Loading...
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. ~~,