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.