HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-12-01
~ ''"''
j
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
Town and County Building
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
AGENDA FOR DECEMBER 1, 1988
Executive Session - litigation
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. K. Roosevelt, Jr. et al - SEi!8-522 -Baxter Rd. (73.1.~-11.1 & 11.2)
2. V. Linburg - SEi!8-51i! - 31 Codf Pk Rd (73.1.3-11)
3. W Harborfront Nom Tr - SE~8-520 - Lot 20 - Polpis Rd. (26-22)
i!. Quaise Pasture Nom Tr - SEi!8-518 - Lot 21 - Polpis Rd. (26-22)
5. Mako Nominee Trust - SEi!8-521 - Lot 22 - Polpis Rd. (26-22)
6. Shallow Harbor Nom Tr - SEi!8-517 - Lot 23 - Polpis Rd. (26-22)
7. Harbor Breeze Nom Tr - SEi!8-519 - Lot 2i! - Polpis Rd. (26-22)
8. Miapolset Realty Tr. - SEi!8-523 - 16 Fulling Mill Rd. (27-23.2)
9. Petrucci/Bixler - SEi!8-52i! - 59 Monomoy Road (~3-36)
B. REGULAR MEETING
1. Requests for Determination
a. Thomas V. Lefevre - Gardner Road (~3-132)
b. Lowry/Nee Properties - New Hummock Circle (56-363)
c. Alan & Bonita Bell - 3 New Hummock Circle (56-365)
d. Harold Wheldon - li! Baltimore St. (60.2.~-72)
e. John & Vanna Nightingale - 16 Columbus Ave. (59.3-171)
2. Orders of Conditions
a. Michael Bloomberg - SEi!8-512 - 7 St. Elmo Lane (~9-185)
b. Mary S. Huffman - SEi!8-515 - Jefferson Ave. (30-~5 & ~6)
3. Planning Board Referrals
a. Kenneth W. Holdgate - off Knotty Pines Road
b. Fintry Lane - off Douglas Way
i!. Other Business
a. Wauwinet Tr.- SE~8-l.t82 (11-17) - rnnr modif. platform,planks
b. DeBenedictus - SEl.t8-3~0 (21-19) - discussion
c. Taylor - SEl.t8-397 (29-10) discussion
d. Booker - SEi!8-l.t20 (80-~1) - req. for minor modification
e. Consue Springs - discussion
f. Nantucket Commons - discussion
g. Wayne Dupont - SEi!8-~60 - 7 Codf Pk Rd (73.2.l.t-12) discussion
h. Lugosch - SE~8-379 - 15 Fulling Mill Rd (27-23.1) discussion
i. FY 1990 Budget - discussion
j. Comments, questions from press and public
5. Correspo~dence
6. Minutes of November 10, 1988
7. Bills to be paid
8. Field Inspections - set date - Dec. 12 OK?
:~
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
Town and County Building
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Minutes of December 1, 1988 Page 1
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 1, 1988
The regular meeting of December 1, 1988 was called to order at 7:35 PM.
Members present were: Bill Willet - Chairman, Peter W. Dunwiddie, Lee
Dunn, Donald Visco, Henry Wasierski, Carl Borchert and Granville
Cranston. Members absent were: none. Administrator present: Ben
McKelway. Recording secretary: Marcia J. Litchfield.
A motion was made to go into Executive Session to discuss litigation at
7:36 PM. The motion was carried. Minutes of the Executive Session are
recorded in a separate file under this date.
A motion was made to reconvene the regular meeting at 7:45 PM. The.
motion was carried. Another motion was made to discontinue the
tape-recording of all Conservation Commission meetings from this date
forward. The, motion was carried.
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. K. Roosevelt, Jr. et al - SEi!8-522 - Baxter Road (73.1.i!-11.1 &
11.2) Donald Visco abstained from the hearing. John Shugrue was
present as agent for the applicant. A motion was made to close
the hearing. The motion was carried.
2. V. Linburg - Se48-51i! - 31 Codfish Park Road (73.1.3-11). John
Shugrue was present as agent for the applicant and said he was
still working on revised plans. Ben McKelway said he had viewed
the site again to take specific measurements and had recorded
them on the front of the file for the Commission's consideration.
Mr. Shugrue stated the new dwelling would not exceed the height
of the old one.
Henry Wasierski was concerned about the elevation and wetland
scenic views in the area. A motion was made to continue the
hearing with the consent of the applicant for receipt of:
_.
')
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
Town and County Building
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Minutes of December 1, 1988 Page 2
1) plans showing the new dwelling to be no closer to the
landward edge of the dune or higher than the existing
dwelling.
2) confirmed ridge line elevations of the new dwelling.
The motion was carried.
3. W. Harborfront Nominee Trust - SEi!8-520 - Lot 20 - Polpis Road
(26-22);~. Quaise Pasture Nominee Trust - SE~8-518 - Lot 21 -
Polpis Road (26-22); 5. Mako Nominee Trust - SE~8-521 - Lot 22 -
Polpis Road (26-22); 6. Shallow Harbor Nominee Trust - SE~8-517
Lot 23 - Polpis Road (26-22); and 7. Harbor Breeze Nominee Trust
- SEi!8-519 - Lot 2i! - Polpis Road (26-22).
Donald Visco abstained from the hearings and requested permission
to remain available to answer any direct questions about septic
systems or soils on the lots. Permission was granted by the
Chairman. Lee Dunn abstained from the hearings.
Melissa Philbrick of Vaughan, Dale and Philbrick was present as
agent with applicant, Randy Sharp. Tina Coughanowr was also
present as a geologist and wetland scientist for the applicant.
Jeffrey Blackwell of Hart-Blackwell was also present as agent.
NOTE: The following general discussion applies to all 5 lots:
Ms Philbrick gave a brief description of the 5 applications. She
stressed that while they were obviously being marketed for
development, she thought it was important for the Commission to
understand that, because these are waterfront properties, they
will invevitably be brought before the Commission by someone.
She argued it would be in the best interest of wetlands
protection to work with this particular applicant in developing
.........~~.
/)
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
Town and County Building
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Minutes of December 1, 1988 Page 3
long-range plans for the property. She said the applicant is
comfortable with the notion of imposing deed restrictions to
limit future subdivisions on the lots, he is presenting a
relatively low-density project which minimizes visual impacts,
and the project is designed with an eye for minimizing the need
for waivers. She felt this was a good opportunity for the ConCom
to work with an applicant sympathetic to the resource values of
the area, and suggested other applicants may not be.
Carl Borchert asked, of the 32 acres, how many acres are wetland?
Ms Philbrick said this was still an unknown at this point because
she realized some areas have been poorly surveyed as she looked
over the plans. Ben McKelway said the ConCom was promised a
composite map made up of a topographic map with the lot lines
superimposed over it. Ms Philbrick asked if the 100-scale plan
which had been submitted was not good enough. Carl Borchert
said no, not really.
Ms Coughanowr summarized changes made to the plans on the wetland
boundaries resulting from a recent site meeting of herself and
Peter Dunwiddie, plant ecologist and Vice Chairman of the
Commission. She said the area contained nearly every type of
fresh and salt water wetland with which she was familiar. She
described the technique she used to delineate the boundaries
which involved examination of both dominant plant species and the
distribution of soil types. The day prior to the site visit, the
area had received about i!" of rain which made for good conditions
for viewing the boundaries. She added that generally Peter
tended to be more conservative than she in cases of disagreement.
Peter Dunwiddie described the methods he had used to delineate
the boundaries. He said delineating wetlands is like trying to
convert gray areas into hard lines. He had differed many of Ms
Coughanowr's markers by as much as 6 - 10 ft. He said the Mass
Association of Conservation Commissions advocates using "the 50%
rule" of dominant wetland species, which he used. Peter said he
also tends to give consideration to certain wetland plant species
that can occur outside wetlands as indicators. Although Ms
Coughanowr's delineations may be regarded as being just as
,/
-....,
\
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
Town and County Building
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Minutes of December 1, 1988 Page ~
correct, he did not use soil types as criteria in his
determinations, since the state regulations do not regard them as
indicators of wetlands. He had been necessarily conservative
because he felt it was incumbent on the ConCorn to be as
conservative as possible to protect wetlands.
There was general discussion about building envelopes. Ms
Philbrick stated all structures including garages, decks, etc.
would be completely inside them. She felt there was no need to
provide specific house plans at this stage of the projects.
A request from the audience was made to hang the general plan of
the 5 lots up on the board in view of all.
NOTE: Specific discussion on each of the 5 lots occurred as below:
Lot 20:
Ms Coughanowr had drawn the changes to all wetland boundaries
on the plan in orange, whereas the original boundaries appeared
in green. She said there had been one change to the wetland
boundary resulting in a change to the building envelope on this
lot. Ms Philbrick submitted a footprint for a 3000 sq ft
dwelling.
Carl Borchert stressed the intense wildlife value of this lot as
well as the others. He estimated there were 3-l.!- acres of dense
tupelo grove and many wild cranberry bogs on the lot. Carl
wanted to restrict access down to the water and not allow any
boat ramps. Mr Sharp suggested having hand-cut paths only.
There was discussion about from which grade the height of the
proposed dwelling had been measured. The applicant was asked to
somehow represent how the dwellings would look from a public
view. Peter Dunwiddie asked what the surfacing of the driveway
would be. Ms Philbrick said crushed stone, shell or gravel as
per the work description in the application. The septic system
on this lot would be greater than 100 ft away from the wetland.
.,
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
Town and County Building
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Minutes of December 1, 1988 Page 5
Lot 21:
Ms Coughanowr had had some discrepancy with the wetland
boundaries at the site meeting with Peter Dunwiddie. They
disagreed on whether the driveway site was classified as wetland
or upland. She felt it was upland based on soils and hydrology.
A waiver was requested for 2 sites along the driveway. The pink
line on the plan represented the lOa-year flood plain
delineation.
Ben McKelway said the ConCom could restrict any building below
the 8-foot contour line as provided by the Nantucket Wetlands
Protection Regulations. Ms Coughanowr said she had interpreted
the regulations somewhat differently and proceeded to read the
pertinent sections: in sec. 2.10 B - #1 - "The work shall not
reduce the ability of the land to absorb and contain floodwaters,
or to buffer inland areas from flooding and wave damage," and #5
- "The Commission may impose such additional requirements as are
necessary to protect the Interests Protected By the Bylaw." It
was agreed, however, that the final outcome was at the discretion
of the Commission and could not be predicted.
Questions about the ditch flowing through the site were
discussed. Ms Coughanowr said it was hand-dug originally, there
was no defined channel, and since she could not determine any
true water flow through it, it did not constitute a stream. It
did not appear to connect two water bodies or flow into Polpis
Harbor.
Peter Dunwiddie and Carl Borchert wanted to know why the land
around the dwelling needed regrading. Jeff Blackwell said there
would be too steep a slope around one side of the house without
regrading and it was generally not regarded as desireable to dig
a house down into the grade. Peter thought the house could be
partially submerged which would help to lower the elevation of
the house and prevent the sort of activity which invites problems
later such as erosion.
.~
' \
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
Town and County Building
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Minutes of December 1, 1988 Page 6
Ms Coughanowr discussed the driveway passing through the
wetlands. Natural vegetation would be allowed to grow up to the
driveway edge. The only possible pollutants would be exhaust
from passing cars which she said would be easily assimilated.
The hydrolic connection between the two wetlands was somewhat
peculiar because one was higher than the other. She offered to
do a hydrologic transect if necessary. Wildlife observed
consisted of pheasants, songbirds and cottontail rabbits and
she claimed impacts on wildlife would be minimal, consisting only
of occasional noise from passing cars and some minor
displacement.
Peter Dunwiddie said it was difficult in places to determine the
wetland boundaries because brushcutting had occurred in the
wetlands. There was wetland shrub vegetation on both sides of
the proposed driveway, including grapevines and bayberry which he
classified as wetland plant species, since they grow in both
wetland and upland sites here on Nantucket. Ms Coughanowr added
that this may not be a truly functional wetland.
Carl Borchert was still disturbed by the fact that brushcutting
had occurred in the resource area, especially considering that
originally the ConCom had specifically requested that the
brushcutter be turned off or raised in certain areas. Ms
Coughanowr said this was not one of those areas.
Ms Philbrick said a waiver was being requested regardless of any
discrepancies in the wetland boundaries. She said the applicant
would consider compensation in the form of restrictions to future
development on the lot. A compensatory buffer zone would be
considered. She felt this 10-acre site was unique enough so as
to not set any precedents if a waiver were granted.
Carl Borchert and Henry Wasierski asked if siting the house on
another knoll had been considered. Ms Philbrick said it had,
however did not seem as desireable, for the house would be even
more visible from Polpis Road than the present site. Ben
McKelway was asked to read the section in the Regulations on
"-
F
^'~
(. \
I
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
Town and County Building
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Minutes of December 1, 1988 Page 7
waivers, after which Ms Philbrick said all of items a, b, and c
are separate reasons for granting a waiver, of which she was
requesting (c.) which read, "The Commission may impose additional
conditions in granting a permit pursuant to this Section,
including imposing limits on project size or effect or requiring
other compensatory measures, such as wetland replication." Carl
wanted the applicant to propose compensation measures for any
possible adverse effects on wetlands on each of the 5 lots.
Lot II and Lot n:
The septic system on this lot would be greater than 100 ft away
from the wetland. Peter Dunwiddie thought the wetland boundaries
looked OK. The subject of paths down to the water was discussed
as with Lot 20.
Lynn Zimmerman of the Nantucket Land Council was concerned with
wetland scenic views. Would the houses be seen from the road?
Ms Philbrick said it was beneficial that the houses were not
clustered. They would range 22 - 26 ft in height. Henry
Wasierski asked what was the elevation of the road. Jeff
Blackwell said it was about 20 ft. and that elevation to
groundwater was 11.9 ft. Peter Dunwiddie said it would be helpful
to have photos with the proposed dwellings drawn in to determine
impact on wetland scenic views.
Lot 2i!:
A motion was made to continue the hearing until the December 15,
1988 meeting. The motion was carried.
NOTE: A motion was made to continue all 5 hearings for the following
information:
1) projected ridge heights of the proposed dwellings and
grade elevations;
2) alternative grading plans;
3) visual representation of the dwellings to aid in
"-
'I
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
Town and County Building
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Minutes of December 1, 1988 Page 8
determining impact on wetland scenic views
~) proposed compensation measures for any possible adverse
effects on wetlands on each of the 5 lots.
The motion was carried.
8. Miapolset Realty Trust - SE~8-523 - 16 Fulling Mill Road
(27-23.2). Melissa Philbrick of Vaughan, Dale and Philbrick
and John Shugrue were present as agents for applicant, Edward
Toole.
Ms Philbrick gave a brief history of the lot, which had had a
previous Notice of Intent filed several years ago. This new
Notice proposed a new house site which pulled it back outside the
50 ft setback from wetlands. Mr Shugrue said the house would be
58 ft at its closest point and would be less than 30 ft in
height. Several cedar trees ranging in diameter from 5 - 7
inches would have to be removed to allow the house at the
proposed site, however the applicant saw this as preferable to
placing the house closer to the wetland.
After some discussion, a motion was made to close the hearing.
The motion was carried.
9. Petrucci/Bixler - SEi!8-52~ - 59 Monomoy Road (~3-36). Melissa
Philbrick of Vaughan, Dale and Philbrick, Katie Barnicle of IEP
and John Shugrue were present as agents for the applicant.
Mr Shugrue said there was still some question about exactly what
would be removed. Donald Visco said if this is a
lawfully-existing septic system which is being reconstructed at a
different site in order to comply with Title V, then the ConCom
should have no problems with it.
Ms Barnicle submitted a description of site conditions and
mitigative measures for the project. Carl Borchert asked Mr
Shugrue to supply the ConCom with another copy of a plan
destroyed by rain on a recent field inspection. There was
.....,.
, '----.
'. t
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
Town and County Building
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Minutes of December 1, 1988 Page 9
discussion about the new vs. the old septic systems and the
minimal distance to the wetland. Mr Shugrue said the house will
be less than 30 ft high.
A motion was made to close the hearing. The motion was carried.
Ben McKelway was asked to draft an Order of Conditions which
specified the exact expansion area.
B. REGULAR MEETING
1. Requests for Determination
a. Thomas V. Lefevre - Gardner Road (i!3-132). Robert Emack of
Nantucket Surveyors was present as agent for the applicant and
requested another field inspection when the Commissioners could
be present. He said the applicant had agreed to waive the 21-day
period during which a Determination normally must be issued after
the Request is received.
Ben McKelway drew on the board a brief description of the lot and
said the project requires removal of some of the slope. A motion
was made to continue issuance of a Determination until the
December 15, 1988 meeting. The motion was carried.
b. Lowry/Nee Properties - New Hummock Circle (56-363). Glen Wills
of Nantucket Surveyors was present as agent for the applicant. A
motion was made to issue a negative Determination stating the
work described in the request is within the Buffer Zone, as
defined in the regulations, but will not alter an Area Subject to
Protection Under the Act. Therefore, said work does not require
the filing of a Notice of Intent. The motion was carried.
c. Alan & Bonita Bell - 3 New Hummock Circle (56-365). Glen Wills
of Nantucket Surveyors was present as agent for the applicant. A
motion was made to issue a negative Determination stating the
work described in the request is within the Buffer Zone, as
defined in the regulations, but will not alter an Area Subject to
Protection Under the Act. Therefore, said work does not require
the filing of a Notice of Intent. The motion was carried.
'--.
I'
'-
')
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
Town and County Building
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Minutes'of December 1, 1988 Page 10
d. Harold Wheldon - li! Baltimore St. (60.2.~-72). Michael Bachman
was present as agent with applicant, Harold Wheldon. Mr Bachman
drew in a siltation fence on the plan. A motion was made to
issue a negative Determination with a special note stating the
work described in the request is within an Area Subject to
Protection Under the Act, but will not remove, fill, dredge, or
alter that area. Therefore, said work does not require the
filing of a Notice of Intent. NOTE: All work is to be done
according to "Plan Showing Existing Conditions in Nantucket,
Massachusetts for Harold Wheldon" by Nantucket Surveyors, Inc.,
dated April 15, 1988 and revised at the Commission's meeting
December 1, 1988, to show the siltation fence (in pencil). The
siltation fence shall be in place before work begins, and there
shall be not activity on the wetland side of the fence. The
motion was carried.
e. John and Vanna Nightingale - 16 Columbus Ave. (59.3-171).
Aileen Barth of Aileen Barth and Associates was present as agent
for the applicant. A motion was made to issue a negative
Determination with a special note stating the work described in
the request is within the Buffer Zone, as defined in the
regulations, but will not alter an Area Subject to Protection
Under the Act. Therefore, said work does not require the filing
of a Notice of Intent. NOTE: There shall be a row of haybales
staked along the edge of the lawn prior to any construction. The
motion carried.
2. Orders of Conditions
a. Michael Bloomberg - SE~8-512 - 7 St. Elmo Lane (~9-185). A
motion was made to accept Alternative Plan #l.t and issue an Order
of Conditions as follows:
ADDITIONAL SPECIAL CONDITIONS
DEQE FILE NUMBER SEi!8-512
MICHAEL BLOOMBERG
ASSESSOR'S MAP i!9, PARCEL 185
7 ST. ELMO LANE, NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS
UNDER THE MASSACHUSETTS WETLANDS PROTECTION ACT (MGL CHAP.131,
SEC.i!O) AND THE WETLANDS BYLAW OF THE TOWN OF NANTUCKET (CHAPTER
136)
/'-'"
: \
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
Town and County Building
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Minutes of December 1, 1988 Page 11
The Commission hereby grants the applicant a waiver from Section
3.02(B)(1), Section 3.02(B)(2), and Section 3.03(B)(2) of the
Wetlands Protection Regulations of the Town of Nantucket.
Section 3.02(B)(1) requires a 25-foot natural undisturbed area
adjacent to a vegetated wetland. Section 3.02(B)(2) prohibits
changing the rate of the water flow. Section 3.03(B)(2) requires
a 25-foot natural undisturbed area adjacent to a ditch. The
above regulations are waived because 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, as long as the project is
completed in accordance with all conditions. Therefore, a waiver
is granted under the authority of Section 1.03(F)(1)(A) of the
Wetlands Protection Regulations of the Town of Nantucket.
The project is approved in accordance with the "Enviromental
(sic) Submission Plan Alternative Four - Conforming Dwelling,"
though this plan bears little resemblance to the Notice of
Intent. The project is approved only with the general and
special conditions on Form 5 and the following additional special
conditions:
3. In accordance with promises by the applicant's representative at
the public hearing, no filling, piping, or grading is allowed,
with the exception of the small section of the existing ditch to
be crossed by the driveway. Under the Massachusetts Wetlands
Protection Act Regulations (310 CMR 10.5~), the Commission hereby
determines that less than 50 feet of the inland bank on the
property may be altered during construction of the driveway
without impairing the bank's capacity to provide important
wildlife habitat functions. However, the bank may only be
altered where the driveway passes over the existing ditch. The
rest of the existing ditch shall remain undisturbed.
. ----..
, )
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
Town and County Building
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Minutes of December 1, 1988 Page 12
~. The waiver of the 25-foot undisturbed buffer requirement shall
apply only to the driveway, not to the house. In other words,
there must be a 25-food natural undisturbed area between the
wetland and the house, as shown on the plan.
5. The driveway must be constructed with a drainage swale along the
property line, as shown on "Environmental Submission Plan
Alternative Six, Showing Existing Dwelling Scaled Down, Erosion
and Sedimentation Controls, and Driveway Cross Sections." Please
note, however, that the approved house footprint is on
Alternative Four, cited above.
6. The house may be no closer than 50 feet to the wetland, as shown
on the plan.
7. Prior to any activity at the site, a line of haybales shall be
staked where shown on the plan (Alternative Six). After the
haybales are installed, notice shall be given to the Nantucket
Conservation Commission. No work shall begin on the site for ~8
hours after said notice is given, so as to allow the Commission
members time to inspect the haybales and any other siltation
devices.
8. The haybale line, erected to mitigate for any siltation which
might wash into the wetland during construction, will also serve
as a limit of construction for work crews. The haybale line
shall remain in good repair during all phases of construction,
and it shall not be removed until all soils are stabilized and
seeded or until permission to remove it is given by the
Commission.
9. Prior to any activity at the site, the applicant shall present a
final plan for this project, as approved by this Order, which is
signed and stamped by a registered professional engineer.
10. 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
"'-
:',
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
Town and County Building
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Minutes of December 1, 1988 Page 13
written request for a Certificate of Compliance and shall specify
how the completed plan differs from that shown on the plans
referred to in the Order of Conditions. The as-built plan shall
include, but not be limited to, the following: all pipe/culvert
inverts for inflow and outfalls, pipe slope, size and
composition; location of other drainage structures and their
composition; limits of fill or alteration; location of structure
and pavement within 100 feet of wetland; the edge of the wetland:
the grade contours within 100 feet of the wetland.
11. Members and agents of the Commission shall have the right to
enter and inspect the premises to evaluate compliance with the
conditions and performance standards stated in this Order and the
Nantucket Wetlands Regulations and may require the submittal of
any data deemed necessary by the Commission for that evaluation.
12. 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 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 maintenance conditions are complied with as required by
this Order.
13. This document shall be included in all construction contracts and
subcontracts dealing with the work proposed and shall supersede
other contract requirements.
1~. Used petroleum products from the maintenance of construction
equipment and construction debris shall be collected and disposed
of off-site. No on-site disposal of these items is allowed.
15. Dust control, if required, shall be limited to water. No salts
or other wetting agents shall be used.
16. 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 the area designated as wetland.
(~
. '\
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
Town and County Building
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Minutes of December 1, 1988 Page 1~
17. This Order of Conditions shall apply to any successor in interest
or successor in control of the property.
The motion was carried.
b. Mary S. Huffman - SE~8-S1S - Jefferson Ave. (30-~S & ~6). Two
draft Orders written by Ben McKelway were discussed. A motion
was made to accept the draft approving the project and granting a
waiver, written as follows:
ADDITIONAL SPECIAL CONDITIONS
DEQE FILE NUMBER SE~8-S1S
MARY S. HUFFMAN
ASSESSOR'S MAP 30, PARCELS ~S & ~6
JEFFERSON AVENUE, NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS
UNDER THE MASSACHUSETTS WETLANDS PROTECTION ACT (MGL CHAP.
131,SEC.~0)
AND THE WETLANDS BYLAW OF THE TOWN OF NANTUCKET (CHAPTER 136)
The Commission hereby grants the applicant a waiver from Sections
2.03(B)(7), 2.03(B)(i!), 2.0i!(B)(S), 2.0~(B)(7), and 2.0i!(B)(2) of
the Wetlands Protection Regulations of the Town of Nantucket,
under the Nantucket Wetlands Bylaw (Chapter 136). Section
2.03(B)(7) prohibits building on or within SO feet of a Coastal
Dune, other than the maintenance and repair of an existing
structure. Section 2.03(B)(~) allows fill only for beach and
dune nourishment projects. Section 2.0l.t(B)(S) prohibits new
projects that require periodic sand removal for maintenance.
Section 2.0l.t(B)(7) requires that the Barrier Beach be restored to
its original form and volume. Section 2.0~(B)(2) allows fill
only for beach and dune nourishment projects.
The above regulations are waived because 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, a waiver is
')
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
Town and County Building
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Minutes of December 1, 1988 Page 15
granted under the authority of Section 1.03(F)(1)(a) of the
Wetlands Protection Regulations of the Town of Nantucket.
The project is approved in accordance with the Notice of Intent
and all attachments, correspondence and specifications, the most
recent plans cited on Form 5, the general and special conditions
on Form 5, and the following additional special conditions:
3. No coastal engineering structure, such as a bulkhead, revetment,
or seawall, shall be permitted on the applicant's property at any
time in the future.
~. Periodic sand removal from the parking lot is allowed
indefinitely, as needed. However, the parking lot may never be
expanded again in the future. Asphalt that is covered with sand
but not proposed to be uncovered under this Notice of Intent
shall remain covered unless removed by natural forces.
5. All disturbed areas shall be stabilized with Rosa rugosa,
American beach grass, or other suitable vegetation after
completion of the two projects.
6. Any change made or intended to be made in the plans shall require
the applicant to file a new Notice of Intent or to inquire of the
Conservation Commission in writing whether the change is
substantial enough to require a new filing.
7. An as-built plan, signed and stamped by a registered professional
engineer or land surveyor in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
shall be submitted to the Commission at the same time as a
written request for a Certificate of Compliance and shall specify
how the completed plan differs from that shown on the plans
referred to in the Order of Conditions. The as-built plan shall
include, but not be limited to, the following: all pipe/culvert
inverts for inflow and outfalls, pipe slope, size and
composition; location of other drainage structures and their
composition; limits of fill or alteration; location of struQture
and pavement within 100 feet of any resource area; the edge of
the resource area; the grade contours within 100 feet of the
resource area.
I')
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
Town and County Building
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Minutes of December 1, 1988 Page 16
8. Members and agents of the Commission shall have the right to
enter and inspect the premises to evaluate compliance with the
conditions and performance standards stated in this Order and the
Nantucket Wetlands Protection Regulations and may require the
submittal of any data deemed necessary by the Commission for that
evaluation.
9. The applicant, owners, successors or assignees shall be
responsible for maintaining all on-site drainage structures and
outfalls, assuring the lasting integrity of vegetative cover on
the site and 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
maintenance conditions are complied with as required by this
Order.
10. This document shall be included in all construction contracts and
subcontracts dealing with the work proposed and shall supersede
other contract requirements.
11. Used petroleum products from the maintenance of construction
equipment and construction debris shall be collected and disposed
of off-site. No on-site disposal of these items is allowed.
12. Dust control, if required, shall be limited to water. No salts
or other wetting agents shall be used.
13. Any refuse material found on the site shall be disposed of at an
approved landfill and in no case will these materials be buried
or disposed of in or near the area designated as wetland.
li!. This Order of Conditions shall apply to any successor in interest
or successor in control of the property.
The motion was seconded. Peter Dunwiddie opposed, Lee Dunn and
Henry Wasierski abstained from the vote, and the motion was
carried.
_.
~~
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
Town and County Building
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Minutes of..December 1, 1988 Page 17
3. Planning Board Referrals
a. Kenneth W. Holdgate - off Knotty Pines Road. A motion was made
to send a letter to the Nantucket Planning Board advising them
that this definitive subdivision plan is not subject to the
Wetlands Protection Act. The motion was carried.
b. Fintry Lane - off Douglas Way. A motion was made to send a
letter to the Nantucket Planning Board advising them that this
definitive subdivision plan is not subject to the Wetlands
Protection Act. The motion was carried.
~. Other Business
a. Wauwinet Trust - SEi!8-i!82 - (11-17) - minor modification for
platform, planks. James Gay of Engineering Management
Consultants was present as agent for the applicant with Russell
Cleveland, General Manager of The Wauwinet Inn. Nelson Jones, a
Wauwinet caretaker, was also present with his attorney Ted
Tillotson of Sherburne, Powers and Needham. John Shugrue and
Jeff Blackwell of Hart-Blackwell Associates were also present.
A letter with diagram attached dated November 1~, 1988 had been
received from Mr Gay requesting an amendment to Article ~ of the
Order of Conditions to install a section of walk board at or
below ground level in the area of the 30-foot opening approaching
the pier to allow better access to emergency vehicles. Letters
from Mrs. Samuel M. Jones and Jane T. Lamb were read. Mr Gay
requested copies be sent to him. A xerox copy of an old photo
taken circa 1922 was submitted by Nelson Jones, a Wauwinet
caretaker.
Henry Wasierski reported that work had been done which had not
been in the original Notice. Lee Dunn asked Mr Gay if he would
simply remove the platform. Mr Gay stated he would prefer not
to, but wished to lower it instead. Mr Jones said the issue is
not so much the platform, but that the use of this area for food
service was never permitted, nor was a building permit ever
i
..
""-'f'-.
/1
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
Town and County Building
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Minutes of December 1, 1988 Page 18
issued for the barbeque platform. He cited significant damage to
surrounding beach grass. Carl Borchert thought the change in use
was matter for the Nantucket Board of Appeals.
The possibility of a railing on the walkway was discussed. Henry
Wasierski thought the Commission should be able to restrict use
within the resource area. A motion was made to require the
applicant to drop the walkway down to ground level and have no
railing on it. Mr Cleveland requested permission to place blocks
beneath the walkway in order to level it. The Commission said
that would be OK, but only one block high.
Mr Shugrue had compared the as-built plans with the approved
plans and had found the end of the pier to be misplaced by i!0 ft.
Mr Blackwell took exception and said the pier had been
constructed exactly as it had been staked, and that the property
line did not extend into the water. He told Mr Shugrue that the
approved drawing was incorrect.
Ben McKelway asked if a Land Court petition had actually been
filed. Mr Blackwell said not that he knew of. Peter Dunwiddie
asked if there were any regulations about the angle of piers out
over the water. Mr Blackwell said not that he knew of. Carl
Borchert thought the angle looked wrong on the plan. Lee Dunn
and Carl wanted to know how the plans could be so different. Mr
Gay said they tried to angle the floating part away from the
Benedict property. Mr Jones added the permanent section is at
the wrong angle, too. Mr Shugrue suspected either the pier was
rotated approx. 7.5 ft resulting in the discrepancy or the
property lines were questionable on the plans. He said at 200 ft
out, the 7.5 ft error would result in the l.t0 ft discrepancy at
the end of the pier.
Mr Gay clarified that Mr Blackwell was saying the as-built was
true to the approved plan, but the burden is on the applicant to
certify that the original plan is true in the original
submission. Henry Wasierski thought the issue was really between
the abutters and the applicant, and was not a matter for the
ConCorn. He thought it could be settled in court to see which
,-~
.'}
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
Town and County Building
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Minutes of December 1, 1988 Page 19
engineer was correct. Mr Gay said he could not represent his
developer any better than he had already and he had to rely on
the expertise of the engineers, too.
Carl Borchert, Henry Wasierski and Ben McKelway pointed out that
the pier did not follow a line through the dunes as shown on the
plans. Discussion followed. Mr Jones said the question was
whether the ConCom really wanted.to hold the applicant to his
plans. Mr Cleveland said he would be more concerned if there
seemed to be a real, negative environmental impact happening due
to the misplacement of the pier. Mr Jones recounted the history
of the site, the wetland scenic views and an old concrete pathway
which had run through the dunes up until construction started on
this project.
Henry Wasierski wanted to know when the snow fence was going in,
as required by the Order of Conditions, adding that it was
supposted to go in well before winter. Mr Gay said it was on
order. Lee Dunn thought there was a discouraging amount of
"stuff" out on the beach already, and that the ConCom had made a
mistake by allowing the pier in the first place. Peter Dunwiddie
saw no reason for it.
A motion was made to deny the applicant's request to amend the
Order of Conditions, thus requiring the 3D-foot section of beach
to remain open, to require the barbeque platform to be lowered
back to ground level, and no railing will be allowed. The motion
was carried.
b. DeBenedictus - SEi!8-3i!0 - (21-19) - discussion. Ben McKelway
described conditions where sand had been dumped beside the deck
on this pond-front property without ConCom approval. He said it
was covering beachgrass between the deck and the pond. A motion
was made to send a certified letter instructing Ms Benedictus
remove the sand immediately. The motion was carried.
c. Taylor - SE~8-397 - (29-10) - discussion. Ben McKelway reported
the i! timber tie-off pilings still had not been removed, as had
been assured the Commission on Oct 27, 1988 by agent Joseph
Forns. A motion was made to send a certified letter instructing
Mr Taylor to remove them by December 15. The motion was carried.
t:l
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
Town and County Building
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Minutes of December 1, 1988 Page 20
d. Booker - SEi!8-420 - (80-41) - req. for minor modification. A
request was received from Bob Emack of Nantucket Surveyors for a
minor modification to the Order of Conditions because the wrong
plan had been cited on it. After some discussion, Mr Emack was
asked to draft a letter which the Commission could sign at the
next meeting outlining the necessary changes.
e. ConsueSprings - discussion. Ben McKelway asked the Commission
to decide on the following:
1) Should Ronald DaSilva rebuild the house according to
plans drawn by David Wiley? Yes, if free of charge.
2) Should the building or surrounding area have lights? No.
3) Should the building be pivoted away from the water and
have no concrete foundation? Yes.
i!) Should the bulkhead be rebuilt or extended? No, but they
wanted to think about it.
5) Should the parking area be enlarged?' No.
6) Did they want benches built into the fence? Yes.
f. Nantucket Commons - discussion. Ted Tillotson of Sherburne,
Powers and Needham was present as agent for the applicant.
It had been noted that the applicant still had not reconciled the
differences between the ConCom's Order of Conditions and DEQE's
Superseding Order, as was requested by the Commission some time
ago and was promised by Mr Tillotson. Ben McKelway also pointed
out that notification had not been received before some recent
paving, and reminded Mr Tillotson of the notification
requirement for each major stage of work. Ben wanted to make
sure the pipe running between the two wetlands went in before
paving.
Mr Tillotson said the reconciliaton between the two Orders is a
non-issue because in his opinion the Superseding Order took
precedent over and effectively replaced the local Order. When he
--
/.~
J
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
Town and County Building
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Minutes of December 1, 1988 Page 21
learned this item was on tonight's agenda, he drafted some notes
comparing the two Orders and read from them briefly. He thought
they were basically the same except for the detention basin and
some other minor things. As far as he was concerned, the project
was being built in compliance with both Orders. He added that
the foundation in building #l.t was dry even with the recent heavy
rains. He did apologize for not notifying the ConCom about
recent paving and said the pipes would go in in the spring and
were being stored presently on the site. He said the engineer
would strive to comply with notification in the future.
g. Wayne Dupont - SEi!8-i!60 - 7 Codfish Park Rd (73.2.i!-12) -
discussion. Henry Wasierski said he had received comments about
the applicant's plans to demolish the house as evidenced by a
recent application for a demolition permit from the HOC and
Building Department. He felt this had not been adequately
brought to the Commission's attention at the time of the filing
which had been for construction of an addition to the existing
dwelling with a new septic plan. He said even after a later
request for an amended Order from the applicant to satisfy DEQE
concerns, which actually resulted instead in a determination by
the Commission that it qualified as a minor modification, he
didn't think it had ever been represented that the house would be
demolished. The closest suggestion to this was the wording,
"reconstructed", on the revised plan. Henry suspected a
discrepancy between the original plans and the plans being
presented with the applications for a demolition.
Henry and Carl Borchert felt they had never seen plans showing a
demolition. Ben McKelway said the idea of the garage hadn't come
up until the DEQE site visit. Henry thought the applicant had
used the request for an amended Order as an opportunity to modify
the plans without full ConCom consideration. Melissa Philbrick,
speaking as a member of the public, suggested writing to the
Nantucket Building Inspector about it. Peter Dunwiddie thought
the ConCom needs to be more careful in the future when.viewing
new plans submitted for amended Orders or as minor modifications
so as to catch subtle differences.
_.
.
!'}
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
Town and County Building
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Minutes of December 1, 1988 Page 22
Ben McKelway was asked to send a letter to the present owner
requesting his appearance at the next meeting to discuss the
matter with a copy to the Nantucket Building Inspector.
As an aside, there was discussion about the problems inherent
with the Commission's continued requirement that applicants file
concurrently under the state and local regulations on one set of
forms. Glen Wills, speaking as a member of the public, said he
had tried for the past two years to suggest to the Commission the
merits of using two separate forms in order to reflect the two
bodies of law. A motion was made to have Ben McKelway look into
using a new set of forms and to consult with Town Counsel about
it. The motion was carried.
h. Daniel and Ellen Lugosch - SE~8-379 - 15 Fulling Mill Road
(27-23.1). It was mentioned the house has been built in
compliance with the Superseding Order, but not the local order in
that it was too close to the wetland. A motion was made to send
a letter instructing the applicant to appear at the next meeting
to discuss the discrepancy with a copy to the Nantucket Building
Inspector. The motion was carried.
i. FY 1990 Budget - discussion. The Commissioners took home
proposed budget figures for consideration and comment at the next
meeting.
j. Comments, questions from press and public. None.
5. Correspondence
Correspondence received since the last meeting was summarized and
taken home to be read individually.
6. Minutes of November 10, 1988
The minutes will be accep~ed at the next meeting.
There being no other business, the meeting adjourned at 11:i!2 PM.
~~,