HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-01-31
r
". (~:~;~f,,\':t~,
..
\
TownQjNqp.*c~~t
. "',"' , ',,' , ,.' j',,> <'~"
'Conservation Commt$Sion
. ~,",".. ."" ,.... ":', .. .. ,- --: ...... :.'. :,. >.. '-'1.:, _. ./f.."'..... '.'
,l.. t , .. ..~ "", ".:,..:-' ..':." .._~. '.<~ ..,
(508)~~O '
10 South Beach Street
NantuCket. Massachusetts 02554
MEETING MINUTES FOR,3ANUARY 31.1991
The meeting was cCilledto order at 7:05 pm in the Large Group
Instruc,tion Room of the Nantucket High Schoq!. Commi.ssioners
presen,t were Will i.amWj tlet, Henry Wa.sierskJ, 'Peter Dunwiddie,
Pete,r ,WPS'Q~ Cind Oaniel' Ke1l ih~r. Al sopreSff'nt. were 'Bruce Perry,
Administrator; and Lucia Wyeth, Secretary.' .
A.COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS FROM PRESS AND PUBLIC
1. Polpis Bike Path discussion
Present are Joe MCignee and Gene
Bru.tlin,lnc. theTo~n's Engineer,
alternatives to the project design.
comments are not as a commissioner.
Crouch of Vanasse Hangen
to present~revJsed
Dr. Dunwiddie states hi~
Mr. Magnee uys the Town had a concern with the cost to
construct and maintain the previous design which used wooden
decking to span the wetland areas. Therefore, the Town asked
for an alternative design. Mr. Magnee states their goal in
the redesign was to maintain a buffer between the edge of the
road and the edge of thebikepath withI2.to.b~the goal.
He submits andsummari,zes a plan with different engineered
alterna.tives for'the wetland crossing. Section 1 gives a 4'
buffer, an 8' bikepath and required 1 1/2' shy distance from
the break in slope. A required recovery zone of 14' is also
included. The pros are that there is no guardrail and the,re
is minimum wetland impact because the entire system is'~et
against the road. The cons are there is no allowance for
telephone poles and it does not satisfy town offset standard
of 12'.
Section 2 contains 1 1/2' shy distance which satisfies the
bike standard, this width is insufficient. for Polpis Road
shoulder. ~lso, a safety fence is required as the elevation
is at the same level as the road and the wetland is below the
road level. No guard rail is needed and there is minimum
impact on the wetland. It does not allow for telephone poles,
does not meet the 12' minimum, and it requires a safety fence.
Section 3 i.s essentially the g~ard rail se,c,tion where
Ci~aint~e elevation of the bikepath is higher than the
~etland. Herein a compact space of 10 1/2'they are
installing a 5' shoulder, a guardrail, space to install the
,retaining wall, 1 1/2' shy spa~e and an 8' bike path and again
@ recycled paper
It",/. ~.r /It,II1
Town of Nahfucket
Conservation) 'Commission'
(508) 228-7230
10 South Beach Street
Nantucket. Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes for January 31, 1991
Page 2
a 1 1/2' shy space. It.$atisfies the ",inimum standar,c.Js se,t by
the' selec.tmen ~nd you havtiaver ti(:al"separa1; ion ',' fromi;he,road
so !'lave Cl senseyoiJ "are not part "P1'". ttl~ raad .'Th is however
has a greater impact to the n!sQurce'a~'ea as it drives tfle
bikepath approximately 21~ from the road into the resoUrce
area. This also does not account for telephone poles.
Section 4 is adequate by bike path standards. It
provides an 8' bikepath and it has shy distance of 1 1/2' on
both sides. However, it doesn't satisfy the town's standard
of 12' and does not have provision for telephone poles. Also,
it does not p~ovide for th~ shoulder required. This is
probablyasmfnimum that can be installed for a bikepath.
Dr. Dunwiddie questions the insufficient width for Polpis
Road shou.lder ahd where ~t is. level and ,there is essentially
no shouldEi?r now; in effect you> haVe 11' of should~r and this
can't b.a .afety factor.
Mr. Magnee responds a shoulder is designed to allow a car
to par~ial1yg.t off the road toa.llowother cars to pa~s and
the greater separation encourages car~ not to use the bikepath
as a shoulder.
Mr. Magnee continues that ,Sections Sand 6 are the same
alignment as the first but allowap!=es are made for the
telephone poles. He adds that 60 or 70% of the bikepath has a
telephone poles in the alignment and they need to sit down
with the telephone company to determine what can be done about
the poles. Perhaps they can be relocated to the other sid~ of
the street or the service put underground.
He continues that Monday night there is going to be a
meeting with the Planning Commission, County Commissioners,
abutters to discuss the development of the bikepath.
Also, he continues, other issues need discussion before
they begin.. the 75Y. design. They need to know i fDEP has any
intention o~ approving the design. They don't want to make ~
full commitment of 75% design and file a NOI only to find out
that the commission and the DEP has no intention of approving
any of the elements. Would like direction f.rom the commission
at this pOint--not a ~ommitment but ~n understanding that the
elements of the design package and the NOI for a nine mile
. ..\~" .
'@'levcl6dpaper
Town of Ncmtu, eket
,. -" c. '. .. '.' ~" .. ,-, .."
Con$ervafibri Cqmtrtission
(5QIJt;22&-~~
~<",+- ''', -.'.'''''
10 South Beach Street
Nantucket. Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes for 3anuary 31~ 1991
Page 3
bikepath have some great success of being approved at the 75%
design stage.
Mr. Will~t asks ,if thepathls prettywell,pla~ned out.
Mr. Crouch says ~hat wi~h th~ deletioh o~ a ~ignificant
amount of the decking in this design, they attempt to tuck and
fold it into the banking.
Continues that the new design Qoes not use structured
decking and a good portion of it is going to be at grade,
although there are going to be some areas where decking is
appropriate. To reduce the extent of impact they are looking
at certain alternatives such as putting tt as close to the
road as design criteria will a.llow. Where before they were
going over the wetland, they are ,now going to be making a much
more permanent impact.
Mr. Willet asks if this will involve a lot of fill.
Mr. Crouch responds yes and suggests that plans will be
Made to select a replication area.
Continues that the cost of maintaining the structu....e is a
big concern to the town. They thought perhaps that a
structu....ed bike path would be so costly that it wouldn't be
funded by the State. This new design, however, is really
preliminary, that what is proposed is concepts that have been
worked up and also discussed withS....uce Perry to understand
the kinds of things they are considering. None have been
selected.
Mr. Crouch continues that when they were considering the
path a structure, they were looking in terms of it being
approved as a limited project. However, there isa limited
project provision that may address this type of activity. It
possibly could be considered as an improveMent to the roadway
if the width is less than a lane. If it is a limited project,
the commission could approve it; otherwise, thi!'Y could not
approve it due to the fat;:t' that more than 5000 sq. ft. will be
altered He states it is fairly important for them to know
where they are heading. Says there are still portions that
will use deck.
Mr. Willet asks how much decking has been cut out.
@ recycled paper
Town~fNantucket -
I~i>" '"{,,
Conserva'fion Commi.ssion
(508) 228-7230
10 South Beach Street
Nantucket; Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes for January 31, 1991
Page 4
Mr.' Crouch says -it was 5<>90' of br idg ing;now it is 500 '
at the'most'. 'Sayst11e, total WE"tla!ld impact, now, i.s probably
down'to 20,000sq f't.where previously it was 50,000 sq. ft.
Mr. Willet asks, the selectmen said 12'is what they are
looking for?
Discussion about a lot of areas going down into the
wetland could be placed closer to the road.
Mr. Crouch continues they will be looking at replication.,
Says they will probably not beabl.e to do it at the site of
alteration because most of the effected land is private
property' and will be looking at one or two location off site
to do replication. However, these may not necessarily meet
design standards. If this has limited project status it
doesn'tt;laveto meet the standards. They are looking at town
owned land or Land Bank property.
-Mr. Crouch continues that another issu~ is that this is
obviously not wa~er dependent project by design and ,they
certainly will be going within 25' and in some cases into the
wetlands which means they would need a waiver. Would like to
know that if given all tt;le constraints they are working with
whether this is a possibility.
Mr. Willet comments that the Commission understands that a
waiver will be required for thepro,dect to go forward.
Mr. Crouch concludes by saying they are not looking for
decisions. tonight and would like to continue to work closely
with the Commission to see what weiwQwld like included in the
project.
Dr. Dunwiddie adds that he COmMents as private citizen and
an interested party. Says he haS been, working very closely
"with-the engineers for sometime and.'qe hopes to minimize the
impacts on the wetlands. Says ~hepoihts he thinks need to be
worked on include how we address the 12' separation between
the ~ikepathand the road. As he sees it, it is not
necessarily a mandate by the selectmen as much as a design
criteria they see as desirable for safety and aesthetics.
While it may be a desirable separation for as much of the 9
miles as possible, there may be circumstances that desirable
@, recyded paper
Tow.n of Nan,tij~et
- ...,. ~.,- " '.{ .../.',.. -".. ',- ','''' ..:.,., '
Conserv'ation"CoM:m.i~ioIi
,.~t:.......,. ,
(508) ._0
10 South Beach Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes for January 31, 1991
Page 5
separation may have to be compromised in order t,o achieve
other objectives. The Commissions objectives should be to
prot~ct the wetlands as much as possible. Therefore" .where
the,bikepath is impinging on the wetlands that 12', separation
. may. hav'e. to be cut down .to -considerably less. He notes he '
spent quite abit of time today looking at' the wetland sites
and in a lot of cases we're talking about an area of upland
between the road and the wetland boundary of 13 to 18', such
that the minimum sections they show you could almost entirely
be built in the upland and require little or no fill in the
wetland. Given that, he thinks it very important the
Commission in this meeting,on Monday emphasize that if we are
going to limit the impact on the wetlands we have to be
flexible in this 12' separation.
He adds that another aspect in tbissituat~on is not what
we would like vs. what they would like but what the state is
going to allow in terms of impacts on the wetlands and whether
they are going to allow the project period. If the town wants
a bikepath built that is going tobe~116wed by the state,
they will have to come up with a path that only impinges to a
certain extent on the wetland. We dOn't know what that magic
number i,s ,go i ng t~ be that the sta.te" is g'o ing to. say yes you
..can build .it, no' yeu can"t. But it--is clear tha,t "the less
impact on the wetlands, the more likely it is that the state
will allow the project. We need'to represent to the
selectmen and the planning board in this meeting that we want
to see a very small impact on the wetland and these are the
opt~ons that are available that a bikepathcan be designed
within to minimize that impact in order to get this bikepath
through the state. It is both in the town's interest and our
interest to get this flexibili,ty built into the design.
Mr. Willet agrees that 12' is tough to allow.
Mr. Crouch says the selectmen have asked them to hold to
the 12'. He adds that the horizontal sections that contain
retaining walls can be the same width no matter the height of
the wall.
.
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Poor - Quidnet
SE48-635 (20-49, 50.2, 50.3;21-58, 119)
2. Poor - Quidnet - SE48-637 (21-122, 118~1, 119.1, 119.2)
',.~ recycled paper
Town of Nantucket
," ~
Conservation Commission
(508) 228-7230
10 South Beach Street
Nantucket. Massachusetts 02554
~eeting Minutes for 3anuary 31, 1991
Page 6
Pr.esentfor the app-lican"t- is Dr _l..isa Standley of Daylor
Consulting.
Dr. Sta.ndley states she has new submissions which include
a cover letter that will detail what she will be talking about
tonight and the revised plans. Notes that the first page of
the NO! for SE48-635 reflects the corrected lot numbers. This
file covers the northern part. of the property. The plans show
a number of revisions since the last hearing at the reques-t of
the commission following their site visits and the last
hearing. They show some revisions to wetland boundaries
including the addition of several small isolated wetland areas
that were not previously identified, buffer zone and the
proposed limit of work which is considered to be mowing and
plant-ing and are separately designated. All the areas in
which work is proposed has also been designated are orange.
They have changed 2 existing roads to footpaths only and show
the locations of barriers. Also the location of haybales to
protect adjacent wetlands from siltation and approximate
Ipc:atiC?ns _of existing plant~d areas that will become .natu,::ally
rev~getated buffer'S. These are only approximate and they
will be staked in the field subject to the commission's
approval. They also provide tax numbers. Also, at the
commission's request they have also filed Appendix A with the
National Heritage Project. states as of, this date they have
not issued any written opinion concerning this project.
Mr. Willet asks where .was the flagging changed.
Dr. Standley responds on the whole the changes were minor.
The wetland boundaries were somewhat changed; they had
previously been based on air photos. Two small isolated
wetlands have been added.
Mr. Will~t asks about the changes to the roads.
'. - .
Dr. Standley states th~ ro~ds that go into wetlands have
been turned into footpaths and shows them to the C9mmissiop.
Mr. Willet asks if a buffer zone will be staked.
Dr. Standley responds yes, subject to commission approval.
@recyc/edpaper
'Town of NaIl4Jo~et
.. ..,.., '. . .Fl/ (T, -\
Conservation . Comm.ission
. -
(&08).~7230
Page 7.
"
Commission questions the work being done in the northeast
corner and if access should not be cut off altogether.
Dr . Standley says br.ushcutting is being done to increase
the c:l&ared ,area as part of the overall management'of open
space and' access i s th~re-fore needed. --
Dr. Dunwiddie c:omments at the inspection he had a problem
with the whole upper corner. The culvert was installed to
solve access problem to a limited area of upland and access to
a piece of property he doesn't even own. He adds that he would
like to see the road clos~d off. A culvert seems to indicate
wetland has been filled in to provide the access.
Dr. Standley responds the vegetation management activity
does.not apply to .roads. Under-that provision this is a valid
part of vegetation management. What-would the commission
suggest happen.
Dr. Dunwiddie says put haybalesto stop erosion by the
pond and block ~ff road coming in from the west off of old
Quidnet Milk Route.
Dr. Standley responds that blocking off the road will -
prevent access to a5ection of upland. She says that she will
take the information back to her client.
Mr. Wi llet says getting into the road/culvert issue,
probably all should be looked at in one shot. It is hard to
keep them separate.
Dr. Dunwiddie agrees they should all be tied together.
Mr. Willet asks for comments from Bruce Perry.
Mr. per-ry says in January 1971 two roads went across the
property. Says he has summarized his findings and some of the
major1ssues ina memo to the commissioners. He submits an
aerial photo from 1971 and blue/prints of the photo
Dr. Standley comments the disc::ussion'is getting off into
areas 11m not prepared to discuss.
~ recycled paper
Town' .6fNantucket
Cotlservati~n Commis~ion
(508) 228-7230
PageS
Mr. Willet responds that these issuesne~d to be' -included
in the discussion and that there will be time to r(;!spond in
the future.
Mr. Perry recommends the Notice be expanded or new NOls be
filed to include the culverts and roads. Shows a photd of an
aerial view of the land taken'in 1971. Nbtes,the number of
roads that weren't there in 1971 that ar~ there now. Notes
much o'f the work has been done wi thout a NOI. Notes that he
has superimposed the blueprint of the 1971 photo over the
s~bmitted plans that show existing conditions to show the"
areas that have been altered by roads, ponds, culverts,
brushcutting.
Ms. Standley asks for and receives a copy of the memo~
Mr. Perry points out the unapproved culverts. Five are
unpet-mitted, one is a unpermitted replacement. Continues with
violations. Points out that the NOI talks about on-going
agricultural practices but adds that the work was not
originally 'exempted from the Wetlands Act.
Ms. Standley states that the applicant did not claim at
any time that they were exempt from the Wetland regulations.
Mr. Perry continues that additional narrative attached to
the NOls states that ,"several small areas at the periphery of
the uplClnd managed areas, wetlands, were also cleared. An
additional area of wetland shrub thicket south of the goat
pasture was also cleared of woody species." Says that the
narrative also explains that the areas described as "Type B"
are altered wetlands. At theJ'anuary 27 field inspection Dr.
Standley clarified determination of the Type B areas as areas
which she felt had been disturbed within the last year to 18
months. This area has calculated to be a total of 116,000 sq.
ft. which has been altered.
Ms. Standley asserts that the boundar-ies have not been
surveyed onto the plans and that th~ cCllculations are not
correct.
He adds that the plans also show a number of culverts that
have been installed; notes that the only approved culvert is
the one for driveway access that is a result of a NOI after an
Enforcement Order issued by the Commission. Five culverts
@ recycled paper
I
Town .. ()~N~lMB~~t
Conserv afion' . Commission
(5081~7230
"',
Page 9
have been installed without permission and one has been
replaced without permission.
Notes that the narrative in the NO! st-ates that "no
filling' or c1"ianging of grades was dope in any of these alt,ered
areas, all of which are still vegetated with ,wetland. species
and have a wetland hydrology." States this lsnot entirely,
true. The'areas that have been only brushcut still contain
the pre-existing wetland species and contours. The areas that
have been brushcut, cleared, plowed.and planted may have
different contours and ,certainly different plant species. But
the four ponds that have been constructed do not con~ainthe
same wetland species and of course have altered cbntours. The
ponds result in a more lonq lasting alteration of the property
vel'"'susthe brushcutting only. The Commission needs to decide
what it wants to do with these more permanent alterations, he
adds.
Continues that Attachment B states that the "continuation
'of agricultural activities will not change wildlife habitat
fT"om existing conditions." This comment does not take into
account, the change .that came about when the 100,000 sq. ft. of
wetland and its associated buffer zone ~as altered within the
last couple of ye-ars.-
Summarizes tha.t the Commission has to decide what they
warit to do. Notes that whether the results of the work done
are good Or bad is not the issue. The issue,is that the work
has been done without a permit. Suggests that either we
require the existing NOI's be modified to include a request to
install the culverts or new NOI's be filed.
Mr. Willet asks Dr. Standley if .he has any comments.
Dr. Standley responds that the memo is going to take more
comment than she can go into at this point. Right now she
would like to primarily reiterate her position. That the
Commission asked an NOI be filed primarilyfo~ brush cutting
and they filed that notice in order to give the..,Commission at
this point"the'opportunity to issue an Order of Conditions to
determine what they would like to see done within their
JUT"isdiction on this property.
Mr. Willet says he questions work done unpermitted on
roads, culverts and ponds.
.,~ recycled paper
Town of'~ N~tucket
'"'.....,... ..
Conservafion 'Comrrtission
(508) 228-7230
10 South Beach Street
N antucket.M:assachusetts ,02554
Meeting Minutes for January 31, 1.991
Page 10
Dr. Standley asks if he wants them to submit a notice for
this.
Dr. Dunwiddie asks if they have talked toDEP. Wonders
what their response is going to be when they see 100,000 sq.
ft. of wetland 'altered.
Dr. Standley states she has not talked to them, that
general they wait till: an Order of Conditions has been issued.
So far they haven't said anything other than to file with
Natural Heritage.
Mr. Perry suggests Mr. Poor get some technical assistance
as to what to grow. Notes that what has been planted has .
grown only an inch or two and will not'add the organic
material to the soil.
Dr. Standley responds that he has spoken with the SCS.
Says this suggestion might ,be inc~uded in the order.
'Mr. Wilson asks if' the entireprocessflJr agricultural use
should not be foll~wed.
Mr. Willet asks for questions or comments.
Cheryl Creighton of the Nantucket LClnd Council passes out
a letter she has prepared. Summarizes 'that her feeling>is
that the NOI should include work done as well as proposed,
work. The Commission needs to!iee it all on one comprehensive
notice. Generally, the extent of the violations that have
occurred. on this property are more, extensive than anything the
Commission has seen befor,e. Also, it has been done by an
applicant that has come before the Commission previously.
Unfortunately the Commission had .to seek out, the appl icant and
ask him to file a tlotice. Thus, this is an appropriate time
for the Commission to impose a fine.
-
Mr. Willet asks for ~ther questions or comments.
Mr. Perry suggests fines be dis.cussed relative to what are
repairable and permittable actions. Suggests an enforcement
order be issued that the existing notice be expanded ora new
notice be filed. Give a time limit if no response, impose a
@ recycled paper
Town. of, ..r-J'mWc~et
Conservation ;C~mtnission
~\.1810<
( 1':" ' ,
10 South Beach Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes for January 31, 1991
Page 11
fine. Says the commission has the authority under the State
and local polic~.
Mr. Wasierski notes that comparing the photos it appears
the wetland clec!r-ing has been done underth.e,guise of
agricul ture.'
Mr. Willet says he'd like to see their response before
considering fines~
Mr. Kelliher agrees he prefersdiAlomacy to fines.
Dr. Standley says she thinks they can work this out, that
we can deal with this problem without going to that extent.
Points ,out that all the areas that were wetland,s, are still
wetlands. Acknowledges the type of wetland may not .bethe
same. Suggests they Can work at protecting these wetlands to
a greater extent than they are now while allowing vegetation
management and agricultural activities. Comments she does not
think the Commission should impose fines.
Mr. Willet says at this point he suggests no fine.
Dr.' Dunwiddie comments fines are premature at this point
even though the action was.f1agrantly done. Need to address
concernsregar-ding culverts and roads first. Would be more
interested in seeing what the applicant is going to do to
address our concerns.
Mr. Willet asks if Dr. Standley can get back with a
response within a week.
Dr. Standley says she will amend the NOr to address
culverts, roads, ponds and the SCS but cannot suggest a
specific date at this point as she doesn't knowhow long it is
going to take to do the work.
Mr. Willet asks Dr. Standley g~t back to him within a week
wi th the basic idea and some sort o.f atimeframe. Says we"
will also need a let1:e,~ from the attorney as to' t-he applicant
claim to the property involved.
Mr. Perry says he has received correspondence form Paul
Bennett who asks i"f there is any work proposed for-Map 21-53.
.@ recycled paper
I
Tciwn.~ ,Qf ,N~tucket
Conser~~tibn 'Commission
.
. ~"
""'C ;)
(508) 228-7230
10 South Beach Street
Nantucket, MaB$&chusettS 02654
Meeting Minutes for January 31, 1991
Page 12
Dr. Standley responds no, that was in error.
Mr. Per-ry says he recei,ved a phoJ1e-call frOm Robert
2icklas who has an inte,rest_in Sharesl3, 14. 1S: and'; 62.
the family is opposed to the work. Says it, comes down to
has a bigger share.
Says
who
Mr. Perry asks why two notices were filed.
Dr. Standley responds that Mr. Poor wants to sell the
southern most partels and wanted a clear Order or Conditions
in order to facilitate this.
Mr. Perr-y,asks if, when the wetland boundaries are agreed
upoT:\, she could provide 1 plan for everything'which will
reduce the confusion of the project being- brokeh up into two
plans.
MOTION: To continue for additional information was
made and seconded.
- UNAN I MOUS
3. Doucette.- 18 Grove Lane .- SE48-601
(41-441 )
Present for the applicant is Dr. Lisa Standley of Daylor
Consulting. Also present is Sharon Doucette.
Dr. Standley states they were last before ,the commission
on November 8 at which time they presented a letter
reiterating the owner's position which is that she bought the
lot whlththe commission had issued a negative determination
on. In order to answer the commission'S concerns about
e)(cessive alteration of'thewetlandthey have scaled back the
size of the house to half of its original size. They 'have
designed a house and replication area that meets all state
standards of the wetLands protection act and asked the
commission to consider issuing an order for the 1000 sq. ft.
house Which-they feel isa reasonab.1ehouse size given the
restrictions of the site and historical, district. The meeting
was continued for commission consideration of the project.
Dr. Dunwiddie asks why such a long period of. time had
elapsed to continue.
@. recycled paper
Town of Nanhlclcet
Conservatrtin jCbMffiis~ion
(698)228-1280
10 South Beach St.reet
Nantucket. Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes for January 31, 1991
Page 13
Dr. Standley responds that either she or the client have
had other commitments on the other meeting dates.
Mr. Willet asks if there are any ~th~r questions.
Ms. - Doucette summarizes' her s,ituation.' That she bought
the property on a negative determination. Says she cannot
live in the 600 sq. ft. house the commission has, recommended
with no basement of storage. She adds that she has a $100,000
mortgage on this piece of property that she can neither sell
nor live on. Hopes the commission can grant her 1,000 sq. ft
house.
Mr. Willet asks for further comment or a motion.
MOTION: To close the hearing and draft an Order of
Conditio,ns was made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
4. Richards - 25 East Tristram Ava. - SE48~609 (31-1)
In behalf of the applicant Mr. Shugrtie ~Sk9 the hearing be
, "c:ont inued.
Mr. Willet asks when they will be ready to proceed.
Mr. Perry suggests he write a letter stating the
commission is anxious to proceed.
Mr. Willet agrees.
MOTION: To continue at the request' of the applicant
and send a letter was made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
5. Shapiro - 57 Pocomo ,Road - SE48-638 (15-16),
Present for the applicant are Rot'ie,rt. Emack, Nantucket
Surveyors, -and Attorney Arthur Reade. Also present are Dr.
and Mrs. Shapiro.
Attorney Reade states Dr. and Mrs. Shapiro are present to
discuss the background of the situation and what they would
'@ recycled paper
'Town' :9f Nantucket
j-.,o.,"-':
Conservation Commission
(508) 228-7230
10, South Beach Street
Nantucket. MasSachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes for January 31, 1991
Page 14
like to do. The background is the existing house was built
per an earlier Order ~"!' Ccmditions issued in 1979. The'
bu ild i ngenveJope was 75-'frotn the edge of the bank. The'
house' ended up 70'frocnthe bank with a deck 57' from the
edge. When they asked for a Certificate of Compliance last
year, the point of the discrepClncy came up and they were
required to get a new Order of'Conditionsto bring it into
conformity with what aceually had been built, and the
Certificate of Compliance was issued on that. There was never
any intention on Dr. Shapiro's part to deviate from the Order
but he believes the practice among Nantucket builders at the
time was that plans were a lot less precise than they are
today. Also notes that a30 or 50' setback would have been
approved at that 'time. Does not believe they should be
penalized because they came a little closer to the edge of the
bank than the plan showed.
Mr. Reade adds what he is suggesting is that were a normal
applicant to come in before the commission ~ith a decision to
build at least 50' from the b~nkt .you would norm~lly give them
an Order .of Conditions.
Mr. Willet comments we would try to encourage him to move
back a little further.
Attorney Reade states they have a particular suggestion
th~y would like to present. Mr. Emack submits a revised the
plan. Asks that they beall'Owed to build in an area that no
portion of the foundation would be closer than the 70' line,
the existing closest point to the edge of the bank, and within
the range of 70' and 57' they would be able to construct a
deck.
Dr. Shapiro describes the rationale in wanting to put the
house in this location rather than have the whole house and
deck set back the full 75'. Starts with historical
perspective in how the present house...ended up where it did.
In .1979 they saw plans for a hOy.Se in a magazine and gave them
to the builder. Thebuilde~ made s'Ome pencil line~rawings
and modifications they had agreed on and built the house. He
visited the house only once that winter. Feels they were
fortunate it was built on the right lot. "At no,time was he
aware the house had to be 75' from the bank. The original
house did nbt have a deck and they casually selected a spot.
They did not realize they were impinging on the bank. Nor was
@recvcledpaper
Town' of.. Nantucket
, . .
ConserV'sifbrt Com.tnis~ion
, ,
- ".. '--. '
" . .....
(q),~~23Q
10 South Beach Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes for January 31, 1991
Page 15
he aware a Certificate of Compliance was required when the
construction was completed. Mr. Reade has helped them clear
up this issue by requestJnSJ.,the Certificate of Compliance so
they can have, a clear, p l~n to proceed. 'He would have no
Objection 'to mQVing the houseQutan'd putting-another house
100' back except there are,other.tl~~ge5 on the bank"with
, . ':. ," ,:', - _ .',. . ~._i: 1-. ,,' .',..., , . . . I
closer setbacks. Puttit"lg !hi~ "o.~$5eback further than the
others would hurt his view. AsubstClntial part of the value
is the view there. States .he ~s very concerned about
,conservation and the wetland and wants to do nothing to
impinge upon the character and quality. Says he can live
with the house foundation being 75' back from the bank. He
would not like to have it so the deck also had to be behind
the 75' setback.
'Mr. Reade continues a further po.int is they. are very much
concerned with keeping the house low and most of it will be a
1 story house with some 11/2 story areas.
Commission asks if they could work with a 25' maximum
height.
Mr. Readeresp:and?:, -they cer tain I yco\Jld . It should have
less visual impact thCln, the e-xisting house t:'las=;.- Notes they
bought the adjacent property largely toi.mpose a restriction
of 1 1/2 story house there. Says the farther back they move
the house the harder it is going to be for them to get a view
over the structures to the west. . Most of the area of the
house will be 18' high. This is for their convenience and is
their preference aesthetically. The existing houses in the
area are 27' to 28' high.
Mr. Kelliher states that the foundation placed at 75'
seems ok. Assumes they won't be building a 100' deck.
Dr. Shapiro says the present deck is 13' and he doesn't
think he needs a deck any larger than that.
Mr. Willet asks for other comments.
'Mr. Perry suggests We limit the ridg"es to 25'. States we
have no control over how it fina,lly..goes.
Dr. Dunwiddie notes any land owner who promises to build a
house under 25' we need to grab.
@ recycled paper
;J.;,,~y
Town,of,Ncintucket,. ..
'; ;;{_:,:-_;',_",:.'>,;~ - '-J"'2" ''.'': \' -::,.: ,'.
Conservation Commission
(508) 228-7230
10 South Beach Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02654
Meeting Minutes for January 31, 1991
Page 16
Attorney Reade aSkS for 60' setback for the decks.
MorION: To close the hearing and draft an Order of
Conditiohs <limit of the foundation at 75' anCl the limit
of the deck at 60')was made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
6. Greenberg - 21 E. Tristram's Ave. - SE48-557 (31-3)
Present for the applicant is. Mr. Shugrue who requests the
hearing be continued.
MOTION: To continue at the request of the applicant
was made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
*
7. .Cuddy, - 30 Bassett Road - SE48~639 - (26-~8)
.
. "
,. P~reS:emt '~for - theapp Ii cant .-r;-"johh ' Shugrue.
Mr. Shugrue states they need to replace the septic system
and it is proposed in the only land that is above wetlands.
Mr. Willet asks for commerit.
The abutters request to look at the plans and ask some
questions. Ask about a 4" PVC pipe coming out of the
foundation.
Dr. Dunwiddie reads the inspection report ,and asks if the
new system is the minimum size.
Mr. Shugrue responds that given the soil it looks larger
than normal.
Mr. Perry asks how deep he is going to dig.
Mr. Shugrue says he has to get the 10Clm out where the lawn
is.
Mr. Perry asks if it will be 7'.
@recvcledfJIIIHN
Town of, Narl't\lcket
',- 1,'L .___':; /
Conservation' :Commission
->.' ..": ',,- ~'. .' -..".-
, (liOS)..WW..
10 South Beach Street
N antudcet. Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes for January 31, 1991
Pag.e 17
Mr. Shugrue says first he has.to determine if the loam is
there.
,Mr. Perry asks if the breakout calculations have been done
and if there will be any escapirlgflLiids at the wetland-edge.
Mr. Shugrue states that the calculation was done.
An abutter asks if they ever added the additiqn and then
added a bath.
Mr. Perry notes that from the health department standpoint
it is the bedrooms they count.
Mr. Perry asks if the excavated soils will go to the
landfill.
Mr. Shugrue answers no, not to the town but" will go off
site.
Mr. Perry says he'd like the silt fence further down the
dr iveway.
MOTION': to close the hearing and issue' an Order of
Conditions was made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
C.. REGULAR MEETING
1 . REQUEST FOR DETERM INA T I. ON
a. Murray - 17 Eat Fire Spring Rd - (20-58) brush cutting
Mr. Perry notes we were waiting for abutter notification
wh ich has been recei ved. The agent was ca ll.ed ou t of town and
asked the request proc~ed wi thout her.'
MOTION: To issue a negative determination subject to
but wi II -not al ter was m.ade and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
* b. Crandall - 43 Starbuck Road - (59.3-49) 2" force main
@ recycledpaper
Town of-Nantucket
. . ......' . ....-..,. '- " '- - .. .,'
Co~ser~ation Commission
(508) 228-7230
10 South Beach Street
N antucket,CMassachusetts 02554
Meeting'Minutes for 3anuary 31, 1991
Page 18
Present for the applicant is .John Shugrue.
,-
Mr. Wille..treads the inspe(:tion report.
Mr. Shugrue says the contaminated soil has to be disposed
Of at the dump.
MOTION: To issue a negative determination subjec,t to
but will not alter was made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
2. ORDER OF CONDITIONS
a. Johnson - 34 Easton Street - SE48-634 (421.4-18)
Present for the applicant are Attorney Melissa Philbrick,
and John Shug.rue. Attorney Arthur Reade'was present
representing abutters to the project.
~~torney philbrick nptes that_#17A in th~ order has been
drafted to limit the float to 30'. Says she has not had a
chance to talk with .John Clbout this. Wants to get a sense
this is the order we are going to issue and why 30' is more
acceptable than what is requested on the plan before going
back to her client.
Mr. Wi llet asks for a consensus from t'he commissioners.
Commissioners are in agreement with 30'.
Attorney Philbrick responds that she was more interested
in why than in a poll.
Dr. Dunwiddie says that Cl bO' float was pretty e.xce<ssive.
Given the applicant's reasons for having a float, thinks that
t~is will serve the purpo~e and.have half the impClct of a 60'
float.
Mr. Wasierski adds this will allow more light to the
bottom, but that 15' would have been even better.
Attorney Reade comments that the float is longer the
abutters would like to see but not as long as the applicant
would like to see and this is probably a statesman~like
@recvcledfJBPtN
Town; .', qft1gntuclc.et
".Conservation .Commisslon.,
(508)__1280
10, South Beach Street
N antucket,Massachusetts 02654
Meeting Minutes for January 31, 199'1
Page- 19
decision. Nobody is happy sO you must hClve done something
right.
He continues, another comment is-a. draft.ingcomment in 17B
in which you referred to acqnneiCt'ing bridge section as
discussed in the JClnuary17,1991 meeti'ng. The only trouble
wi th that is five years from now 'no one is .going to know what
was described anddiscuSS4i!Ch:;jn that meeting and he wonders if
a flat statement "a,connect.ing bridge is not allowed" might
no t be be t t er .
The other thing is #21 where you say the pumpout is for
noncommercial use only. Red~aft as the applicant has all
along submitted the entire project is for noncommercial use.
'Mr. Perry asks verification that other people can use the
pumpout with Mr. Johnson's permission.
Attorney Philbrick asks for clarification on 17B in terms
of what we are looking for in the connecting bridge. Are you
really saying that if there is a 4' section between 15' floats
th~t this is what you don't want to see? I can see how you
want to prevent getting around the 30' requiremerit by saying
no bridges either.
Mr. Wasierski says without the bridge it was only going to
float in the wClter 9"; with the bridge it is 22"; this is what
I was considering was the intent.
Mr. Wilson says his assumption is that you would have 2
15' sections at either end.
Attorney Philbrick says she would like~to extend the 21
day deadline to give them time to discuss the plans.
MOTION: To continue at the request of the applicant
was made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
4. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
a. Charleton - 35 Baxter Rd- SE48-537
(49.2.3-6)
.@ .recvded paper
Town()lN.:ihfuck~t
, Consef~gti8ri("Commis~i'dri
(508) . 22S-7230
Ii) South Beach Street
N antucket.~Maasachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes ,for January 31, 1991
, Page 20
Present for the applicant is Nathan McMullan of Design
Associates.
Mr. Wi lletreads the inspection report,.
Mr. Perry comments the order required an as-built. Only
change in t'he fdotpr i ntwas. 4' added to the deck. He says he
talked to Jenny Shakespeare , the arch i tec t, who' was going to
have to pay $900 for an as-built~ He told her he didn't think
it was necessary as it was properly built. He recommends not
to issue until the undisturbed buffer has been replaced.
Mr. McMullan asks if the problem is the size of the buffer
zone.
Mr. Perry shows pictures of when the project started and
present conditions and says, he thinks it needs to be
replanted.
Mr. Wasierski asks where the 25' was stated.
Mr. Perry- responds in the order.
Dr. Dunwiddie says if the order says 25', that's pretty
clear.
Mr. Perry says the addition works out fine. The problem
is with the buffer.
Mr. Wilson asks if the order states from the house?
Mr. Perry responds from the top of the bank.
Mr. Wasierski says he remembers there being a lot of heavy
shrub.
Mr. Willet asks when you measured from the top of the bank
the deck looked ok, the buffer didn-' t?
Mr. Perry answers, right.
Mr. Willet asks fora motion to continue.
Mr. McMullan asks Mr. Perry what he figures was cut out of
the brush.
@ ~cled paper
Town \,()~ ,N9Ptucket
Conserva.H{ort:., pommfsslqh"
(508) 228..7230
10 South Beach Street
Nantucket. Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes for January 31, 1991
Page 21
Mr. Perry responds 12'.
MOTION:' To deny the request for ,compliance ~ntil the
undisturbed buffer is replaced is Made arld seconded.
UNAN IHOUS'
b. Weinstein - Eel Point. Road - SE48-131 - (33-14)
Mr. Perry states this is .a, house built 10 years ago. Is
up on pilings. The beac~ grass conditions hasn't gotten any
wor$e but not sure that it is much better either.
Mr. Willet asks what his recommendation is.
Mr. Perry responds to issue.
MOTION: To issue the Certificate of Compliance was
made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
c. Mitchell - 31 Mattoon Street - SE48-539'- (26-2)
Mr. Perry notes we are waiting for an as built.
Mr. Shugrue says he will get it to us.
MOTION: To continue for an as built was made and
seconded.
UNANIMOUS
d. Moran - Midland Avenue - SE48-122 ~ (60.2.4-64.2)
Mr. Perry states this. was to put a replacement leach pit
in the expansion area on the,design. This was done back in
1980 but it loaks fine. Recommend~eissue.
MOTION: To issue the CertificClte of Compliance was
made --and seconded~ ~
UNANIMOUS
e. Bonner - 28 Low Beach ROCld - SE48....541- (74-53)
Mr. Willet reads the inspection report.
::@ recycled paper
Townol Nantucket
.. . ""-:"::'~:":.::",,,;t.?:~.:'~-':- ,_,'}<:~" ':;'~.f ':; "( ",-' ,.~" , .' " ~ .
Conservatlorii 'Commission
(508) 228-"7230
10 South Beach Street
Nantucket. M.achusetts,~
Meeting Minutes for January 31, 1991
Page 22
Mr. Shugrue states that, the cover letter states that the
ridge is below theflleightrestr i>c.tion.
MOTION: To issue the Certificate of Compliance
was made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
f. Hartrick - 31 Baxter Road - SE48-591 - (49.2.3,...8>
Mr. Perry says ther:-eis an as built. 1 t is all set to go.
Notes the stairs are 10' shor.ter than were> appt'"oved. The
landing is 9'3" x 9'3" instead of,9' sq. which usually allowed
as contractor's error.
Mr. Willet asks if he recommends we issue.
MOTION: To issue Certificate of Compliance was made
and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
g. Watts - Eel Point Road - SE48-165 - (33-23)
Mr. Perry asks to be continued.
MOTION: To continue at the request of the applicant
was made and'seconded.
UNANIMOUS
5. OTHER BUSINESS
a. Polpis Harbor dredging - spoils location - discussion
Mr. Perry says at a meeting w,i tt) the potential bidders,. he
proposed what was discussed at our last meeting that a
possible location for beach nourishment would.be in front of
the bulkheads off Quaise Road and ,Bassett Road. Also told
them that the commission wasn't thClt enthusiastic about the
disposal sites inside Polpis Harbor and the W,auwinet Road
access to Polpis. Says,he's pretty sure most of the spoils
c,an be put on the point. He still questions why the dredging
needs to be 60' wide; also does not know what alternative
sites are being considered if it doesn't all fit on the point.
Continues, when the Notice is submitted one issue that is
@ recycled paper
Town of Nantucket-
'~:_':, ',_,' _ _,":~-% ___:":'-:-'~_~':'-:',~:r. _' _1,,:~: _ ''-.' _ _ _ _ ,": -~(';;':'_, - '.
:Con.servafion! -CQlt1miS~i6n
\-:~--.:r-r:',.-':f
(50s} 228.'1230
10 South Beach Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes for January 31,1991
Page 23
going to come up is the fact that the duoe i's' fairly stable
right now and to allow the spoils to be dumped there may.
require a variance bec4:us.e theywillbl!,'altEring a resource.
Mr. Wasierski says it is all in the channel ~nd it should
be tClken out of the channel and put back frdmwhence it came.
b. Mohomoy Harbor R.T.- MonomoyRd. SE48...;46S(43-111>
Present for the applicant is Attorney Melissa Philbrick.
She shows new plans which are the architect's revisions to the
original drawings.
Mr. Perry says the applicants originally came in for an
ad~ition and a renovation and now they want: to take the house
down. Mr. Perry notes the reta.ining wall and septiC' system
have been installed as allowed in the existing Order.
Dr. Dunwiddie asks if this was-the interit to start with?
Why was it changed? Reads from the meeting minutes for 6/1/89.
Mr. Willet asks why the change~
Attorney Philbrick says the archit'ect had been hired to
look at bringing the structure up to code.; He recommended
they move it off the site, considering.the construction that
would have to be done on the outside to bring it up code. She
reads the narrative of the construction required to bring to
code and the alternative to remove from the site and build a
new building and notes that the letter from Horsley Witten and
Hagemann is basically the same.
Mr. Perry asks if you pickup the building and move it how
are you going to get it down the driveway.
Mr. Wasierski notes the driveway is bounded by cedars and
asks ,how the replication area is progressing.
Mr. Perry says .the rep I ication' area got browsed the, fi rst
time a year ago. They have tried once again with wire cages
around the shrubs. He adds that the.levations are look too
high and the area is still bare dirt.
Mr. Wasierski suggests we hold off till the replication
area is resolved.
@ recyded paper
.
,
Town oJ 'NaD.t11cket
. Con~e~~~tibn:;.C6mmis~lon
- (608) 228-7230
10 South Beach Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes for January 31, 1991
Page 24
Mr. Perry says they asked for suggestions as to what
grasses coul.d be planted at the last mee.ting.
Attorney Philbrick says they aren't looking for a
certificate on the replication area. They are looking to get
, it going as the house is being built. They stClrted that first
knowing they couldn't get the pla'7's for the house finalized
before the Or-der r-uns out.!
Continues she understands the concern of not granting
additional modification until the replicated area is complete
but is afraid that they might end up with someone'trying to
,ma'ke them to adh1!re to the ol'dorderand she isn I tsure that
is the best answer. Then yo 1.1 are going to get a renovation
and an addition. The changes she is asking for in terms of
the house plan are not major.
Mr. Willet asks what are the changes.
Attorney Philbrick shows the plans; noted she did them two
different ways and colored them a little. 'Says the blue area
has been approved; the pink is proposed. In the other plan
tries to show the areas of changes: the blue is areas that
had been approved that are hot being used; the pink are areas
outside of the proposed areas.
Dr-. Ounwiddie asks weren't thanew regulations issued at
this time?
Mr. Perry says the 'Order was ~ssued April, 1988. Also
notes it expires in April this y.ear.
Mr. Wilson asks can we find justification to allow them to
move the building?
Mr. Wasierski notes their original reason,was that they
wanted to use what is th'ere but they needed a 2-car garage.
Mr. Perry comments they can ~et further away from the
wetland with only a one car garage.
I'
I
Attorney Philbrick comments there<.are no height
limitations and shows that the proposed house does not attempt
to ,maximize the height of the new structure.
@recyc/edpaper
. '
Town of Nantucket
'C()nserva.ff~nCommi~iion
..
(50$)228-7230/
10 South Beach Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes for January 31, 1991
Page 25
Mr. Perry suggests we take at,leCi$tthe,,:newc:ommis$ioners
out to the site. anda,lsg:,lpP~ratthe replic:.tion ..rea. Thinks
when they see the sit.'iand the 'wet land they may want to
consider something else.
Mr. Wilson asks why the garage is 40' long.
.
Dr. Dunwiddie wonders how we can allow a garage to be
built in the wetland.
Mr. Perry notes they do have to come iryfor an e"tension.,
Attorney Philbrick says if the app1icamts were t'O ask her
what posture theapplican1;s should be in when they come in for
the extension she would tell them to build as much _as they
could under the existing Order.
Mr. Willet says the problem is the impression you gave
that the walls are not coming down but it was only addition.
So you say ok, fine. There is a difference. The o~iginal
hearings went on for a long time and the.discussionwas to
construct an addition.
Mr. Perry will schedule a field inspection.
c. February meeting Commissioners' attendance
Discussion regarding commissioners not availabl,e for a
meeting during schOol vacation week. It was agreed to
reschedule the February~8 meeting to March 7.
d. MACC Annual Meeting, March 2, 1991, Holy Cross College
Discussion on who was interested in attending.
e. Dooley - SE48-433 - (55-422.6) - minor mod.
Present for the applicant is Aileen. Barth.
Mr. Perry says th is is for the middle lot th'at has the
driveway going through the wetland.
@ recycled paper
I
.
. .
Tqwn'qJ,' ..t{cmhick...>. et
Conservati6n'" 'Commission
(508) 228-'7230
10 South Beach Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes for January 31, 1991
Page 26
M$.; Barth says the foundCltion is in. They would like to
cover the porch and add an overhat\9ing;'bClY window. They are
not adding to the envelope. The I"fDCdoesn't:see any problem.
Mr. Willet says he sees no trouble.
MOTION: To grant the minor modification was made and
seconded.
UNANIMOUS
f. Taylor, SE48-626 (29-18) minor mod.
Reprf!?senti.ng.' the applicant is Attorney Arthur Reade.
Mr. Perry says we closed the hearing and drafteothe order
a'nd between the meet ings ,the Town Meeting occurred C anci we
didn't need the-l2' offset between the houses any more. They
are submitting a plan that shows the foundation closer to the
road. 'They were waiting for HDC approval.
Mr. Reade continues now they are'through HOC and this is
what they have approved.
MOTION: To accept the minor modification was made and
sec;onded.
UNANIMOUS
g. Chu.rch - Polpis Road
Commissioner Willet abstains from the discussion and the
vote.
Present for the applicant was Melissa Philbrick.
Mr. Perry states that the applicant has asked for a
modification to the existing Determ'ination. The. consensus of
the Commissioners at the field inspection was to require a
local Determination be fi led for:the change. He adds that he
wanted ~hls to get on the official record.
MOTION: To require a new Determina'tion for the
suggested addition change was made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
6. CORRESPONDENCE
7. MINUTES: for January 17, 1991
@recyc/edpaper
, .
Town of Nantucket
~.
Conservation' Commission
(508),228-7230
10 South Beach Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
, Meeting Minutes for January 31, 1991
Page 27
MOTION: To continue for changes to the next meeting
was made and seconded.
,l:JNAN I MOUS
8. BILLS TO BE PAID
9. FIELD INSPECTIONS - Monday, February 11, 1991, 3:30pm
MOTION: To adjourn, the open session of the meeting
and adjourn in to Executive Sesslon and not come back into the
open meeting was made and seconded at 10:17 PM.
UNANIMOUS
;
. r,::'""
. @ rec;vc/ed psper