Loading...
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.