Loading...
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(~~;