprint is further from the top of the bank. After some more discussion and confusion between the Commission and Ms. Barth as to what change she was asking the following motion was made, seconded and unanimously approved: MOTION: To allow the first floor deck to not exceed the old deck line. To allow the foundation to exceed the old foundation and to ask the applicant come beck to the Commission with a new clarified plan showing what is being modified. d. Wetlands Maps: Discussion tabled until next meeting. e. Garden Club speaker : Ask Peter D. if he wishes to talk. f. Election of officers MOTION: To reappoint all the existing officers for one more year was made and seconded. UNANIMOUS g. NOI application fees training session: MOTION: To approve that Bruce Perry be allowed to go to this meeting in Plymouth, Mass. was made and seconded UNANIMOUS 6. CORRESPONDENCE 7. MINUTES: postpone June 22 minutes approval until the next meeting ~~14TUeJr~~ C])- C) .~'" f ~\ 01~'1JI1 ~ '", - J'i . , "I. ...~~.,... -- ......~ ~~'-""";-~"'".I." ;: (' -'-'ft:=..,..=--.... ...'0$ 019 .........., 'PORAlt~..4' .....", Town of Nantucket Conservation Commission (508) 228- 7230 6 Chestnut Street Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 Meeting Minutes July 6, 1989 page 20 8. BILLS TO BE PAID: Approval of bills in folder to: Roger Jette Associates (for new computer, etc.) Poets Corner Press (for stationary, envelopes) 1,798.33 227.90 MOTION: To adjourn was made, seconded and unanimously approved at 10:54 PM.