HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-10-06
tflt~c'ar.z:€ilJ:
,.;~ ~"~IU CJr':'~"Q.~
b' ,,7 ......' >-
..~' <>, .....: -s. II'-
~~. -. ~
:g=!, ,'. \~~
..o'~~r-.IJI:
r:s;~~=!ff)~j
~. ~" ~ -, -,s=- ..." ::
~(;t"'..~~- ....~o~
.~o~p"'''''''~~. ~
'40.'_ ORA"!'" ,..,\
~_'=U11l,~1j;
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228- 7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket. Massachusetts 02554
MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 26. 1989
The meeting was called to order at approximately 7 PM .
Present were Peter Dunwiddie Acting Chairman, Donald Visco, Henry
Wasierski, Carl Borchert, Granville Cranston and Ben McKelway,
Administrator. Absent were William Willet, Lee Dunn and Bruce
Perry, Secretary.
A. COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS FROM PRESS AND PUBLIC
NONE
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Old North Wharf - SE48-549 - (42.3.1 -)
Present for the applicant was Melissa Philbrick of
Vaughan Dale and Philbrick, counsel for the applicant.
Mrs Philbrick comments that the people in the DEP are
concerned that the study includes marine and wildlife impacts
construction impact; sediment transfer; wave action and
deflection on existing structures. We have studied DEP's
comments on certain storm events and their effect on the
fueling area; the need to show and study the project's effect
on site lines from various parts of the harbor; historical
analysis dredging traditionally compared with the proposed
work and its effect on wave action. These answers are not
going to be produced within 2 weeks.
Mr. Visco comments that applicants intend to submit
completely revised plan. I have a problem with sitting here
and waiting for months to see a project that is going to be
much different than proposed in the NOl.
Mrs. Philbrick responds that the Sanfords have considered
some alternatives but not a completely revised plan. MEPA has
suggested not to do Draft ElR if we are planning to make major
revisions. For example,if we are not pushing for a solid fill
pier, then the solid fill and land under the ocean portions of
the DElR would be studied differently. What is going to the
engineers is a revised plan. Not drastic change but some
ll~"<<C m:~,.
~ltTUC '.'''~
"," <,. ~......!f.e-)- ~
I. ()/" ....: 1-~~
ol:'~. '."P''''
fl ~!, \ (,/I':
l!l==- ri:lJI!
~.:-., --- ~~:..i
~ ~......,.....-.--=-:-~-~-:.-
'i;."..- ::-r-~!.-~- .,...;...
<t!> A-.. -...--.:;-~-~ ..~^- ~
,~.....~-......,,'O#
,~O-9"""""';''i)' !I,...
..",;_rORAi.. .........
--q"'O"II'~'
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228- 7230
6 Chestnut Street
'j\' antucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes October 26, 1989 Page 2
revisions. DEIR that will be done is on a project that would
be different than NOI but it will not ignore the input of
local and state concerns. There will be will revisions to the
plan but we prefer to wait until the engineers have made the
changes to show the Commission the revisions. I would like to
2sk to continue until some time in the future and bring in the
engineers that will be working on the project at that time.
Mr. Borchert comments that the state seemed to be concerned
about the public versus private ratio of the project
especially with the waiver requested of solid fill pier
Mrs. Philbrick comments that she has not discussed all the
aspects of the scope completely with her clients. It is
:mportant to the wildlife people. We are waiting for a lot of
information. Tonight my job is to listen to the concerns of
the people here. The scope picks up a lot of the information
that the Commission has requested
Mr. Borchert asks have all the question have been asked?
Mrs. Philbrick adds that more questions may arise as result
of the answers provided in the DEIR and will be answered in
the Final EIR.
Mr. Wasierski states that if this is anything other than a
minor modification, then they will have to refile. But I do
not see how it could be any thing other than a major
modification would allow this project to go forward.
Mrs.Philbrick comments she has been at Commission meetings
where NOls have changed greatly during the review process. Ben
has stated that the Commission wants to know what the project
specifically is. The changes would provide some alternates to
some of the sensitive environmental aspects of the project but
not changing the scope. The information requested will take
some time to generate.
Mr. Dunwiddie comments that without our having ~een the
changes it is not proper to guess if the changes are major.
Philosophically, the Commission has allowed applicants to
change plans that have a lesser environmental impact. The
~'U~lUC:tJl
. ,.TUC II',
!'to"" .. ~.....![e-'t~
~ o} ........\
~~. ...;"" ~
:;]~!1 ,~':
uo!. -;lJIl
1:~i-' ?':'. .
\. ~ ~~~ ~ ! . S
. ....~. - .,.,..~
<.'1:" ~ -~"'" p\. ~
~ C-..... ~- .....,,'0 $
~~O~:':""""';;\)' ,,~
-"4l>;r 0 R Ai.. ~~\..
~~:.laU"'\
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228-7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes October 26, 1989 Page 3
modifications that would mitigate environmental problems and
will allow opponents of the project to be more comfortable. I
do not see what will be gained by asking for a resubmission at
this point. We are only guessing about the effects the
proposed changes will have on the project.
Mr. McKelway suggests that in addition to the information
requested tonight and from MEPA, that #3 of memo from July
that he wrote be answered, also.
Mrs. Philbrick responds that the issues raised in that memo
are definitely included in the scope requested by MEPA and she
will make sure that the consultant has the list of questions
that the commission has requested.
be staked to
buildings.
asked by Mr. Borchert to delineate the
( from the ONW memo)
1. Specific dredging method
2. Dimensions of deepest draft vessel
3. Mean Low Water elevation
4. Existing depth in proposed channel
5. Largest beam ship expected
6. Marine life study- flora and fauna
7. Size, location of dredging plume
8. Maximum rate of runoff
9. Wetland Scenic Views - The wharf should
show size and height of proposed
Mr. McKelway is
areas in the memo:
Mr. Wasierski states that balloons of different colors be
set out to show dock and building height, the outline of the
project, etc.
Mrs. Philbrick responds that the request is absolutely
appropriate. As we get further down the road in the process,
there will be an additional opportunity to do this.
Mr. William Straus of Lang, Straus, Xifaras & Bullard,
legal firm hired by opponents to the project, on behalf of his
clients would like to express their concern as a result to
DeVillars letter. Any change could not be minor. Devillars
suggests that the project could not be permitted as presently
~tQCii~'~!J'~
~~~~TUCi(!~...1..
,\; '< ~~......." >- ~
:c," <:>/ ....: A ~
,~.~. .7' ...
~:Jt!' ~ \~~
:rO: "~_:IJIS
1;l-i-. j~~:.. :
i..." ,~"':..
~ . -r--"_ . _~~ .". "-
~:~... ~%~-...~ i
"''';' 0'.. ~~- .....,,<0 ~
"=~~O~~.........:;~. '!.~
"'1lf,-,rDRA,"'" ,......
-..q>::aO;ICI1t"
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228- 7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket. Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes October 26, 1989 Page 4
proposed. Some minor changes will not solve these question.
Solid fill pier is the major problem. Even if all the studies
are completed it still gets to the problem of protection the
resources that are under the jurisdiction of the Commission,
rocky intertidal shore, valuable wildlife aspects, for
example. A solid fill pier will eliminate these areas and
cause a substantial change. This project will change as a
result of state review and the local input is lost to the
process. Public input to the process is reduced as a result
lack of notice as new information and changes arise. In
addition to the MEPA scope, there needs to be a study on the
wave action impact on the resource of the land under the
ocean. Storm damage from the change in wave action will affect
underwater habitats in addition to boats on top of the water.
Water circulation as a result of the solid fill pier. If the
project is substantially different it should require a new NOI
irrespective if the project is more or less intrusive to the
resources.
Mr. Borchert states that the issues are not as clear as you
make it out. I agree that there is a need for public notice.
But if we require new filings with every change, we may just
end up with many files and more bureaucracy than before.
Mr. Straus comments that an engineer should be able produce
the changes in a short of a amount of time.
Mrs. Philbrick comments that I just suggested that we
reconvene in a few weeks time to look at the changes. There is
very good public notice on this project. We decided to go to
the local boards first and receive local input at an early
stage of this project. MEPA has only one hearing on their
scope and that would not provide enough opportunity for local
comment to the project.
Mr. Scott Lang reiterates that clients are concerned. When
:5 this project so different as to require new NO!? We feel
that if this project is doomed, then the developers should
allow the Commission to rule on the project. If new NOI is
filed then the original project is a straw dog and anything
that comes in will be better than proposed. The enormity of
~he project makes it unpermittable and no way that it can be
_ ~'tt~:a"~~Ub
~o;...: ~n IJ C ""'.l
,~...,..,< ~"'...![('lot..
Ji.. ()/" ..... -$ ~
:i~/' "'Y~
~;;:;; 1 'IJI"
..: -"'."'--, . A ~ "'-
II o. ,.~'='ffi,. .1JI:l
't.t-:~, -:;'S~4~:. ::
~ :,\.~- ~~ Ii:::
. "}'. ~'-~'=- ..,." ::
'if. co.....~' .........'0 $
.........o~;:........~\). $'
~qllt;_rORA1... ,.",;
"<q4l::Ut1~tt'
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228- 7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes October 26, 1989 Page 5
changed. The retooled project will need to start over with all
the boards. The Commission cannot negotiate the law. The law
requires that you protect the interests. The concept that
engineers look at the project and then come back does not fly
with this project.
Mr. Dunwiddie comments that we are second guessing. If the
project is greatly different. then we will decide at that
time.
Mr. Visco adds that we all know that the Sanfords want to
do something with the wharf. We need to look at the positive
sides of the project and how it is going to help fishing and
the harbor. But we are not going to allow this project to
endanger the lifeline to the island, the SSA. We do not need
perpetuate the bureaucracy by asking them to continue to come
back with a new file. To ask for a ruling tonight, would only
cause us to end up in court. Nobody benefits when you go to
court only lawyers.
Mrs. Philbrick states that it is going to take some
scheduling to get everybody up here to meet with the
commission. I would rather wait until a date certain than ask
for continuances at every meeting.
Ms. Cheryl Creighton of the Nantucket Land Council asks for
specific review for storm water drainage and location of the
outfalls. What is the increase amount of runoff due to the
surface increase of the new pier. How pervious are the solid
fill materials? What is the composition of the inner fill
materials and their ability to leach into the harbor?
MOTION: To continue the hearing until the Dec 14
Meeting was made and seconded.
U!\IAN I MOUS
2. Longview Realty Trust - 53 Madaket Rd. SE48-546 (41-326)
~\'~~::~l'l
.?"..l.~~TUC . ''''.."
.:ri7r- '''-!!-!'...~
tr4 ~ ,'''' it.
~l ~ ..~.....~
~~ '.-~-~
:!~!1 , \~:
::Oi~~-:IJI!
".....~~~~:. .
tl.\~~i:!
~"... ~...:::...::~- ..,....;..
'\""" -.."" ~~:- .'1\. ~
-y^, ~,~. .' fO :'
"'..'0.... ~ .......~
....... ~'P ......... 'c;)' ~
;r"".... ORAlt l~"""
""q~:f ~a""
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228- 7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket. Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes October 26, 1989 Page 6
Mr. McKelway comments that he had sent a letter to the
applicants explaining what the Commissioners wanted the
applicant to do.
MOTION: To continue the hearing due to lack of
representation and for more information was made and
seconded.
Mr. Wasierski opposed with the remaining Commissioners
in favor.
3. Dias - 1 Pilot Whale Lane - SE48-554 ( 67-386,394-403
Present for the applicant was Mr. John Shugrue.
Mr. Shugrue states that as a result of the inspection last
Monday he had shifted the replication area over three feet.
Mr. McKelway comments that the Commission has not received
a plant inventory of the filled area and the replication area
as we had requested at a previous meeting.
Mr. Dunwiddie states that the Commission was concerned that
new plants are what is already there. After seeing the
replication area I am not as concerned. Anything will be a
improvement to the filled area.
The commission reviews the revised plan submitted by Mr.
Shugrue
MOTION: To close the hearing and draft an Order of
Condition was made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
4 Cabral - 10 Pond Street - SE48-555 (56-294)
Present were John Shugrue and Herbert Cabral, Jr.
applicant
Mr. Shugrue submits a new plan showing: septic system moved
as far east as possible; the actual footprint of house instead
",~Z:~C~"'i.-
~~TUC;:".'~~
...~ ~ ~.M_ TJ(:')- ~
i': ()/ ~"'1- \
~~.. .. ...
~s!1 ,. '~ \~'S
nO:~'.""'.~_:IJI:a
. . ... -''''It-...,__ ..._ . _
1; 1-.. -,~"",,~k~,. _
~.\-Z~~i~!
~;~ ~'..:~...=:t.....---..:.--:: - :.A""'::
1..~" ~:.:;;G=- ."~~
~ C'..... ~. .....,,'0,:-
".....0 ~::........;; \). ~.:>
'7";,"-OP.Al\:o ~......
-...;.."" IIn~'l'
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228- 7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket. Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes October 26, 1989 Page 7
of a building envelope; silt fence protecting the "bushes"
identified on the plans; silt fence 10 feet from pond for
gazebo in hay bales. The back of the deck is 1 foot from the
depressed area. House is 25 feet from "bushes" (Winterberry
says PD).
Mr. Dunwiddie states that he is bothered that you plan to
fill in the swale. At field inspection you said that you would
not do that. Is there any way that you can build the house
without filling the wetland?
Mr.Cabral comments that it was classified dent in the
wetland containing less than 50 % wetland plants according to
regulations. Do not want to say I can do something that I may
not be able to do. I cannot guarantee that some material will
not get into that area. The foundation is only going to be a
cralrJl space. ['-Jot changing the grade at all except 4-6" only
around the house. I plan to take away the dirt for the
foundation and bring dirt back in to back fill.
Mr. Bob Lang an abutter asked what are the setbacks from
the street and the sidelines?
Mr. Dunwiddie responds 86 feet from the street; 13 feet
and 12 1/2 feet on the sides; 75 feet from the pond.
Mr. Lang comments this new house will be only 23 feet from
my house. I not against it being built. If they are going to
raise the grade even 1 inch, it will create drainage problem.
I would like to suggest pipe to pond for storm water. I have
made changes to my house to create water flow away from my
foundation. I should not have to make changes to accept his
water.
Mr. Shugrue suggests that a 4 inch perforated pipe in a
gravel trench down to the pond to direct the water.
Mr. Visco comments that the problem could be solved by
digging through impervious layer and putting in dry wells. It
always preferable to use to run surface water naturally.
"",\'tt1 ~c:e~,.
1l'?;...~TUC~'1!"A_
.!\''' <, Y.M....:.:,..)- T.
.:;."'! f";,/ ....: "So \
it[, ... \~~
- -. t:z.~., ,..,.. A 'IJI~
t~ --.~.~ !"~'~r. ~
1:~:-.-; ~_ ~:~~~:. :
~ .~,>:;'->~~":
~ :,......~~..k.i
~.,:."... ~,-...''O::
~. 0". ... " ~
..,,~ I9p........,~ \). ~.,.
.........: 0 R .c\ i ....~,~,~
'-:'::c~;tI''''
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228- 7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket. Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes October 26, 1989 Page 8
Mr. Cabral suggests that if you get rid if the hump in
front of the pond the water would drain and there would be no
need for the gazebo. The pond is two feet lower than the house
elevation.
Mr. Wasierski suggests a small swale instead of removing
the hump
Mr. Dunwiddie comments that he would rather see water to
get there naturally than a pipe. I do not want to see the
whole area become a lawn.
1"1r. Lang
asks that the grade not be brought up.
Mr. Cabral states that he would remove the gazebo request
if the hump were removed.
Mr. Dunwiddie states that 25 feet undisturbed buffer and
some stabilization of the soils would be necessary.
Mr. Borchert adds that we could give a waiver due to the
shape of the lot as long as you keep 25 feet undisturbed.
Mr. Cabral responds that he has reduced the house to 1650
square feet.
Mr. Shugrue suggests move the house back 4 feet, get rid of
the gazebo, pervious surface on the driveway, grading the
whole lot to the pond.
Mr. Wasierski states that conditions on the property after
completion of the work should not add any additional water to
the neighbors property.
Mr. Cabral states that a depression could be created if
sloping does not work to draw water away from the houses.
MOTION: To close the hearing and draft an Order of
Conditions was made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
\\\U::SIDI:l.1
~.;~f>.'~!.u CJr;'~~
.., r ""-..)0. it.
t;: () ..: ..... ...~
::~ .-74*
~~!, . ....'...,., A\~~
*O:~~~_:Vlt
~:,\~fif4}:;j
,,=..~ ~.. --.' -------rEi=- l!\ ::
...", "..... ~-:s.- .........'O,!
...... 0-9:,-........;;~. ..~
"b;,"'ORAi'" ".....
~~'a,:l'''~
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228- 7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket. Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes October 26, 1989 Page 9
5. Sesachacha Pond - Board of Selectmen - (23-2)
Mr. McKelway comments that a DEP number is expected in a
few days. Diane McColl has spoken with them and the colored
map sent to them delineating the resource areas is sufficient
to satisfy their questions. If we were to close tonight, then
we need to discuss dates of opening.
Mr. Dunwiddie comments that he would rather wait until
somebody is present for the applicant.
MOTION: To continue the hearing for more information, a
DEP file number and representation was made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
6. Robert Kaye - Top Gale Lane - SE48-567 - (27-7)
Present for the applicant was Foley Vaughan of Vaughan,
Dale and Philbrick.
Mr. Vaughan states that the replication was done in 1986.
The subsurface of the court had been completed under the now
expired Order of Conditions. In the sense of fairplay, we ask
the Commission to allow us to finish the project. Already 3300
square feet have been replicated instead of 2800 required in
the NOI. The court size has been reduced to 56xl14 from
60x120. The applicant proposes to add additional 300 square
feet of replication as a result of the reduction in court
size. The twenty-five foot buffer has already been disturbed
with the original work.
Mr. Wasierski asks if there is any detail on the retaining
wall next to the house? ( There was some detail found on the
plans. )
MOTION: To close the hearing and draft an Order of
Conditions was made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
....at'.'~z,ac~tJI
~e~iUC ,,-
,," '<~...~~+.
I: 0/ ":1,\
!ti1 .'.". \~~
l!o:~J,..:IJI:r
_t-:~~~:. :
t;..\~~~"!..;:~
~"",.. ~~~...,_ ..1J.",;~
<r.A,' - -'~6- ."..
.............:... ~--....~ ~
~ ..0'... .'- ~ ~,
, '/fp.........e. \). ~..
",..' ORAi... ,~..'fi
-.q~U:311~'
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228- 7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes October 26, 1989 Page 10
Mr. McKelway comments that the new fill around the house
would not stand up with the steep slope to the stream. It is
just sand with a little of soil in it. It needs to be
stabilized in some way.
Mr. Vaughan states that he will convey the Commission's
concerns to the applicant and he does not wish to get an
enforcement order situation.
7. Barbara Collar - 17 Kimball Ave. - SE48-567 (30-30)
Present for the applicant was Nathan McMullan of Design
Associates.
Mr. McMullan submits a new plan showing moving of the deck
back from the bank. Deck changes to be same as existing
footprint as patio. Additional 7 feet to east would be added,
not to the north towards the bank.
Mr. Dunwiddie expresses his concerns on the expansion of
anything closer to the bank.
Mr. McMullan responds that the change makes a better design
and would require one additional sonotube for support. I am
appealing to the Commission that this is a better design even
though it is 7 feet closer.
Mr. Dunwiddie comments that he does not see on what basis
could we grant a waiver.
Mr. Borchert comments that it would keep people off of the
bank.
Mr. Dunwiddie responds that the waiver is used only if
there is no other way to do the project.
Mr. McMullan adds that the bank is very stable and has not
changed much over the years.
.
.,*",~:t:~)Jrll
~ ",~iUCIr.'';>~
.~Z' r~ --...~)>.~...
,Y. () ..... A ~
~.::-. "7~
i!3i! \~;
flO=-_ _:IJI~
t:r-.., . .q-.ii{j... q
Z . \ ., _ - -~ ~ ; . :
~ ",\~~~~ ..~".i
1.1-....:.. ...:r<--~- ..''0 ~
~ ..'0.... --- .... A.; ,
...... ~'P.........~ \). ~~
'~#j: ORAi.. ~......
~::r..tlS'~'
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228- 7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes October 26, 1989 Page 11
Mr. Wasierski comments that it could be also argued on the
location of the break in slope. It breaks a couple of times
coming up the bank. Are there any walkway or stairs down the
bank ?
Mr. McMullan shows the Commission a walk used by the
adjacent houses. Twenty two feet has been removed from the
first proposed deck.
Mr. Wasierski adds that this bank is not susceptible to
storm damage. It is well vegetated and stable. The situation
is like Baxter Road area in Siasconset with a wide area of low
ground to the ocean.
MOTION: To close the hearing and draft an Order of
Conditions was made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
* 8. Jay Griswold - 14 Sachem Road - (30-240)
Aileen Barth of Aileen Barth Associates, designer, was
present to represent the applicant.
Mr. McKelway summarizes the history of the lot and adds the
lot has changed owners. It is called "Swamps End". The front
yard was filled and side yard brush cut and this was the
reason that the Commission was involved before.
Ms. Barth states that she has revised a plan, drafted a
letter explaining the work to be done.
Mr. McKelway interjects that the abutters were not given
five days notification only 2 day stamped receipts. The
Commission can open under the state only.
Ms. Barth continues that the red shaded areas are additions
to the house, blue additional decks. The ditch was 40 feet
from boundary and 70 feet from addition. Trade off with moving
gas tanks and allow cantilevered addition. Beneficial to move
fuel tanks away from wetlands. The owners had planned
originally to put a large addition on the westerly side of
."!;b~~"allCl:,
~. ~TIJCt.-&'''~
.~;.'....~.~~e-).~
~t <>/ ..... A"if"
~~. "7~
f!~!' , \~~
l'Io:~:..,~ A_:lJl~
~.t-:~~~;".~~.. ..
~ :X~2;;.,~/:.:j
<&'1-.', - -~=- .." ~
~ ~.....~~........"fo ~
"<l(p,O~p.""u,"'~' ~...
:lib;: DR,c\i'€._,~~\"
""4tq~:a'l'"
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228- 7230
6 Chestnut Street
l'\ antucket. Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes October 26, 1989 Page 12
the house. Additions proposed are a breezeway to a family
room, and a cantilevered section towards wetlands is to
provide additional space in the master bedroom.
Mr. Dunwiddie reads letter from Aileen Barth to Commission
explaining proposed project.
Mr. McKelway comments that all three changes would require
vvaivers.
Ms. Barth states that the applicants could do away with
front deck and rear deck extensions to allow the project go
fOrIi'Jal-d.
Mr. Dunwiddie comments that we see this all the time; there
are changes that incrementally effect the wetlands as the
house changes ownership. All the various owners are pleading
innocence of the previous changes but that does not help the
plants.
Ms. Barth states that these people did not have anything to
do with the previous problems. None of this construction will
harm the vegetation. Instead of doing a huge addition to the
west, I have convinced these people to stay with some small
additions to this house. I do not think that previous problems
should be held against these owners. They do not intend to
sell the house in the future.
Mr. Dunwiddie states that this is a large lot -- why can't
they move the entire house up to the area away from the
J^,etlands?
Ms. Barth responds that they only want to do some subtle
changes to the house.
Mr. Dunwiddie comments that I have a real problem with the
previous history of the lot. There used to be a real nice
wetland that is now under the lawn.
MOTION: To continue the hearing for additional
information and a DEP file number was made and seconded.
~~,';t;a'oc:..
'ol nnu C.",#.
~ ~ ~"...![<'t~
I. C)/ ....~-s."to~
ift, \~~
ffOt ,~, -ilJl!
ll:l-i~'" . ~",.. ..
~.~~_ ~i~!
~.;~.,,~~~..~~
~1-^.. ~~- ..''0;:
'.....'0.... ~ .....11\:..
cr,~ 'l:/p....'.....:.\). ~....
......~ ORAl\:. ,......'Ii
.....~e.n"'"
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228- 7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket. Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes October 26, 1989 Page 13
UNANIMOUS
* 9.Nancy Claflin - 35 Wauwinet Road - (20- )
MOTION: To continue the hearing due to improper abutter
notification was made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
* 10.Hempleman - 49 Hulbert Ave. - (29-14)
Present for the applicant was John Shugrue.
Mr. Shugrue comments that the proposed plan compares well
with plans in the original files. There has not been a
Certificate of Compliance issued for the original
construction. This new file is to rebuild dune, connect side
and front decks. extend the deck on the front to 12 feet wide.
Relocate the stairs to provide better flow from the house. The
wind scour is primarily due to the inability to keep that area
vegetated with all the foot traffic over it.
Mr. McKelway comments that the proposed deck is wider than
the deck we denied with the last filing.
Mr. Hamilton Heard, Jr., an abutter, explains the view
easement that runs in favor of his sister. Presently, the
outside shower is in the view easement and in violation.
Easement does not allow anything to be built within the
easement. I am here to be sure that the easement that has
already been encroached upon does not get encroached any
further.
Mr. Visco comments that we do not want to approve something
that is in contradiction with this person's easement.
Mr. Shugrue draws some lines on the filed plans.
Mr. Dunwiddie states the problem is that when the plans
were originally filed they could have built the house that
would have had a useable deck but chose not to.
~"te.3ttcll.
~~~TUC .'''~
~" ~-,*.>-~
I. 0/ ".1-\
It!1 . \~~
f-o:~'''''> A~IJI~
=- . .,......:'oi.~~: !
1-.~~~4"-ffi:. ::
".\~~~!~=
~...~ ~,,--:...~ :A.... ~
\A_' - --;;<S- h.....
'......:... ~..::::b-' - ..'~ ;:
...".0.... ....... ~
~I...._' ~^ ......... \). ~.,.
",,,,,-,rORAit. ",,,,
""~tu"''''
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228- 7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes October 26, 1989 Page 14
Mr. Heard comments they did not inherit the situation.
Sarvis and Hempleman bought the land with the proposed house
from Steele. He knew how small the deck was on the plan, but
builder Robert Sarvis told him he would take care of it.
Mr. Visco states that I am more interested in rebuilding
the dune. Bring in screened sand and plant with grasses.
Easement does not restrict the use of the land only structures
:n excess of 8 feet.
Mr. Shugrue adds that he would like to pull some of the
sand out from under the house.
Mr. Visco continues that he wants to know how exactly they
plan to reestablish the dune. How much sand, etc.
Mr. Shugrue states that to rebuild dune plant beach grass
and put up snow fence to cut down wind force and stop the sand
Trom blowing away.
Mr. McKelway comments that adding sand was not in the
original proposal.
Mr. Visco reiterates that he would like to see amounts of
sand, method of the work proposed and revegetate plan.
MOTION: To continue the hearing for a DEP file number
and more information was made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
* li.Francis - 37 Dukes Road - Nan89-002 (56-329)
Present were Bob Emack of Nantucket Surveyors and
Ingrid Francis, applicant.
Mr. McKelway summarizes the filing (local NOI with State
RFD). The reason for the local NOI only is apparently the
waiver request for a well within the 25 foot undisturbed
buffer.
~tUt::"ilCql
~ ~TUC 18,.~
.,," ~ ~...-tt.>-~.
~. <>, "'''f,~
~~. ... ~
~~!, " \~':
:;rO:~.'~ A_:1JI1
.~~';~;. -
~I-i~-~~:' ..
~ . ~ ~~~.,~. ; ~ $
~ ~~. ~';:,o~ l~~
1G.Yd... ~"iJ?-...,'O :>
'r.. 0". ... ~~..
'~ ~p"""'''e.". ~
1'3..' ORA1.. "....
~-,.UQ:U'''~,
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228- 7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nan tucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes October 26, 1989 Page 15
Mr. Emack states that the filing is for a four bedroom
house, septic, brushcutting. Meets all the local requirements.
Well drilling will not disturb the wetland, the truck could
sit on the road to do the drilling. He said his firm
interprets the local regulations as requiring the filing of an
NOI even if the well were not within the 25-foot buffer.
Mr. Dunwiddie reads inspection report.
Mr. Emack comments that there are no house plans at this
time. Wetland scenic views not a problem and do not need to be
considered. Brushcutting is in grey area on the plans. There
will be some slight regrading with the 50 foot area. A silt
fence will be in place and there will be a 25 foot undisturbed
buffer.
MOTION: To close the hearing and draft an Order of
Conditions was made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
C. EXECUTIVE SESSION - PENDING LITIGATION
Not held -- The members present decided that it would be
more appropriate to wait until a full board is present.
~ REGULAR MEETING
1. REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION
** a. Leinbach - 62 Monomoy Road (43-43,44,51,53>
Mr. McKelway comments that this is a house that we approved
second floor deck with sonotubes. There are some problems with
abutter notification but they seem to be minor. The agent
~equests that you approve the project without her being here.
There are two sheds at the edge of salt marsh. She wants to
remove the existing sheds and replace them with one shed on
the same footprint.
'I'1\'U.,3'~.,t..
~ ~..,..UC "~
!>'" r~r>- ;.....!!.~)!'.,
il ~'< ..... .... '\
~~. "7~
:J~! \~~
~O: _:lJIi
~t:i- ") _::i.. i
t:. ..~___~:.....
i,,,... ~...:::..~- ..~..
... ,A,'. - -~=- ..,.. ~
"'y,,... ~~. ..' '0 ~
'" 0". ......~..
~-' ~,;........;'i). ~
~'~ ORAi." "....
-4,q:~I;"~~~
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228- 7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket. Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes October 26, 1989 Page 16
Mr. Wasierski states that this is the same as the file in
Madaket (Topham). She said in the office that it would be no
higher than existing structure.
Mr. Borchert suggests a negative determination will not
alter, to remove sheds and replace with one that is the same
height as existing -- approximately 12 feet from existing
grade, erect a snow fence towards the water side.
MOTION: To issue a negative determination commenting
that the work is within the buffer zone but will not alter,
the work is to remove two sheds and replace them with one
of the same height and on the same footprint, erect a snow
fence on the water side to protect the marsh was made and
seconded.
UNANIMOUS
* b. Michael Hartrick - 31 Baxter Road
(49.2.3-8)
Mr. Dunwiddie reads the inspect report.
Mr. McKelway comments that the addition proposed is on the
landward side of the existing house
MOTION: To issue a negative determination commenting
that the work is within the buffer zone but will not alter
the resource area was made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
* c. Berger/Loftin - Falmouth Avenue - (82-423)
Mr. Richard Loftin was present representing a Mr. Rento
potential purchaser of the property.
Mr. Dunwiddie reads inspection report.
Mr. Loftin adds that his clients want to construct a 4-5
bedroom house. They wanted to be sure that there was no
wetlands involved.
1\,"~::flflJl
~ ...~TUC'-"~
~..: ~ ~"'....::.<')- ~
I 0/ ..... ....~."
.\"~. "1..
:t $!1 ~\~ 0;
gO'~".." .'IJI~
..~. -- ~
. t-i~-.~-q-~:. :
t! · ~ :Z:::-~~~ i : !
~"... ~~~...._ .t...;...
~...... -. -';;06=- ..'^::
~~... ~~, ..''0 ~
if. 0". ." ... ~
"01.._, 'f:/.fi......... \). ~..
.,.,.;rORAlt ~~...'fi
~1q'3lS'~'"
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228- 7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes October 26, 1989 Page 17
MOTION: To issue a negative determination was made and
seconded.
UNANIMOUS
* d. Miles Reis - 10 Tennessee Ave. - (60.1.2-1)
Present was Miles Reis, Jr. owner
Mr. Dunwiddie reads the inspection report.
Mr. Reis comments that he has removed some dirt from under
the house. I went to get a permit to replace the foundation
but was told by the Building Department that I would need a
Determination from you. I am not moving, enlarging, raising
the house, but I am converting it from a pile foundation to a
solid foundation.
MOTION: To issue negative determination commenting that
the work is within the buffer but will not alter the
resource was made and seconded.
UNAN I l"10US
* e. Ingrid Francis - 37 Dukes Road - (56-329)
MOTION: To issue a negative determination was made and
seconded.
UNANIMOUS
2. ORDERS OF CONDITIONS
1. B & M Perry - 4 Midland Ave. - (59.3-170)
Mr. Visco abstains from the discussion.
Mr. McKelway reads the comments from the applicant on the
draft Order of Conditions
#8 Does not matter if it left in.
1l\\~tmUll;11
!ol}~,..l~'LUCI-(~"'#.
." ,~~ ......" )0 ':l..
I'. <>/ ....~ ... 0;,
~~. "7~
!~!, , \~~
l'10:~~J_:IJI!
~I-:~~.. ..
~.\~~~~i~f
t:.",,--. ~~~ ..,...;'"
'(;,1-:', - -~=- .." ~
'r. ".....~...........'O ~
...t.'O.-9n'........:.~. ~~
v",...rORAlw ~.....",
""''''1211'''''
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228- 7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes October 26, 1989 Page 18
#11 add "or to plant a garden"
#13 no need Delete
MOTION: To issue the Order of Conditions with the minor
modifications mentioned above was made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
ADDITIONAL SPECIAL CONDITIONS
BRUCE AND MICHELE PERRY
DEQE FILE NUMBER SE48 - 568
ASSESSOR'S MAP 593, PARCEL 170
4 MIDLAND AVENUE
UNDER THE MASSACHUSETTS WETLANDS PROTECTION ACT
( MGL CHAPTER 131, SECTION 40 )
AND THE WETLANDS BYLAW OF THE TOWN OF NANTUCKET
( CHAPTER 136 )
3. Prior to any activity at the site, a siltation fence or a line
of haybales shall be staked between the project site and the
wetland boundary. 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 the final approved plan.
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
~\"m:c,41
~ ~TUC l,~
~ ,,~......!r.e-t~
I. (,/ ....."f,~".J.
;:~. .. .,
~3r!, \~~
:0:. :::~-;IJI:
U-.- ~.. ..
~ . \ ., - _'"~~~~ i ~ i
"".... ~-,-~- ......
;:. -:,:.. -, ~=- ..." ~
~ Ct.....~......;...ro $
..,~o~p''''''''''~' ~.:-
..&~ OR;.\i"',~..'"''
--....1'1""
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228- 7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes October 26, 1989 Page 19
stated in this Order, the Nantucket Wetlands Bylaw, the
Regulations promulgated under the Bylaw, the Massachusetts
Wetlands Protection Act, and pertinent Massachusetts
regulations (310 CMR 10.00 through 10.99). The Commission 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 the maintenance of construction
equipment, construction debris, and unused paint and paint-
related products shall be collected and disposed of
responsibly off the site. No on-site disposal of these items
is allowed.
9. 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 of in or near a wetland.
10. This Order of Conditions shall apply to any successor in
interest or successor in control of the property.
11. Natural vegetation between the wetland edge and the project
site will be left intact except where it is necessary to
temporarily use this area, or to plant a garden. After
construction, any disturbed area within this buffer area
will be replanted with native plants. There must be a 25-
foot undisturbed buffer zone on the upland side of the
wetland boundary.
~\,~mtll.!.t,
..,....,. ~f>.~lu Clr/!"~
4' ~'/"' ~..>- J~
~~Y "~.1-\
:!~!1,.. ~:
~o:,~~~:IJI!
bt-.~~~~.. ..
1i .\~~~~~~ I:!
"i,,,,,'. ~....:::..:.~~- ..,..,;..
1. 'f,-;'. - -~=- .'^- :::
~ C'.....~-:;>--.....;...'o$
iI'~ Olj>h.......... 'Q' ~.,.
~h."rORAi~ ~,,,~..
"""4.1::':=""
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228-7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes October 26, 1989 Page 20
12. The flow of effluent to the septic system leaching trenches
shall be no greater than whatever maximum flow is
authorized for a four-bedroom home under state and local
law.
UNDER THE NANTUCKET WETLANDS BYLAW ONLY:
The Commission hereby grants the applicant a waiver from Section
2.07(B)(3) and Section 3.02(B)(4) of the Wetlands Protection
Regulations of the Town of Nantucket, under the Nantucket
Wetlands Bylaw (Chapter 136). Section 2.07(B)(3) requires 100
feet between a septic leach facility and a salt pond. Section
3.02(8)(4) requires 100 feet between a septic leach facility and
a vegetated wetland. There has been a clear and convincing
showing by the applicant that there are no reasonable conditions
or alternatives that would allow the project to proceed in
compliance with the regulations and that the proposed project
will not have any adverse effect upon any of the interests
protected by the Bylaw. Therefore, this waiver is granted under
the authority of Section 1.03(F)(1)(a) of the Wetlands Protection
Regulations of the Town of Nantucket.
###
3. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
a. Airport Commission - SE48-349 - Fuel Pipeline
Mr. Dunwiddie comments that I still have some problems with
issuing the Certificate of Compliance at this time. The dye
study had some real fundamental problems. He highlights
comments from a review of the dye study by David Aubrey.
1. depth of the current
2. dye tracer study
3. sediment traps
4. winds data erroneous
""",," ::""~/1
,"'''''...~TUCt..'''''
.1\....r~,. .-...::.t)-~
'- (;) ".-s.~i>
:t:~. "'"P~
.:'1=:1 .~\U\..
"of. ,': ~ilJli
gl-;~' ,"_.c~:'. ::
;'.;, ....
1:0 . ~- :ou...,:~- I".....
1'.~.. ~~~- .'A" $
'" "..... ~~.....,,'O ~
"....oJ9::........;,,~. "'~
Vt\t;,'-ORA1'" ....\'ti
.......Ulll'''~'
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228- 7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Draft Meeting Minutes October 26, 1989 Page 21
Mr. Dunwiddie adds that Aubrey comments that there was some
inept engineering in the study. I have considerable confidence
in Aubrey and little confidence in Forns as a scientist.
Mr. Borchert states that he is in favor of putting the boom
out by the marsh area. Easily done, and not unusual to be
required. Put a barrier boom between dock, pipeline, and the
marsh.
Mr. McKelway adds that even with the little barge they
could not tie it up like it was designed. They had to butt it
up and not tie it to the pilings.
Mr. Visco ask the time and manpower required to put the
boom out.
Mr. Bob Conlin of the Inquirer and Mirror, comments that
the Coast Guard does not want the boom because it causes
complacency.
Mr. Borchert states that he is in favor of issuing
certificate with conditions.
Ms. Cheryl Creighton of the Nantucket Land Council,
suggests that the proposed conditions suggest a date for the
Final EIR. In addition, the conditions could require a new dye
study for this project and not for the commercial pier as in
the old study. Another condition could be for no deliveries
between Dec and March.
MOTION: To issue a Certificate of Compliance with the
special conditions as discussed during the meeting and send
a letter requesting that the Airport Commission respond to
the questions raised by Aubrey in his review of the
microcirculation study was made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
CONTINUING CONDITIONS FOR FILE NO. SE48-349
ISSUED WITH A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE TO THE
NANTUCKET AIRPORT COMMISSION
FOR A TEMPORARY FUEL TRANSFER FACILITY AT
, ..-~M:U::aDII
J-JP;. ,,~TUC.!; I,,>
""'V""'I'" -~ e-.... v,
.<'!i ~ ..r ...
.::r () ".1-~
i~i \"1"\
_. """"- A.(/l~
10: ~c:IJI'"
-_ ,t..._
I-i~ ~:.. ::
;,. ..~___~~ i .~
'i.".~ ~~~4- ........
1.~" ~~=-.l"$
" "..... -,- .......'0 ~
~~O~p"""""~' ~..
'l:._ 0I'/Al'E. ~~.......
.....f.I:~l..'I~
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228- 7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Draft Meeting Minutes October 26, 1989 Page 22
WASHINGTON STREET EXTENSION
ASSESSOR'S MAP 55.1.4, PARCEL 9.2
Under the authority of Special Condition #3 of the Order of
Conditions, this facility is subject to review by the Nantucket
Conservation Commission or its agent in order to determine if
this temporary method of fuel transfer should continue. The
facility will be inspected at least quarterly, during fuel
transfer operations, and reviewed by the Conservation Commission
at a public meeting at least once a year, every June. For
purposes of such review, the applicant shall:
1. Obtain written permission from the Conservation Commission
before performing any new work at the site.
2. Forward the Conservation Commission copies of any and all
correspondence to and from the Coast Guard regarding this
facility.
3. Notify the staff of the Conservation Commission before each
fuel offloading.
4. Notify the staff of the Conservation Commission immediately
after any spillage of fuel, no matter how small.
5. Refrain from the transfer of fuel between December 15th and
March 15th.
6. Before March 1, 1990, file the Final Environmental Impact
Report for this project with the Executive Office
Environmental Affairs of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
This document must respond to every point raised in the
Certificate on the Draft Environmental Impact Report signed
April 5, 1989, by Secretary of Environmental Affairs John
DeVillars. It must include the results of a new micro-
circulation study, using dye, specifically designed for the
surface water in the vicinity of the pipeline, because the
previous study was seriously flawed.
7. Dismantle and remove the facility by July 30, 1993, after
filing a Notice of Intent with the Conservation Commission and
receiving a permit (Order of Conditions) for the work, unless
the facility is granted permanent status by all necessary
""t~m~/1
..tJI> "'NTUC'-"~
.~~~...~)-~
/. (:" "~1-~~
$tl ...~
_ .~.,.,. \(JI;
0:. ." _:IJI~
il-:~~~:. I:
~. \~~~;2:5! ~~
~,-.. ~~!?---'.....- .,..,.~
""1-.'. - -~=- l" :::
" "..... ~~. .........'0 ~
...~ Olj)::...........("\. ~...
..~ rORAit\l~.."
~It:" lI"t~""
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228- 7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Draft Meeting Minutes October 26, 1989 Page 23
state and local agencies before that date. Regardless of when
the facility is removed, the dismantling and removal requires
a separate permit from the Conservation Commission.
Failure to uphold any of the above requirements shall result in
the revocation of the permit for this facility, in accordance
with Chapter 136, Section 4(E) of the Code of the Town of
Nantucket. The applicant will also be subject to fines under
state and local law.
###
b. Taylor - 61 Hulbert Avenue SE48-397 (29-10) Pier floats
Mr. McKelway comments that the floating section is two feet
to long. There are more pilings than approved by the
settlement.
Mr. Dunwiddie comments that the Commission should hold them
to the length approved.
Mr. McKelway adds that Mr. Forns had suggested that two
feet of the floats be installed under the landward side of the
dock so that the floats don't stick out into the harbor any
more than they would have if they had been constructed to the
right length.
MOTION: To deny the request for the Certificate of
Compliance and require that the floats and pier be changed
to comply with the approved design.
UNANIMOUS
c. Norwood Farm Realty Trust Miacomet Ave. SE48-52 (67-49)
Mr. McKelway summarizes the situation. Two Orders were
issued two years apart, apparently for the same work. The
attorney for the owner of a lot now wants a clear title.
MOTION: To sign a new Order of Conditions with the on-
going conditions for the work to clear up the problem was
made and seconded.
,,-~'UC""'"
~~~TUC ,~
~()~~...~~
,~v .1-~
i!3:!1 \~~
!OL~-ilJl!
\I-.~~.. .
.\4-~~$I~!
",.~~..::.;:-~.,.."....
<c.~.. '--.,,--~~ ...,..,.:'
~ "..... ~-=>-, .........'O,i
.."....o~::........;;~. !Io4'
-'b...rORA1~ it......
-oq..." 11""-
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228- 7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Draft Meeting Minutes October 26, 1989 Page 24
UNANIMOUS
4. EXTENSION PERMIT
a. Briskman - 2 Long Pond Drive - SE48-321 (59-28)
Present for the applicant was Melissa Philbrick of
Vaughan, Dale & Philbrick.
Mrs. Philbrick states that work has not begun. The
applicants cannot financially proceed with the project at this
time.
Mr. Dunwiddie comments that an extension was granted last
year.
Mrs. Philbrick states that at that time the applicants
pulled the house back, changed the septic plan, limited height
to only 25 feet.
Mr. McKelway states that this request needs to be
considered carefully. A solid stand of sweet pepperbush was
apparently not included as a wetland species at the time of
filing. The wetland boundaries are 25 feet closer than on the
map. The existing plans for the septic system would not meet
the lOO-foot setback and the house would need a waiver also.
Mr. Dunwiddie reiterates his stand on the extension
process: Rules have changed, so when a permit expires the
applicant should start over with a new application under the
new rules. In reading the old minutes it is obvious that the
Commission had reservations even last year.
Mrs. Philbrick states that if there is a change in
conditions at the site, I would like the opportunity to talk
with my clients and have Glen Wills come out with the
Commission and inspect the property.
Mr. McKelway responds that it is rare that we get one that
is as clear cut as this one. There are so many reasons to deny
this. No wark has begun; the local septic rules have changed;
and wildlife is now a protected interest under state
regulations.
....',":....,,/
~ellTUC ,~
~ ()~ ~...-tt,;'~
I~y '\1-1-
~.H1 ,~':.
t-O!. -ilJl!
1-..,,,, ::i!i.,. !f
.\., -..,.-.
..........,::...---- ~-:.......
v\ ~~=-- /" ~
~",... ~-"'", ..' '0 :'
.. 0'" .......~
~. ~p"""''';.~' ~
.,,.,~, 0 R A 1'" ........
-.......u.."..
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228- 7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Draft Meeting Minutes October 26, 1989 Page 25
Mrs. Philbrick responds that I have to go back to my
clients and try to explain to them why they cannot build on
the lot. They have been not financially able start the
project. They have no intention in starting the work in the
next two weeks
MOTION: To continue the hearing for two weeks for
additional information and a field inspection by the
Commission was made and seconded.
Mr. Borchert opposed and the remaining Commissioners
were in favor, with the Chairman not voting
5. OTHER BUSINESS
a. Regulation and Fee Change Public Hearing
Mr. McKelway comments that most of the changes could be
handled through policy.
Mr. Wasierski recommends a public hearing on all the
suggested changes.
MOTION: To advertise the entire list was made and
seconded.
UNANIMOUS
b. Cattail removal Madaket Bridges -
Mr. McKelway said he has not yet called various contractors
to ascertain the cost of removing some cattails at first
bridge. Carl Borchert told him to get estimates for the
removal of stones from the channel, too, at both bridges. Ben
agreed to this.
c. Tristrams Long Pond Owners - Amend Order of Conditions?
not discussed because Commissioners were anxious to adjourn.
6. CORRESPONDENCE - not discussed.
"
...,,,ue~
~~~TUC ,~
~.. ~ ~...-!!..<'~
'- (,}- .....1, '\-s,
itl "."p~
"o'~\U\;'
1:1 i ' _:IJI;a
1:r-t~~=~--.:: ~:. :
1;, . t -,..".,~~~ - '. /'. If
" .~_--...-..- - ~- ,.,....
~~" ~~"'"- i^- ~
" <:-..... -;>t:::~, ..........'0.:'
;r".,O~::..........~. $
.,,.~ORA1'" it"'"
-..........11'''.
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228-7230
6 Chestnut Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Draft Meeting Minutes October 26, 1989 Page 26
7. MINUTES: for September 28, 1989 -
Approved, but these minutes had already been approved
previously. The old date was left on the agenda. October 12
minutes must still be approved.
8. BILLS TO BE PAID - some bills were signed.
9. FIELD INSPECTIONS - Monday, November 6, 1989 4PM
Adjournment at approximately 11 p.m.