HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-08-24
l.-
0\
~~14TUe/r,~
r~
<> .~'"
f "p\
Oi~\~l
':X~- - j~ i
~~'~~ ~"'"- ~I
-'<, ~. '0 ;:
()b _" ~,
'J'PO';Al\~;~
.....''''
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228-7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
MeetinQ Minutes AUQust 24. 1989
The meeting was called to order at 7:12 PM in the Selectmen's
Meeting Room. All seven Commissioners were present with Mr.
Dunwiddie arriving at 7:30. Also present were Administrator Ben
McKelway and Secretary Bruce Perry.
A. COMMENTS FROM PRESS AND PUBLIC
Mr. Jim Hawkes was recognized by the Chairman. He states
that he owns twelve acres on Ester's Island. Until this year
there had been access to the point along the beach. Around
June 15, as the beach eroded, people wishing to drive to the
point broke through the bank to make a new road. As the beach
continued to erode, new roads were made closer to Mr. Hawkes
house. Recently a car overturned as the beach gave way
underneath it. I need to protect my house but at the same time
I also understand the needs of the people to get to the point.
I have put up some snow fence to prevent any additional roads
from being cut into the bank. In discussing this matter with
Environmental Officer LaHayue, he had stated that driving on
the bank is a Federal offense and that he could take measures
to enforce the regulations. Mr. Hawkes suggest the he would
like to mark out a road with snow fence and direct the cars to
the point and away from his house.
Mr. Charles Dauch, another property owner on Ester's
Island, comments that there is room for passage on the
beach at low tide. The vehicles are going up the beach
driving through the low spot at Further Creek. I would
ask for some assistance from the Commission in putting
barriers and signs.
outside
and
Ii ke to
up the
-.' ',.
Mr. Visco states that all the property is privately owned
on the island. The Town and public have no rights to do
anything to the land. I commiserate with you but we have no
authority to do work on private property.
Mr. Hawkes comments that in the 1950's the Town took some
property as part of the Shore Preservation Act.
ci~ ~/J;l.
· d-- ( \ 11f/)
.l. ,,,.,,,4,/:>,, ..;',ll ~fui,. _L ":.je-,,,-
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228-7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes August 24, 1989
Page 2
Mr. Visco agrees and adds that while the Town took the land
it did not take the roads or ways and therefore has no legal
access to the property.
Mr. Hawkes states that this is something that you have to
preserve.
Mr. Visco agrees and states that this is a private property
problem. You have the authority to stop them from trespassing.
Mr. Willet asks if Mr. Hawkes has a specific proposal for
the Commission ?
Mr. Hawkes responds that he is worried about when he leaves
for the winter that his property will be ruined. I would like
to mark out a road with fence and signs and let people use it.
Mr. Willet comments that he would be willing to support his
efforts.
Mr. Dunn adds that it is a violation to drive on the dunes.
The Commission is not equipped to enforce the regulations.
Mr. Phil Marks, caretaker for Mr. Hawkes, comments that the
snow fence would protect the dune that is a barrier to Madaket
Harbor. It would be a public benefit to protect this bank.
Mr. Wasierski comments that he enjoys the area as much as
anybody. The biggest problem is jurisdiction over the area. If
you were to possibly put a conservation restriction on the
property in favor of the town or the Conservation Commission,
then it would be public land and the Towh"would be able to put
forth some efforts to protect it. You could ask the Board of
Selectmen to close the beach. They do it for the birds, why
not for people also?
Mr. Visco suggests that Mr. Hawkes contact his attorneys
and have them advise him on the best way to proceed. A
conservation restriction in favor of the Town and allow foot
traffic and not vehicles. It has to be within a legal
framework.
Town of
Conservation
Nantucket
Commission
(508) 228-7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes August 24, 1989
Page 3
Mr. McKelway adds that the Nantucket by-law prevents
driving on the dunes and allows it only within clearly marked
roads.
B.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. OLD NORTH WHARF - SE48-549 - (42.3.1)
Representing the applicant was Edward and Alfred
Sanford, Rachael Hobart of Vaughan, Dale & Philbrick
Mr. Willet comments opening the hearing that the Commission
has received in excess of sixty letters opposing the project
since the last hearing in July.
Mr. E. Sanford comments on how they would like the hearing
process to proceed. The State MEPA hearing are scheduled to
start in September. The "scoping" process should be completed
by the middle of October. I would like the two levels of
hearings to be dovetailed into one. That way questions could
be answered at both levels and avoid any repetition of
efforts. The MEPA process will be advertised in the
Environmental Monitor on the first week of September. The
scoping session starts then and lasts about four weeks. I
would anticipate a Public Hearing to be scheduled on the
Island during this time. This means that in the first part of
October the scope of the EIR will be made public. I would like
to request the Commission's hearings be continued to that
time.
Mr. John Moore, an abutter, comments that he is opposed to
combining the hearings. The permitting process is structured
to keep separate hearings on the local and state levels. The
hearings are intended to be logical and sequential. By
combining them may circumvent the intent of the hearings. The
Conservation Commission represents the local interests and the
MEPA hearings represent the state interests.
Mr. Dunn comments that the Commission does not have the
funds to hire experts to review these studies. We were hoping
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228- 7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes August 24, 1989
Page 4
that by combining the studies, we could use the state's
experts to assist us.
Mr. Moore adds that he doubts that the state's interests
are as responsive to the Island as those of the local
Commission.
Mr. E. Sanford states that they are only talking about
combining the numerous technological studies. We wish to avoid
repeated steps. The idea is to not only combine the studies
but also parallel the efforts. All interests will be
protected.
Mr. Borchert states that he would like to clarify some of
the issues. The local interests concerning Wetland Scenic
Views and the prohibition against solid fill piers are not
covered in the state review process. We were encouraged by the
state to prohibit solid fill piers but they have not passed
regulations at the state level.
Mr. Visco comments that he would not like to see the
Commission deny these people their property rights based
solely on the scenic views issue. He adds that he is amazed
that with all the public pressure against the project, the
applicant has not offered any compromise to their proposal.
Mr. E. Sanford states that his brother, Alfred, had clearly
stated at an earlier meeting that the solid fill pier serves a
specific purpose. The purpose is related to the proposed
building uses.
Mr. Visco states that he understands this and still wonders
why the applicant has not offered any sort of compromise in
the type of construction or scaling down the size of the
project.
Mr. E. Sanford comments that the studies will aid in the
decisions towards some alternatives. We are not unwilling to
compromise. The studies will help us come up with some
different ideas.
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228- 7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes August 24, 1989
Page 5
Mr. Moore comments that building on the remains of the old
wharf is not their property - it's the Town's. This portion is
mainly what is blocking the views of the people.
Mr. A. Sanford states that the rocks up to low water line
are part of their property.
Mr. McKelway cautions the Commission against a specific
timeframe for approval or denial.
Mr. E. Sanford states that the intention is to run parallel
until unnecessary. He summarizes the timeframe as follows:
ElF is advertised in September.
30 day scoping period commences with the advertisement.
One week comment period by the DEP section.
Draft EIR issued.
At least 2 - 3 months to fill out the EIR.
Final report submitted in January or February.
The draft EIR will answer most of the questions that the
state and the Town may have. By looking at the timeframe it is
easy to see why we want to continue until October 12 meeting.
The scoping sessions will tell us what we need to do. The
studies will not be done by October 12. They will be included
within the scope of the EIR. We are trying not to fragment the
reports and make them consistent.
Mr. McKelway adds that in his most recent conversation with
Andrea Langhouser at DEP she was made aware of the Town
prohibition against solid fill piers. She commented that if
the Commission was going to deny the proJect on those grounds,
then they should not wait for the studies and deny now. She
added that local support was important to the state review.
Mr. Moore comments that he objects to the delay in the
studies solely to save money. He wants the applicants to
provide the information as soon as possible so that his
consultant can review the information.
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228- 7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes August 24, 1989
Page 6
Mr. E. Sanford submits two plans to the Commission one
color coded to show the building uses and the second is color
coded to show the areas of public access.
Mr. E. Sanford explains that the residential cottages (blue
on map) may appear that they are shown twice. The structures
may have moved but the use is the same.
The audience questioned amount of people that would reside
and work on the expansion. In addition, there was some comment
that the boat slips could be considered housing units.
Mr. E. Sanford comments that presently there are 12
residences and with the expansion there will be 14.
Mr. A. Sanford adds that about ten slips would be
appropriate for large boats and the rest would be for smaller
boats. To say that there would be 34 housing units added is a
gross misstatement. I am not familiar with boat slips being
considered housing units.
Mr. Borchert asks about public access and traffic flow in
the area.
Mr. E. Sanford responds that the wharf and the access will
be privately owned with public rights to pass and use the
ways. The rights are spelled out in the Chapter 91 permit
application.
Mr. Paul Harrington, representing the Woods Hole, Martha's
Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority, gives the
Commission a letter previously submitted"to the Planning Board
during their review process. The plan shows the part of the
wharf expansion north of the line drawn from the last dolphin
to the last buoy may cause some restriction of access to the
SSA slips. It may cause an interruption of service to the
island. The wharf is going to be here for a long time and
warns not to restrict access to the docks.
Mr. Dunn asks in light of all the letters of concern, SSA
input, etc. have the applicants considered a modification of
the shape of the wharf ?
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228- 7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes August 24, 1989
Page 7
Mr. A. Sanford responds that the shape of the wharf
protects the Easy Street Basin from easterly storms. The rock
ruins protect the basin except in a large storm. But presently
they are a navigational hazard.
Mr. McKelway comments that if the applicants were to make
significant changes to the plan, he would recommend a new NOI
filing. It is inappropriate to use the minor modification
process for major changes in plans. It should be seen as a new
proposal and will be less confusing for everybody. The
Planning Board staff during their review had recommended a
deed restriction on the building uses. Mr. McKelway said the
Sanford's counsel, Ms. Philbrick, told the Planning Board the
restriction is not needed.
Mr. A. Sanford states that both the Planning Board special
permit and the Chapter 91 licence both restrict the use of the
buildings. The state is the landlord and we are the tenant.
One hundred fifty years ago the wharf was used for whaling and
killing whales. Since then public policy has changed. These
restrictions protect present boards' decision but allow for
changes in the future if they are needed.
Mrs. Anne Killen comments that nothing is forever. The
Sanfords are doing something that will impact future
generations.
MOTION: To continue until October 12 meeting for more
information at the request of the applicant was made and
seconded.
UNANIMOUS
2. LONGVIEW REALTY TRUST - 53 Madaket Road - SE48-546 (41-326)
MOTION: To continue the hearing due to lack of
representation from the applicant was made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
3. DIAS - 1 Pilot Whale Lane - SE48-554 (67-386,394-403)
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228- 7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes August 24, 1989
Page 8
Present for the applicant was John Shugrue, Agent
Mr. McKelway reads the inspection report commenting that
Mr. Shugrue states that the proposed fill would cover
approximately 3,000 square feet. The proposed road would fill
a wetland comprised of more than 50 percent ferns. Mr.
Borchert commented at the inspection that site shown the
Commissioners at the 1981 viewing for the Planning Board was
further up the valley. That is why the referral form says that
there is no wetlands involved in the project.
Mr. Shugrue submits a new plan showing the road boundaries
and the extent of the fill area. Approximately 500 cubic yards
of fill would be needed for the wetland area and 1700 square
feet of wetlands would be covered. 310 CMR 10.53 does not
require the applicant to obtain easements from other property
owners for a different access. The alternate access off of
Surfside Road would much more extensive damage to the wetlands
than the proposed site. The fill to be used will not have
brought onto the site.
Responding to issues brought up at the previous meeting, Mr.
Shugrue said a bridge at the site is out of the question
because of the expense. And he said a conservation
restriction was not favored by the applicant because the
biggest lot in the subdivision is almost all wetland anyway.
Mr. Dunwiddie states that because of the way a subdivisiory
is laid out does not require us to approve filling in of a
wetland. I cannot believe that anybody could determine that
this was not a wetland with all the plants growing there.
Mr. Shugrue responds that he doubts that the wetland would
even be there if the Town had not dammed the valley with the
construction of Surfside Road.
Mr. Dunn asks about the side slope and cover material.
Mr. Shugrue responds by saying that the side slope would be
2:1 covered with loam, mesh and planted. The Road would be six
feet higher than the wetland. He reiterates that the only
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228- 7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes August 24, 1989
Page 9
other access would be from Surfside road and would damage
approximately 9000 square feet of wetland.
Mr. McKelway comments that the granting of a waiver
requires that the work would not adversely affect the areas
protected by the Wetlands Act.
Mr. Wasierski comments that the applicant has not proposed
any mitigating measures for the project and that maybe some
are needed.
Mr. Borchert comments that he has a great problem with the
filling of wetlands.
Mr. Willet asks Mr. Shugrue if he could talk with the
applicant concerning these issues. He agrees to talk to the
applicant about replication.
Mr. Dunwiddie adds that he would still have a problem with
the filling. I do not feel compelled to follow this plan due
to some lack of foresight by other Boards.
MOTION: To continue the hearing at the applicant's
request and await more information was made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
4. CABRAL - 10 Pond Street - SE48-555 (56-294)
MOTION: To continue the hearing at the request of the
applicant was made and seconded. .-
UNANIMOUS
5. DAVID JAY - 17 Quaise Pasture Road - (26-202,203)
MOTION: To continue the hearing until the October 12
meeting at the request of the applicant was made and
seconded.
UNANIMOUS
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228-7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes August 24, 1989
Page 10
6. TRISTRAM'S LONG POND OWNERS - SE48-562 (59,60-...>
Present for the applicant were Arlene Pacquette,
President of the Tristram's Long Pond Home Owners
Association and Jerry Smith of Aquatic Control
Technologies.
Mrs. Pacquette comments that the Association was set up
three years ago and is made up of home owners from Tristram's
Landing and Long Pond Drive. One of the leading concerns of
the homeowners has been the encroachment of the cattails into
the open water of the pond.
Mr. Smith describes his qualifications as 14 years in pond
and lake management using methods such as chemical control,
raking and aeration systems. His firm has been involved in
over 200 different programs on 400 ponds. The firm is
supported by IEP and he is the head of IEP's lakes division.
He comments that in the early summer he came down for a
one-day survey of the pond. It is a shallow pond ranging from
four to seven feet deep. There are approximately 19 acres
below the bridge and 76 acres above Massasoit Bridge. It has
been documented to me by the homeowners of the loss of open
water habitat with cattail growth. This has caused an decrease
in water flow and circulation, an increase in algae and
duckweed growth. We are proposing a three year project of
mechanical removal. The cattails and weeds will first be
pulled up with the "Hydro-rake". This will remove the rhizomes
and foliage of the plants. The machine works in the water and
does not disturb the banks or upland vegetation. The next
machine is the weed harvester. This can transport 4000 pounds
of vegetation through the water and deposit on the bank using
a conveyor. Finally, the Smalley Excavator is used to pile the
material and put it into trucks for removal. The Excavator has
a very low 1.17 pounds per square inch weight so it will cause
minimal disturbance to the banks.
Mr. Dunwiddie states that it would be useful to know what
areas you are going to remove first.
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228- 7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes August 24, 1989
Page 11
Mr. Smith responds that he plans to start around September
16th. He plans to work to restore open water and remove the
cattail encroachment. Also planned is to cut "windows" to a
number of lots to provide access to the water. These windows
will be 25-30 feet wide. These efforts will increase species
diversity and improve water quality by eliminating the
fluctuations in dissolved oxygen.
Mr. Dunwiddie asks how far down the cutting is proposed?
Mr. Smith responds that the rake pulls the vegetation up
including the rhizomes. There will not be any dredging.
Mrs. Kates-Garnick asks about the effects of the work on
the swan population the their nesting in the cattails.
Mr. Smith responds that the work is not during the nesting
or breeding season. The work will have little effect on them
at this time. The plans are not to remove the cattails all the
way to the shrubs but to leave some on the edge of the shore.
Mr. Wasierski states that the cutting of the "windows" will
result in brushcutting to the pond and increase use.
Mr. George Nyren comments that the "windows" are for about
five piers shown on the pictures and to allow casual access to
the pond. There are a lot more paths that do not show up on
the pictures.
MOTION: To close the hearing and issue an Order of
Conditions subject to the receipt of ~-detailed map showing
the work areas and areas of deposition was made and
seconded.
in favor: Wasierski, Dunn, Visco, Borchert, Cranston
opposed Dunwiddie
7. SWIFT - 7 Old Quidnet Milk Route - (20-54.3)
Present for the applicant were Stephen Swift, applicant
and Jeff Blackwell of Hart and Blackwell.
.
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228- 7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes August 24, 1989
Page 12
Mr. McKelway reads the inspection report commenting that
the applicant states that he will not need to fill or grade
the driveway and that the driveway is planned to be used only
two months per year. The driveway is close to a wetland and
may require a waiver.
Mr. Dunwiddie states that the wetland along the driveway
and toward the paved road is a questionable area. If you were
to run the driveway closer to the property line there, you
would not enter the wetland.
Mr. Swift submitted a new plan showing the red maples to
be saved and a change in the driveway location as a result of
the on-site inspection by the Commissioners.
Mr. Dunwiddie comments that this is the obvious route for
the road. The Commission should accept this revised plan and
had him initial it.
Mr. Wasierski asks for a plan of the proposed bridge. The
plan needs to show the existing grade and how the bridge will
be incorporated into it.
Mr. Swift responds that the bridge is to be eight feet long
and twelve feet wide. it is to be located in the same place as
the existing bridge.
MOTION: To continue the hearing for more information and
the additional plans was made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
8. HUGRET - 11 Wauwinet Road - SE48-563 (20-43)
Present were Alixe Hugret, applicant, John Shugrue agent
and Arthur Reade of Reade and Alger, counsel.
Mr. McKelway reads the inspection report commenting that
the proposed addition's corner stake will only be 44 feet from
the wetland boundary. The inspection team wondered why the lot
lines keep moving. The second inspection visit showed new
~
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228- 7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes August 24, 1989
Page 13
wetland flagging and a new plan showed the septic site at the
site of the first perk test. A waiver will be needed for the
septic leach trenches as they are only 35-40 feet from the
wetlands.
Mr. Shugrue comments that the lot lines changed due to a
plotting error on the original plan. The septic system is at
the corner of the property.
Mr. McKelway comments that the new system is proposed for
four bedrooms.
Mr. Shugrue responds that it exceeds Title 5 requirements
but the leach system needs additional space due to the soil
conditions.
Mr. Wasierski questions about the chances of break out with
the new system.
Mr. Shugrue comments that there is less chance than at the
other location which was on top of the wetland. He adds that
if it was even for only one bedroom that he would keep the
oversized trenches in the leach area.
Mr. Arthur Reade adds that the plan is to end up with three
bedrooms. Presently there is only one bedroom and a loft. The
family has a problem living with only one bedroom.
MOTION: To continue the hearing for a file number and
more information from the applicant was made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
~: ;~.
9. ANNESE - 26 Tennessee Ave. - SE48-561 (60.1.2-29,30>
Present were the applicants, Rocco and Jean Annese and
Glen Wills of Nantucket Surveyors.
Mr. McKelway explains the lot and reads the inspection
report. The entire house is within 50 feet of a salt marsh.
The top of the bank is only 14 feet from the edge of the bank.
The entire project will need a waiver.
. 1
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228- 7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes August 24, 1989
Page 14
Mr. Wills explains that there is to be no change in the
septic system. It is a rearrangement of living space.
Presently the second floor deck is unsafe. The only damage to
the vegetation will be for the holes for the sonotubes. They
will be 3-4 feet from the edge of the bank at the closest
point. The Anneses' are asking for an increase of 2 1/2 feet
of the deck to eight feet.
Mr. Dunn states that he does not see how the Commission
could allow any expansion within the 50 foot buffer that goes
closer to the resource area.
Mr. Borchert responds that this will not increase use of
the area. The bank is stable and well vegetated. There are
plants and grasses already growing underneath the deck.
Mr. Wills adds that they are proposing a small three foot
wide hip roof addition along the side of the existing
structure. He states that it will not have significant impact
on the wetlands.
MOTION: To close the. hearing and draft an Order of
Conditions was made and seconded.
Some further discussions on the Draft Order continued and
resulted in the following:
1. The deck width will be eight feet as per the
plans.
2. The supports for the deck~-sonotubes, will be
no further than five feet from the existing house.
The deck will be canterleivered out to the eight foot
width.
In favor: Visco, Willet, Borchert, Cranston
Opposed: Dunn and Dunwiddie
C.
REGULAR MEETING
.
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228- 7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes August 24, 1989
Page 15
1. ORDER OF CONDITIONS
a. Kotalac - 8 Wamasquid Place - SE48-536 ( 56-113.5 )
Present for the applicant was Jeff Blackwell of Hart and
Backwell Surveyors.
Mr. Blackwell comments that the Draft Order calls for an
as-built with final contour lines. The approved plans have
only spot elevations.
Mr. Visco responds that the Commission is interested in the
final contours of the lot and do not want to change the Order.
MOTION: To accept the Order of Conditions as drafted was
made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
b. M & E Bonner - Low Beach Road - SE48-541 ( 74-53 )
MOTION: To accept the Order of Conditions as drafted was
made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
ADDITIONAL SPECIAL CONDITIONS
MICHAEL A. AND E. BONNER
DEQE FILE NUMBER SE48 - 541
ASSESSOR'S MAP 74, PARCEL 53
28 LOW BEACH ROAD .
UNDER THE MASSACHUSETTS WETLANDS PROTECTION ACT
( MGL CHAPTER 131, SECTION 40 )
AND THE WETLANDS BYLAW OF THE TOWN OF NANTUCKET
( CHAPTER 136 )
UNDER THE NANTUCKET WETLANDS BYLAW:
The project is approved, contingent upon the approval by the
Health Inspector of any subsurface sewage disposal system, as
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228- 7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes August 24, 1989
Page 16
specified by the Notice of Intent and all attachments, the
most recent plans cited on Form 5, the general and special
conditions on Form 5, and the following additional special
conditions. However, if there is a conflict between this
Order and the application or plans, this Order shall prevail.
3. Prior to any activity at the site, a siltation fence shall be
staked 30 feet landward of the coastal bank. Erected to
prevent erosion, filling, littering, or other damage to the
coastal bank during construction, this fence will also serve
as a limit of activity for work crews. It shall remain in
good repair during all phases of construction, and it shall
not be removed until all soils are stabilized and revegetated
or until permission to remove it is given by the Commission.
4. An as-built plan, signed and stamped by a registered
professional engineer or land surveyor in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, shall be submitted to the Commission at the
same time as a written request for a Certificate of
Compliance and shall specify how, if at all, the completed
plan differs from that shown on the plans referred to in ~he
Order of Conditions. The as-built shall include, but not be
limited to, the following: all pipe/culvert inverts for
inflow and outfalls; pipe slope, size and composition;
location of other drainage structures and their composition;
limits of fill or alteration; location of all structures and
pavement within 100 feet of wetland; the edge of the wetland;
the grade contours within 100 feet of the wetland.
5. Members, employees, and agents of the Commission shall have
the right to enter and inspect the premises to evaluate
compliance with the conditions and performance standards
stated in this Order and the Nantucket Wetlands Regulations
and may require the submittal of any data deemed necessary by
the Commission for that evaluation.
6. The applicant, owners, successors or assignees shall be
responsible for maintaining all on-site drainage structures
and outfalls, assuring the lasting integrity of vegetative
cover on the site and monitoring site activities so as to
prevent erosion, siltation, sedimentation, chemical
contamination or other detrimental impact to the on-site
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228-7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes August 24, 1989
Page 17
wetland and/or off-site resource areas.
responsibility of the property owner of
the maintenance conditions are complied
this order.
It shall be the
record to see that
with as required by
7. This document shall be included in all construction contracts
and subcontracts dealing with the work proposed and shall
supersede other contract requirements.
8. Used petroleum products from maintenance of construction
equipment and co~struction debris shall be collected and
disposed off-site. No on-site disposal of these items is
allowed.
9. Dust control, if required, shall be limited to water. No
salts or other wetting agents shall be used.
10. Any refuse material found on the site shall be disposed of at
an approved landfill and in no case will these materials be
buried or disposed in or near designated wetland.
11. This Order of Conditions shall apply to any successor in
interest or successor in control of the property.
12. In all cases, no part of any structure, including decks,
should be closer than 50 feet from the top of the bank.
13. To protect the valuable wildlife resources located on the
site and to prevent damage and erosion to the coastal bank,
no alteration or construction shall occur within 30 feet of
the top of the bank. This includes lawns, patios, decks, or
any other alteration that would change the fragile vegetation
of this coastal heathland.
14. The ridge height of the house shall be no more than 26 feet
above existing grade.
15. The driveway shall be constructed of pervious material.
16. No coastal engineering structure of any kind shall be
permitted on the property in the future to protect the
project allowed by this Order of Conditions.
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228- 7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes August 24, 1989
Page 18
UNDER THE MASSACHUSETTS WETLANDS PROTECTION ACT:
The project is approved, contingent upon the approval by the
Health Inspector of any subsurface sewage disposal system, as
specified by the Notice of Intent and all attachments, the
most recent plans cited on Form 5, the general and special
conditions on Form 5, and the following additional special
conditions. However, if there is a conflict between this
Order and the application or plans, this Order shall prevail.
3. Prior to any activity at the site, a siltation fence shall be
staked 30 feet landward of the coastal bank. Erected to
prevent erosion, filling, littering, or other damage to the
coastal bank during construction, this fence will also serve
as a limit of activity for work crews. It shall remain in
good repair during all phases of construction, and it shall
not be removed until all soils are stabilized and revegetated
or until permission to remove it is given by the Commission.
4. An as-built plan, signed and stamped by a registered
professional engineer or land surveyor in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, shall be submitted to the Commission at the
same time as a written request for a Certificate of
Compliance and shall specify how, if at all, the completed
plan differs from that shown on the plans referred to in the
Order of Conditions. The as-built shall include, but not be
limited to, the following: all pipe/culvert inverts for
inflow and outfalls; pipe slope, size and composition;
location of other drainage structures and their composition;
limits of fill or alteration; location of all structures and
pavement within 100 feet of wetland; the edge of the wetland;
the grade contours within 100 feet of the wetland.
5. Members, employees, and agents of the Commission shall have
the right to enter and inspect the premises to evaluate
compliance with the conditions and performance standards
stated in this Order and the Nantucket Wetlands Regulations
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228- 7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes August 24, 1989
Page 19
and may require the submittal of any data deemed necessary by
the Commission for that evaluation.
6. The applicant, owners, successors or assignees shall be
responsible for maintaining all on-site drainage structures
and outfalls, assuring the lasting integrity of vegetative
cover on the site and monitoring site activities so as to
prevent erosion, siltation, sedimentation, chemical
contamination or other detrimental impact to the on-site
wetland and/or off-site resource areas. It shall be the
responsibility of the property owner of record to see that
the maintenance conditions are complied with as required by
this order.
7. This document shall be included in all construction contracts
and subcontracts dealing with the work proposed and shall
supersede other contract requirements.
8. Used petroleum products from maintenance of construction
equipment and construction debris shall be collected and
disposed off-site. No on-site disposal of these items is
allowed.
9. Dust control, if required, shall be limited to water. No
salts or other wetting agents shall be used.
10. Any refuse material found on the site shall be disposed of at
an approved landfill and in no case will these materials be
buried or disposed in or near designated wetland.
11. This Order of Conditions shall apply to any successor in
interest or successor in control of the"property.
12. In all cases, no part of any structure, including decks,
should be closer than 50 feet from the top of the bank.
13. To protect the valuable wildlife resources located on the
site and to prevent damage and erosion to the coastal bank,
no alteration or construction shall occur within 30 feet of
the top of the bank. This includes lawns, patios, decks, or
any other alteration that would change the fragile vegetation
of this coastal heathland.
~~14T~~
~~~1-\
~Y.~~i
...\~ - j. i
· .\ ~- - "-I~ it
~~~~ ~ iZ--.l";:
',.(\o~ "/,..'0$
o~PoRAli~~'
...."..
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228- 7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes August 24, 1989
Page 20
14. The ridge height of the house shall be no more than 26 feet
above existing grade.
15. The driveway shall be constructed of pervious material.
16. Section 310 CMR 10.30 (3) of the Wetlands Regulations,
promulgated under MGL Chapter 131, Section 40, requires that
no coastal engineering structure, such as bulkhead,
revetment, or seawall, shall be permitted on an eroding bank
at any time in the future to protect the project allowed by
this Order of Conditions.
###
c. CMS Realty Trust - T.N. Rd - SE48-560 (91-43,43.1,43.2)
MOTION: To accept the Order of Conditions as drafted
was made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
ADDITIONAL SPECIAL CONDITIONS
CMS REALTY TRUST
DEQE FILE NUMBER SE48 - 560
ASSESSOR'S MAP 91, PARCEL 43,43.1,43.2
120, 122, & 124 TOM NEVERS ROAD
UNDER THE MASSACHUSETTS WETLANDS PROTECTION ACT
( MGL CHAPTER 131, SECTION 40 )
AND THE WETLANDS BYLAW OF THE TOWN OF NANTUCKET
( CHAPTER 136 )
UNDER THE NANTUCKET WETLANDS BYLAW:
The project is approved as specified by the Notice of Intent
and all attachments, the most recent plans cited on Form 5,
the general and special conditions on Form 5, and the
following additional special conditions. However, if there is
a conflict between this Order and the application or plans,
this Order shall prevail.
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228- 7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes August 24, 1989
Page 21
3. No construction shall take place between April 15 and August
15, in order to minimize the disturbance to rare bird species
that nest on the coastal beach.
4. No cutting of vegetation is allowed except beneath and within
one foot of the stairway before or during construction and to
keep brush off the stairs in the future.
5. The stairs shall be no higher than 3 to 4 feet above natural
grade. This condition takes precedence over the plan, which
shows a higher stairway.
6. The project shall be completed with manual labor only.
7. An as-built plan, signed and stamped by a registered
professional engineer or land surveyor in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, shall be submitted to the Commission at the
same time as a written request for a Certificate of
Compliance and shall specify how, if at all, the completed
plan differs from the project permitted by this Order of
Conditions.
8. Members, employees, and agents of the Commission shall have
the right to enter and inspect the premises to evaluate
compliance with the conditions and performance standards
stated in this Order and the Nantucket Wetlands Regulations
and may require the submittal of any data deemed necessary by
the Commission for that evaluation.
9. The applicant, owners, successors or assignees shall be
responsible for maintaining the stairway site, assuring the
lasting integrity of vegetative cover o~-the site, and
monitoring the site activities so as to prevent erosion,
siltation, sedimentation, chemical contamination or other
detrimental impact to any resource areas. It shall be the
responsibility of the property owner of record to see that
the maintenance conditions are complied with as required by
this Order.
10. This document shall be included in all construction contracts
and subcontracts dealing with the work proposed and shall
supersede other contract requirements.
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228- 7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes August 24, 1989
Page 22
11. Used petroleum products from maintenance of construction
equipment and construction debris shall be collected and
disposed off-site. No on-site disposal of these items is
allowed.
12. Dust control, if required, shall be limited to water. No
salts or other wetting agents shall be used.
13. Any refuse material found on the site shall be disposed of at
an approved landfill and in no case will these materials be
buried or disposed in or near designated wetland.
14. This Order of Conditions shall apply to any successor in
interest or successor in control of the property.
15. No coastal engineering structure of any kind shall be
permitted on the property in the future to protect the
project allowed by this Order of Conditions.
UNDER THE MASSACHUSETTS WETLANDS PROTECTION ACT:
The project is approved as specified by the Notice of Intent
and all attachments, the most recent plans cited on Form 5,
the general and special conditions on Form 5, and the
following additional special conditions. However, if there is
a conflict between this Order and the application or plans,
this Order shall prevail.
3. No construction shall take place betweeh-April 15 and August
15, in order to minimize the disturbance to rare bird species
that nest on the coastal beach.
4. No cutting of vegetation is allowed except beneath and within
one foot of the stairway before or during construction and to
keep brush off the stairs in the future.
5. The stairs shall be no higher than 3 to 4 feet above natural
grade. This condition takes precedence over the plan, which
shows a higher stairway.
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228- 7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes August 24, 1989
Page 23
6. The project shall be completed with manual labor only.
7. An as-built plan, signed and stamped by a registered
professional engineer or land surveyor in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, shall be submitted to the Commission at the
same time as a written request far a Certificate of
Compliance and shall specify haw, if at all, the completed
plan differs from the project permitted by this Order of
Conditions.
8. Members, employees, and agents of the Commission shall have
the right to enter and inspect the premises to evaluate
compliance with the conditions and performance standards
stated in this Order and the Nantucket Wetlands Regulations
and may require the submittal of any data deemed necessary by
the Commission for that evaluation.
9. The applicant, owners, successors or assignees shall be
responsible for maintaining the stairway site, assuring the
lasting integrity of vegetative caver on the site, and
monitoring the site activities so as to prevent erosion,
siltation, sedimentation, chemical contamination or other
detrimental impact to any resource areas. It shall be the
responsibility of the property owner of record to see that
the maintenance conditions are complied with as required by
this Order.
10. This document shall be included in all construction contracts
and subcontracts dealing with the work proposed and shall
supersede ather contract requirements.
11. Used petroleum products from maintenance of construction
equipment and construction debris shall be collected and
disposed off-site. No an-site disposal of these items is
allowed.
12. Dust control, if required, shall be limited to water. No
salts or other wetting agents shall be used.
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228-7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes August 24, 1989
Page 24
13. Any refuse material found on the site shall be disposed of at
an approved landfill and in no case will these materials be
buried or disposed in or near designated wetland.
14. This Order of Conditions shall apply to any successor in
interest or successor in control of the property.
15. Section 310 CMR 10.30(3) of the Wetlands Regulations,
promulgated under M.G.L. c. 131, s. 40, requires that no
coastal engineering structure, such as a bulkhead, revetment,
or seawall, shall be permitted on an eroding bank at any time
in the future to protect the project allowed by this Order of
Conditions.
###
d. Greenberg Associates - Tristram's Ave - SE48-557 (31-3)
Present for the applicants was Rachael Hobarth of
Vaughan, Dale and Philbrick.
Ms. Hobarth presents the Commission plans of the proposed
walkway and stairs to the beach.
Mr. Dunwiddie comments if the Commission really wants the
walkway to be three feet above the dune?
MOTION: To amend paragraph 15 to state that the walkway
could be placed on the dune was made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
Mr. McKelway comments that the plans still show that the
driveway is within the 25 foot buffer zone.
MOTION: To amend section 14 to state clearly that the
Order take precedence over the plans in the file was made
and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228- 7230
6 Chestnut Street
: Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes August 24, 1989
Page 25
MOTION: To accept the Draft Order of Condition as
amended was made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
ADDITIONAL SPECIAL CONDITIONS
GREENBERG ASSOCIATES REALTY TRUST
DEQE FILE NUMBER SE48 - 55?
ASSESSOR'S MAP 31, PARCEL 3
21 EAST TRISTRAM AVENUE
UNDER THE MASSACHUSETTS WETLANDS PROTECTION ACT
( MGL CHAPTER 131, SECTION 40 )
AND THE WETLANDS BYLAW OF THE TOWN OF NANTUCKET
( CHAPTER 136 )
UNDER THE NANTUCKET WETLANDS BYLAW:
The project is approved, contingent upon the approval by the
Health Inspector of any subsurface sewage disposal system, as
specified by the Notice of Intent and all attachments, the
most recent plans cited on Form 5, the general and special
conditions on Form 5, and the following additional special
conditions. However, if there is a conflict between this
Order and the application or plans, this Order shall prevail.
3. Prior to any activity at the site, a siltation fence or a
line of haybales shall be staked 25 feet from the edge of the
established wetland boundary to the south of the project
site, or at a higher elevation, and between the ditch and the
project site. After the fence or haybales are installed,
notice shall be given to the Nantucket COnservation
Commission. No work shall begin on the site for 48 hours
after said notice is given, so as to allow Commission members
time to inspect all siltation devices. The siltation fence
or haybale line, erected to prevent siltation of the wetland
during construction, will also serve as a limit of activity
for work crews. It shall remain in good repair during all
phases of construction, and it shall not be removed until all
soils are stabilized and revegetated or until permission to
remove it is given by the Commission.
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228- 7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes August 24, 1989
Page 26
4. An as-built plan, signed and stamped by a registered
professional engineer or land surveyor in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, shall be submitted to the Commission at the
same time as a written request for a Certificate of
Compliance and shall specify how, if at all, the completed
plan differs from that shown on the plans referred to in the
Order of Conditions. The as-built shall include, but not be
,limited to, the following: all pipe/culvert inverts for
inflow and outfalls; pipe slope, size and composition;
location of other drainage structures and their composition;
limits of fill or alteration; location of all structures and
pavement within 100 feet of wetland; the edge of the wetland;
the grade contours within 100 feet of the wetland.
5. Members, employees, and agents of the Commission shall have
the right to enter and inspect the premises to evaluate
compliance with the conditions and performance standards
stated in this Order and the Nantucket Wetlands Regulations
and may require the submittal of any data deemed necessary by
the Commission for that evaluation.
6. The applicant, owners, successors or assignees shall be
responsible for maintaining all on-site drainage structures
and outfalls, assuring the lasting integrity of vegetative
cover on the site and monitoring site activities so as to
prevent erosion, siltation, sedimentation, chemical I
contamination or other detrimental impact to the on-site
wetland and/or off-site resource areas. It shall be the
responsibility of the property owner of record to see that
the maintenance conditions are complied with as required by
this order.
7. This document shall be included in all construction contracts
and subcontracts dealing with the work proposed and shall
supersede other contract requirements.
8. Used petroleum products from maintenance of construction
equipment and construction debris shall be collected and
disposed off-site. No on-site disposal of these items is
allowed.
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228-7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes August 24, 1989
Page 27
9. Dust control, if required, shall be limited to water. No
salts or other wetting agents shall be used.
10. Any refuse material found on the site shall be disposed of at
an approved landfill and in no case will these materials be
buried or disposed in or near designated wetland.
11. This Order of Conditions shall apply to any successor in
interest or successor in control of the property.
12. In all cases, no part of any structure, including decks,
shall be closer than 50 feet from the wetland boundary to the
south or 50 feet from the top of the coastal bank to the
north.
13. There must be a 25-foot undisturbed buffer zone adjacent to
the wetland boundary to the south of the project site.
Except for the walkway and stairway, there must be a 25-foot
undisturbed buffer zone landward of the coastal bank. This
takes precedence over the approved plan drawn by John
Shugrue, received by the Commission August 24, 1989.
14. No portion of any driveway or parking area may be closer than
25 feet to the wetland boundary or the top of the coastal
bank, and any driveway or parking area must be constructed of
pervious material. Please note that this condition takes
precedence over the approved plan drawn by John Shugrue,
received by the Commission August 24, 1989. This project has
not been granted a waiver from the 25-foot setback explained
above.
15. Notwithstanding the applicant's plan, d~~wn by John Shugrue
and received by the Commission August 24, the walkway to the
top of the bank may be placed directly on the natural
vegetation, but no cutting is allowed except to keep the
walkway clear. The stairway to the beach must be 3 to 4 feet
above the face of the bank.
16. All underground utilities leading to the house must be
installed in the existing roadway.
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228-7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes August 24, 1989
Page 28
17. The ridge height of the house shall not exceed 27 feet above
existing grade.
18. No coastal engineering structure of any kind shall be
permitted on the property in the future to protect the
project allowed by this Order of Conditions.
UNDER THE MASSACHUSETTS WETLANDS PROTECTION ACT:
The project is approved, contingent upon the approval by the
Health Inspector of any subsurface sewage disposal system, as
specified by the Notice of Intent and all attachments, the
most recent plans cited on Form 5, the general and special
conditions on Form 5, and the following additional special
conditions. However, if there is a conflict between this
Order and the application or plans, this Order shall prevail.
3. Prior to any activity at the site, a siltation fence or a
line of haybales shall be staked 25 feet from the edge of the
established wetland boundary to the south of the project
site, or at a higher elevation, and between the ditch and the
project site. After the fence or haybales are installed,
notice shall be given to the Nantucket Conservation
Commission. No work shall begin on the site for 48 hours
after said notice is given, so as to allow Commission members
time to inspect all siltation devices. The siltation fence
or haybale line, erected to prevent siltation of the wetland
during construction, will also serve as a limit of activity
for work crews. It shall remain in good repair during all
phases of construction, and it shall not~be removed until all
soils are stabilized and revegetated or until permission to
remove it is given by the Commission.
4. An as-built plan, signed and stamped by a registered
professional engineer or land surveyor in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, shall be submitted to the Commission at the
same time as a written request for a Certificate of
Compliance and shall specify how, if at all, the completed
plan differs from that shown on the plans referred to in the
Order of Conditions. The as-built shall include, but not be
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228- 7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nan tucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes August 24, 1989
Page 29
limited to, the following: all pipe/culvert inverts for
inflow and outfalls; pipe slope, size and composition;
location of other drainage structures and their composition;
limits of fill or alteration; location of all structures and
pavement within 100 feet of wetland; the edge of the wetland;
the grade contours within 100 feet of the wetland.
5. Members, employees, and agents of the Commission shall have
the right to enter and inspect the premises to evaluate
compliance with the conditions and performance standards
stated in this Order and the Nantucket Wetlands Regulations
and may require the submittal of any data deemed necessary by
the Commission for that evaluation.
6. The applicant, owners, successors or assignees shall be
responsible for maintaining all on-site drainage structures
and outfalls, assuring the lasting integrity of vegetative
cover on the site and monitoring site activities so as to
prevent erosion, siltation, sedimentation, chemical
contamination or other detrimental impact to the on-site
wetland and/or off-site resource areas. It shall be the
responsibility of the property owner of record to see that
the maintenance conditions are complied with as required by
this order.
7. This document shall be included in all construction contracts
and subcontracts dealing with the work proposed and shall
supersede other contract requirements.
8. Used petroleum products from maintenance of construction
equipment and construction debris shall be collected and
disposed off-site. No on-site disposal of these items is
allowed.
9. Dust control, if required, shall be limited to water. No
salts or other wetting agents shall be used.
10. Any refuse material found on the site shall be disposed of at
an approved landfill and in no case will these materials be
buried or disposed in or near designated wetland.
..
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228- 7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes August 24, 1989 Page 30
11. This Order of Conditions shall apply to any successor in
interest or successor in control of the property.
12. In all cases, no part of any structure, including decks,
shall be closer than 50 feet from the wetland boundary to the
south or 50 feet from the top of the coastal bank to the
north.
13. There must be a 25-foot undisturbed buffer zone adjacent to
the wetland boundary to the south of the project site.
Except for the walkway and stairway, there must be a 25-foot
undisturbed buffer zone landward of the coastal bank. This
takes precedence over the approved plan drawn by John
Shugrue, received by the Commission August 24, 1989.
14. No portion of any driveway or parking area may be closer than
25 feet to the wetland boundary or the top of the coastal
bank, and any driveway or parking area must be constructed of
pervious material. Please note that this condition takes
precedence over the approved plan drawn by John Shugrue,
received by the Commission August 24, 1989. This project has
not been granted a waiver from the 25-foot setback explained
above.
15. Notwithstanding the applicant's plan, drawn by John Shugrue
and received by the Commission August 24, the walkway to the
top of the bank may be placed directly on the natural
vegetation, but no cutting is allowed except to keep the
walkway clear. The stairway to the beach must be 3 to 4 feet
above the face of the bank.
16. All underground utilities leading to the~house must be
installed in the existing roadway.
13. Section 310 CMR 10.30 (3) of the Wetlands Regulations,
promulgated under MGL Chapter 131, Section 40, requires that
no coastal engineering structure, such as bulkhead,
revetment, or seawall, shall be permitted on an eroding bank
at any time in the future to protect the project allowed by
this Order of Conditions.
,.
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228- 7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes August 24, 1989
Page 31
3. OTHER BUSINESS
a. Sharp/ Kilvert - SE48-548 Screening plan
Mr. McKelway commented that there has not been any
response as of yet.
b. Charles Gifford - SE48-525 - Minor modification
Continued due to lack of representation by the applicant.
c. Appointment to the Planning Commission
Motion: To reappoint Henry Wasierski as the
Commission's representative on the Nantucket Planning and
Economic Development Commission for another year was made
and seconded. Mr. Wasierski said he would be able to
attend more meetings this year because there would not be
as many held on Thursday nights.
UNANIMOUS
d. Leibenhaut SE48-553 (41-327) Request to revoke permit
Present for the Leibenhaut's was Rachael Hobarth of
Vaughan, Dale and Philbrick.
Mr. McKelway gave the Commission an overview of the
situation concerning the septic system and the fact that the
Determination from February required that the Health
Inspector be present for the new perc test to be conducted at
the new septic site. This did not happen. He further adds
that Section 136.4E allows the Commission to require the work
to stop while this information is received.
Rachael Hobarth comments that her firm was not contacted
prior to he meeting that this was going to be on the agenda.
She adds that the abutter has no standing in this matter. All
the various times for appeal have run out and the matter is
closed.
.. .
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228-7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes August 24, 1989
Page 32
Mr. Visco comments that Richard Ray does not normally
view perk tests. He leaves it up to the engineers to design
the systems that will work.
Mr. Borchert comments that there is only five feet to
groundwater. How can the system be built?
Mr. Visco adds that the elevation for the driveway is the
same as the bottom of the leach trench. The system must be
mounded above the ground.
Mr. Borchert states that there is no plan for a pump to
the system. How is it going to work? I suggest that we write
a letter and ask for some more information.
MOTION: To send a letter to the Leibenhauts and request a
clarification of their septic design and final contours was
made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
Susan and David Leibenhaut
P.O. Bo x 162
Chester, New Jersey 07930
Re: SE48-553 (55 Madaket Road -- Map 41, Parcel 327)
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Leibenhaut:
'" ~ ,:""'.
Some problems have surfaced in regard to the proposed septic
system for the above-referenced project, and the Commission has
instructed me to write to you. On the final plan, the existing
elevation of the leaching site is almost the same as the proposed
bottom of the leaching bed. We would like to see a plan showing
more existing and proposed contours and explaining the proposed
system in greater detail. The proximity of groundwater to the
septic system is our primary concern. We would also appreciate
some reassurance that the soil will "perc" properly at the site
of the leaching field.
'" ..
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228-7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes August 24, 1989
Page 33
Sincerely,
Ben McKelway
Administrator
cc: Richard W. Wolfe
Richard Ray
Melissa Philbrick
John Shugrue
Wayne Switzer
e. Comments on Old North Wharf for Chapter 91 application
Mr. Dunwiddie proposed a few minor changes to the draft
which were acceptable to the other Commissioners. The
Commission approved the letter to be sent to the State.
Department of Environmental Protection
Division of Wetlands and Waterways Regulation
Waterways Regulation Program
Attention: Waterways Section Chief
One Winter Street
8th Floor
Boston, MA 02108
To Whom It May Concern:
The Nantucket Conservation Commission hereby submits the
following comments on waterways license application number 89W-
155N, the application of Old North Wharf Tru~t to dredge the Easy
Street Basin area and construct a solid-fill pier extension. At
this writing, the Commission is holding public hearings on the
Notice of Intent filed for the project. Because we have not yet
voted on the application, the Commission can only express its
concerns at this stage of the process.
As individuals, the Commissioners have various concerns about
various issues that do not come under the direct jurisdiction of
the Conservation Commission. One such concern is the amount of
traffic the project would generate on nearby roads that are
. ...r' '4
~
~~14TUeJr~h
r:.:J).
() .~"
f "piS
o _~~i
~ " j. =
. ~- - '::1
~~l~'
',..~ -'-'ft:=~. '" lb ;:
01'> ._..... ~,
...,oORA1\~~
.....,,,..
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228- 7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes August 24, 1989
Page 34
already clogged in the summertime. However, since these comments
are being submitted by the Commission as a whole, I will
concentrate on those issues which more directly concern wetland
resources:
1. The project site may contain commercially valuable shellfish
species. Young oysters have been transferred from this site
to cleaner waters in past years, as part of the Town's
shellfish propagation program. Before we make a decision on
the application, we have to decide if the area is to be
considered Land Containing Shellfish.
2. Dredging and filling is likely to change beach gradient and
width, increase water depth, and change current directions
and velocities. These changes could have an effect on flood
control and storm damage prevention. Previously existing
bulkheads must be protected, and the natural repl~nishment of
the beach should be assured. No channel axis should be
parallel to the direction of major storm waves. The new
bulkheads necessary for the proposed project may cause a
scouring out of adjacent land under the ocean and depletion
of sediment. Such scouring could increase beach erosion,
threatening previously existing bulkheads, and increase wave
height. This is why new bulkheads are prohibited under 310
CMR 10.25(5) and 10.27(3).
3. Dredging and filling is likely to create turbidity, release
chemical pollutants now contained in bottom sediments,
destroy vegetation, destroy marine animal habitat and feeding
areas, and smother marine animals in the vicinity. Animals
still alive in the area may ingest and accumulate the
stirred-up pollutants. Polychaete worm~~and other organisms
in the area are probably a food source for fisheries. Shoals
now exposed at low tide provide birds with access to mollusks
and crustaceans. Also, the vegetative debris in the area is
vital for resident and migratory shorebirds, which feed
largely on the invertebrates that eat the vegetation.
Because this area would be destroyed by the project, bird
life would probably be affected.
. ,:. ~
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228-7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes August 24, 1989
Page 35
4. Dredging may create an area of stagnation resulting in a
deterioration of water quality. Adequate flushing is
essential, and the depth should be kept to a minimum.
5. It is far more difficult to justify environmental destruction
for non-water-dependent uses. The applicants know that state
and local regulations for wetlands protection are much
tougher if the wharf is to be used for shops and residences.
A serious concern is not only the uses proposed, but the
actual uses which are likely in the future, if the new wharf
is built, when it is too late to prevent construction.
Governmental agencies, including the Nantucket Planning
Board, have been known to reverse themselves, especially when
the owner of the property claims financial hardship. The
fishing industry on Nantucket is steadily declining. There
will be a demand for more rental space by vacationing
yachters and their families. There is ample cause for
skepticism when reviewing the applicants' stated plans for
the area.
6. The use of mechanized equipment during construction could
introduce more hydrocarbons into the basin, thus adding to
the pollution problem and adversely affecting the fish,
shellfish and other marine life in the area. After
construction, the proposed fuel dock is even more of a hazard
for the same reasons. Even if the fuel dock never spilled or
dribbled gasoline (an unlikely scenario), the normal
dribbling of gas and oil from the increased number of boats
and vehicles that would be attracted to the wharf and from
the various marine-related businesses on the wharf presents a
problem in and of itself. Stormwater runoff from the wharf
is another possible source of pollutionV~even though the
applicant proposes four catch basins with oil and grease
traps.
7. Sewage pumped into the harbor or the basin from the many new
boats that would be attracted to the new, larger wharf should
also be a concern. The applicant proposes a pumpout
facility, but there is no guarantee it will be used.
8. The applicants say the filling of the shoal will remove a
hazard to navigation, and the increased number of the slips
...,
.." f'.';~
C
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228-7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes August 24, 1989
Page 36
and moorings for boats could increase recreational
opportunities. However, passage between the proposed
structure and the concrete bumper "dolphins" belonging to the
Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship
Authority would be even narrower than the existing passage.
9. The proposed project would put an end to the scenic view
across the harbor now available to the public from Easy
Street. The applicants propose a new viewing pavilion, but
this would have to sought out; it would not be a part of
everyday life in downtown Nantucket. Furthermore, there are
many subtle ways of discouraging public access.
10. The applicants have emphasized their desire to make the area
look like it used to look more than 100 years ago. The old
pier was not maintained after the fire that destroyed it. We
believe the historical issue is not relevant to the
evaluation of this project. Other impacts of the project in
the here and now would far outweigh any historical value
anyway. This project should be treated as a new proposal.
In no way should it be considered a reconstruction.
The Commission feels that it would be in the public interest
for your office to give this proposal your most careful review.
Sincerely,
Ben McKelway
Administrator
5. MINUTES: August 3, 1989
Motion: To approve the minutes as"ldrafted was made and
seconded.
UNANIMOUS
MOTION: TO ADJOURN WAS MADE, SECONDED AT 10:58 PM AND
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED
~F~~ft:::J(~~;