HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-05-16
,-------
~
Town. of Nantucket
.Conservatioif'i'CommisSlon
.J
(508) 228-7230 .
10 South Beach Street
N antueket, Massachusetts 02554
t.
)'.
MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY lb. 1991
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Large
Group Instruction Room of the Nantucket High School.
Commissioners present were William Willet, 'Laura Hussey, Peter
Dunwiddie, Henry Wasierski, Daniel Kelliher and Peter Wilson.
Also present were Bruce Perry, Administrator, and Lucia Wyeth,
se~retary.
A. COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS FROM PRESS AND PUBLIC
.I!.:. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Newquist - 8 Fargo Way - SE48-606 (14-15, 61)
Present for the applicant are Attorney Arthur Reade and
Lester Smith of Daylor -Consulting.
Present also are Attorney Melissa Philbrick and abutter
Mary Jane Robinson.
l
Mr. Willet reads a letter from Superior Court which
remands the case back to the Conservation Commission for
-------publi.c heari-ngs limited sOlelya-m:J-exc-:tusively to the-
differences between the September 19, 1990 and the September
27, 1990 plans.
Mr.. Perry -points out the limits of what should be
discussed which is the difference ,between the plan received at
the last public hearing and the plan we accepted when we
issued the order of conditions. Continues, to summarize the
changes: (1) the planting plan from Lisa Standley is more
specific as to what is going to be used for the landscaping;
(2) a-retaining wall has been added on the southwest section.
Mr. Reade summarizes the history. Says the DEP appeal has
been disposed of with a Superceding Order. The Superior Court
case is open under the local by-law. Says Mr. Smith has
prepared changes of the plan approved in the superceding order
dated January 8, 1991. Changes include dry wells outside the
buffer zone.
Dr. Dunwiddie interrupts to ask i~ we aren't supposed to
only be discussing September 19th and 27th plans.
Mr. Perry says we are going to issue another order
accepting the new plan at a public hearing. Says the only
'>> fO<'(CIed_ I ~etli;f/t' #/?I. /KIll-
.
/
\
I
Tdwn of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228-7230
10 South BeachS,treet
N antucket,M8ssachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes for May 16, 1991 Page 2
differences he can see between the superceding.order and the
new order, ist.he use of dry wells.
Dr. Dunwiddie says seems like reconciling the two orders
between the state and ,the local and reconci I ing these two
plans are two separate issues. The judge is telling us to do
one thing and you would also like us to do the other at the
same time. Are we allo~ed to do this~ The judge seems to
make it very clear we're only supposed to do this and nothing
else.
Attorney Reade questions whether that is the intent of the
order. Thinks the point was not to go into ,extraneous issues;
did not intend to preclude the c:ommission from dealing with
somethi.ng it would have to deal with sooner or later.
Dr. Dunwiddie asks if there are representatives present
from both sides and asks for a consensus whether it is proper
to deal with thisnow~
-1
Attorney Philbrick says she is not going to object but
thinks it- should be- taken in, ~...astE!p5. September to
September and September to January.
Mr. Willet suggests both be done.
Attorney Philbrick comments the judge may want to see it
discussed separately.
Mr. Perry recommends September to September be discussed
first. Differences are: (1) retaining wall to hold back the
fill needed to cover the foundation.
Dr. Dunwiddie asks how high the retaining wall is.
Mr. Perry and commissioners discuss and determine it to be
30". Mr. Perry concludes it is 4'above finish grade. Notes
the contours around the house dip and this is the reason for
grading, to keep the house leveL Continues to point out
differences,: (2) use of landscaping timbers and raising the
grade a bit at the edge of the parking area next, to the
wetland. Reason is to keep dirt from washing down to the
wetland. (3) Addition of the word "proposed" to describe
meadow; (4) addition of existing and proposed contour lines
(5) hay and silt fence line around the drive and house; (6)
-~'~c1ed fJ8p:U
/
Town of. Nantucket
Cons~rvatibrl COmmission
(508)228-7236
10 South Beach Street
N antueket, MassachuSetts 02554
Meeting Mirtutes for May 16, 1991 Page 3
wording to close existing driveway before work begins; (7)
o~en rtew driveway before work begins.
Mr. Willet asks for a motion to accept or discuss these
changes and then we'll move on to additional changes.
Mr. Smith says his letter of September 27th summarizes all
the changes.
Attorney Ph i lbr ick says they have been wai ti ng,for
information of the proposed fill and were concerned that all
the information on contours came in after the public hearing.
They felt the commission needed to consider that information.
Mrs. Robinson summarizes their objections in a statement
which she presents for the file. Reads the statement.
Mr. Willet asks for additional comments.
mot ion t-o--accept the ~ehanges. -=-
Asks for a
.
. ~ -- -j<-
MOTION: To accept the changes in the September 27th
p.lan- .-lS made and seconded. ---~~-----
5 Yes; 1 No
Mr. Perry notes that he will attach the same additional
special conditions as were issued with the original Order.
Mr. Smith says he would like to go over the changes to the
DEP approved plan for the,ir Superseding Order . Points out
drywel1s1ocatedoutside the buffer zone which will take the
roof runoff. Additionally, the existing foundations which are-
to be filled. the lawn, and the gravel parking area, which was
decreased. The retaining wall has been removed and sloped and
vegetated; stairs have been'added and a hay bale silt line has
been described and added. The underground utility line has
been described as along the driveway. Notes these are the
change~ between the September 27th plan and the one used with
the superseding order approved plan of January 8, 1991. Notes
that he provided to the commission on September 27th a copy of
the September 27th plan, a letter describing the changes, and
a copy of Lisa Standley's presentation of the proposed
planting in the open areas.
-.~ recycled paper
.
town QfN antuc:ket
.Conservation Commission
J
(508) 2~1230 '.
!;
J
10 S~thB~Street
N aIltuck~ Massachusetts 02554
Meet~ng Minutes for May 16, 1991 Page 4
Commission notes this is the first time they have seen
this plan.
Mr. Willet asks for questions.
Mr. Perry asks if the proposed grass areas are to be sod
or grass, pointing out the former would require higher
maintenance. Notes the proximity to the bank, additional
brush cutting, and potential use of fertilizers.
Mr. Smith says it was not discussed but he assumes it
would be seeded and not sodded; says there is existing grasses
in the area and the existing house will be removed and
replaced ~Jith gl-ass.
Dr. Dunwiddie questions two septic systems, each with 1000
gallon tahks. Asks if thechangihg room is going to turn into
an apar.tment.
Attorney Reads says there is already an apartment over the
____5t'!rage_~nd the lot-.!.s !imited to two dwellings.
Mr. Wilson asks about the area bordering the lawn and if
the poison ivy will be cut.
Mr. Perry says the area is to be undisturbedbuff~r in the
order.
Dr. Dunwiddie asks for an opinion from Attorney Philbrick
and Mrs. Robinson; if they see any major problems that might
be addressed at this point.
Attorney Philbrick responds not more than what we've been
concerned w~ th all along wi th regard to the size of the
project, the amount of fill and hOw the fill is handled around
the edges 'of,the wetland and the property lines. They feel
the slope which was to have a retaining wall and now is to be
sloped and graded will, over time, have an impact. Concludes
that at this time and before this commission this is all we
have to say.
Mr. Willet asks for a motion to accept the changes as a
minor modification. Summarizes the changes: no retaining
wall, silt fence showing limit of work, 2 dry wells,
landscaping timbers gone, proposed apartment over the garage
@ recycledpapj,s added.
I
/
. I
Town of Naritucket
Conservation Commission
'J
(508,:,,1230
u
10 South Beach Street.
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes for May 16, 1991 Page 5
Mr. Wilson asks how will ~emoving the retaining wall alter
the situation.
Mr~ Perry asks if DEP required the retaining wall be taken
out for the Superseding Order?
Mr. Smith s.ys the slope will be s~abilized with planting.
Mr. Perry notes the downspouts are all going the other
way.
Mr. Wasierski notes by removing the retaining walls the
elevation is raised 2'.
There was discussion about the effects of removing the
retaining wall on the final .levations.
Dr. Dunwiddie asks if the house has been redesign~d.
Notes t~h~_yh~p~_l~ol<s different.
~
Mr. Smith says yes, there are changes but the house is
outs ida ot'_tn!:.-Commi ssion 's Juri sdic.t ion.
Mr. Perry notes the house is within our jurisdiction;. just
because the front corners are outside the buffer zone doesn't
mean we can't discuss the chanQes.
Dr. Dunwiddie asks to see the list of modifications again.
Mr. Wasierski notes they have moved the garage and the
lawn with it closer to the wetlands.
Mr. Smith notes they have pulled back the gravel parking
area.
Mr. Perry asks if the commission wan~s to vote this is not
a minor modification.
Mt-. Wasierski says the footprint of the house has changed,
the lawn has moved closer to the wetlands, the retaining wall
removal is going to make a big change in slope.
Mr. Smith says he did submit a copy of the changes to the
commission.
1! \:);.
"'-,eI. recycled paper
t
/ '.
Town 9f;,Ni3.I}tuclcet
Conservation Commission
(508) 228-7230
10 South Beach Street
N antuclt~ Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes for May 16, 1991 Page 6
~ ..
Mr.Wasierski feels the changes make the proposal
drastically different.
Dr. Dunwiddie asks why do you think the changes will
impact the wetland more.
Mr. Wasier~.ki saysthey will be using fertil izer on the
lawn and the lawn has moved 12' closer to the wetland. Thinks
there would be less of a problem with the retaining wall. The
difference amounts to a change of a few feet they have
extended the level area to the west of the house and then made
their drop off.
Mr~ Smith says it is 3 1/2' closer.
Mr. Wasierski says in bringing the lawn down they moved
one corner of the driveway back.
Mr. W i ll-e-~~ asks for a---motioA. ~c.c
MOTION: To require a notice for the proposed changes.
2 yes; 4 abstain
Reopened for discussion.
M.r. Perry says he can't find a copy of the revised plan in
our fi~es. Notes the project has had three extensions.
Dr. Dunwiddiesays this is one of those projects we are
going to live tri regre~. It's going to be one of those
. eyesores that weare going to wring our hands over and wiSh we
had better regulations to protect the island from this sort of
thing. Personally, I don't want to be any part of this being
added to the island; unfortunately, we don't have regulations
to do what we would like to do on the island. On this
particular ~inor modification we are picking at nickels. What
we're talking about here is nothing compared to what we are
going to be offended by. What is going to bug us is a 30'
house glaring over the harbor and whatever we do now isn't
going to change that. I don't know what I'm advocating here
because I don't really want to be a part of this, but at the
same time I don't think we're really shooting at what we are
being offended by.
@ recycledpaper
Mr. Willet asks fqr another motion.
r
I '
Town of. Nantucket
Conserv:ati6n . Comm.ission
(5081~'t230
\.
I
10 South Beach Street
N antueket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes for May 16i 1991
Page 7
MOTION: To continue for additional discussion.
Mr. Wasierski asks if the garage and lawn can be moved
back 12'. Notes it moved without us even knowing about it.
Mr. Smith says zoning laws require it to be 12' away.
Mr. Wasierski says it was a garag. previously, not an
apartment. Says it is not a minor modification.
MOTION: To continue for two weeks at the request of.
the applicant was made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
2. Gamble - 90 Pocomo Road - SE48-654 - (15-43)
-"Mo:f:ION-: To-ectn-t inult-at--t-he- request -O-f.-J:he-ap.p Ji r.:lni:
is made and seconded.
- --t
---UN'AN1MQt:JS-_.
3. Burke - 37 Gardner Road - SE48-645 - (43~85)
Mr. Willet abstains from the discussion and the vote.
Present for the applicant is Jeff Krieger, Architect, Stan
Humphries, Coastal Geologist at I.E.P., and John Shugrue.
Present for abutters Karp and LeFevre is Attorney Arthur
Reade and Les Smith of Daylor Consulting.
Mr. Krieger begins by recalling the debate two weeks ago
of the possible existence of a coastal bank. It is their
contention that there is no coastal bank on the marsh side
edge of the wetland. Therefore the only resource area to be
dealt with is the edge of wetland and the 8' contour which
would be land SUbject to coastal storm flowage. Before
continuing with the coastal bank issue he would like to
respond to a couple of questions raised previously. Attorney
Moretti asked for information on the proposed relocation of
the road. He has provided a cross section. The second
question was for data on the erosion rate of the shore line.
He has figures and notes the rate of erosion is not within the
.~ recycled paper i
..
.,
Town of Nantucket
f.!-tf -) ;-,' >' :'-:'
Conservation Commission
(508) 228-1230
10 South Beach Street
N antueket, Massachusetts 02554
I.
,
Meeting Minutes for May 16, 1991 Page 8
limits of th~by law$; is in fact-substantially less.
Concludes by introducing Mr. Humphries.
Mr. Humphries says he Was involved with the cases
reviewed; specifically, the Marshall case and the Garby case.
The major point he would like to make is since the writing of
the regulations for the State, in which Mr. Smith played an
integral part, and the cases that have occurred over the last
ten years, there has beel'1a progressive need to understand
wha~the intent was and how to better define land form that
provides sediment to a beach or that functions as a vertical
buffer and how they can be protected. Previously, before the
Garby case~ it was assumed that coastal banks were what you
can see: sharp breaKS in thelCknd form as sediment drops down
to the beach. The Garby case opened up the idea that an
elevated land form really just serv~s as a vertical buffer.
There was no guidance in the definition as to what that slope
might be. In 1985 they came, up with 4 types of banks but the
guideline.s.-1de.I:p npvpr fin.::lli-7Pt=f-.--Rpt"'pntly, a nrOift policy go-t
out to worksh~ps and several commissions. The Marshall case
came up a bit later and the situation got more difficult with
l;.umpound banks which might-supplyc-sediment -to a-beach. --
Continues there has been two or three cases in which the DEP
Southeast Region has useD the new information to make
determinations withoutr~ferencing the policy per se but used
the methodology that was worked out by the task force. The
Department is cautious in how they use the new information.
Continues there are some very interesting characteristics
regarding slope on this property. The cross section from the
harbor side back through the marsh is above the beach, with
the steepest part being the classical coastal bank and then
trailing off toward the marsh 15 to 1 and 20 to 1. Notes the
task force found lowslopas to be below 10 to 1. Believes
the seaward edge will be stabilized as a result of their
project which will raise the vertical landform by a 4 to 1
grading. Feels the land form is well represented by the
proposed plan. He shows three transects and the calculati6ns
that were done to determin. their slopes and submits the plans
showing the information.
Mr. Krieger aSKs if the commission has seen the draft
policy. Presents a copy. Notes the first two point~: a
slope less t'han 10 to 1 is land subject. to coastal storm
flowage, not a coastal bank; a coastal bank must be greater
@ recycled paper \
I
/
"
I
Town~' of Nantucket
.'!..~
Conservatibri '. ComIrllssion .
(508) 228-'1230
I.
.
10 South Beach Street .-
N antueket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes for May 16, 1991 Page 9
- than 10 to 1 slope. Says it is clear according to the terms
of this policy and the task force, it is not a coastal bank.
Mr. Humphries says the fact that a setback of a specific
dimension is connected with the boundary obviously clouds ~he
problems in this project and in some way dilutes the real
issue of what is being protected here. He understands the
commission is concerned about protecting the language in the
By-law and future appeal. Would like the commission in this
case to give more c:onsideratio-n'to the fact that lower sloping
land is land subject to flooding. As far as the project goes,
he sees advantages to the road being set away from the coastal
bank; measures c:an be taken to plant some vegetation.
Mr. Wasierski asks for questions.
Dr. Dunwiddie says he will repeat the question that he
raised last week that while the draft policy addresses these
-------- 'tfGt!5t ions, . how can.4E: , a3 a.boa.rd ma.ke a dec i~ ba.sedon-a---~
draft policy for what we think might be the original intent of
the draftees of the regulations'? Believes we have to base our
-~- decision on p-rec::edent- aha o~he reguJ.a1aons as 'tney currently
read and not on hOw a lot of people think they ought to read
but haven't gotten around to finalizing.
.
Mr. Humphries says it is speculative but the department
does not even hold itself to a precedent based on previous
cases. It specifically looks at the land site.
Dr. Dunwiddie agrees but thinks he has been listening, to
too many lawyers. Would prefer to make. reasonable decisions
that make sense to all of us but has seen too many cases
appealed because we were reasonable.
Mr. Krieger says there were several cases in other areas
of the Southeast region where this new policy has been used;
unfortunately those opinions have not yet been issued. This
is an on-gOing thing and we are trying to promote the use of
the best available information. Even the original by-law
isn't clear and is subject to interpretation
Dr. Dunwiddie says in that regard what is the
shows we should use the 8', 100 year flood line?
flaw in using those as a precedent? We need some
guidance.
\ recycled paper
case that
Where is the
sort of
'.
Town ()f tf9l1tucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228~7230
10 South Beach Street
N antUck:et, 'Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes for May 16, 1991 Page 10
Mr. Humphries responds both cases apply; reviews the 2
case$. Suggests one should look at the function of the bank;
they are looking at more significant banks vs. less
significant banks in prote~ting the interests of the act~
Mr. Perry says in his memo reviewing the material he
concluded that the commission had two choices: one which is
the 100 year flood as the to~of the coastal bank, which is
more conservative, or the edge; of the marsh as one re$ource
area and land subject to co~sstaL;storm flowage as the other
resource area, which is more~tisky because under appeal it
will go strictly to the black and white of the regulations.
Dr. Dunwiddie says there is a very real potential that
whatever we decide here will come back and haunt us. Feels we
should take the more conserva:tive approach.
--1'tr._Kr::-i-&ger::--a-sks if-4his il=:. ~~]pd--t;o ru;::~:do-1:hey go__b't-_
the local by laws or just the state regs? Continues there are
2 things that have to be decided. First, if there is a
~ocil:>ldl Gc:Ulk Ul llU l c:unJ lllt::'1I where is---ttle-'t-01Tof it. Ottr--
contention is there isn't a coastal bank based on the
contours, based on the land form, based on no distinguishable
break in slope, and fairly uniform. Does not think it is
clear from the local by laws that it is a coastal bank. . Is
subject to interpretation. The state, he thinks, recognizes
there is not a clear definition af these things and is in the
process of a$sembling the information to better define this so
people like you don't get stuck in a- difficult situation, and,
it just hasn't become law. Th~yclearly have put in writing a
better definition for what a coastal bank is, both in the 1985
memo and in the current draft policy, in terms of language, in
terms of the graphics, there is no question that this is not a
coastal bank.
Attorney Reade says in additiQn to representing Mr. and
Mrs. Stephen Karp and Mr. and Mrs. Richard Tucker, he has been
engaged as well by Mr. and Mrs. Thoma$ LeFevre. Says he
basically agrees what Dr. Dunwiddie has said that we have a
couple of fairly recent cases fro,m DFP to rely on as
precedent. If ever there was a case that whoever wins or
whoever thinks they won or lost that will be appealed before
DEP or a superior court judge it is this one and he feels a
conservative approach is wise.
@ recycled paper
\
.
;~~<'J:',;'''~~:'~'i~~,:~~,''. . "/:;,~.,D'P~,;y",~7'7f~.:~~
/
Town of Nantucket
Conservati'b~;',i'C()futiii~sion
(508) 22S--'l2s0 .
10 South Beach Street
N antueket,Massaehusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes for May 16, 1991 Page 11
Attorney Moretti, representing Mr. Crosby~ asks Mr.
Humphrie~ toe)(plain a little more about the land subject to
flooding next to the wetland--where it is and what the
implications are.
Mr. Humphries says the land at the 8' contour represents
the 100 year flood plain. It is the elevation, it is
predicted, at which there i.s a 1% chance of occurrence the
water will reach. It is a storm sergeelevat10n primarily
because waters need to go around along the barriers and they
slowly cause the salt marsh to rise and cause flat water
flooding up to that point. This is unlike and in contrast to
an open water body where there are waves in water deeper than
4' that break and are much more vulnerable to erosion. The
eff'ect of flooliH.ng.o", :the salt marsh he feels would be minimal
due to the water's slow rise and fall. In walking the
perimeter he sees no evidence of erosion due partially to the
nvegetat iEH"h- ~- --.,-
Mr. Moretti asks would the location of the proposed road
hl<ely be subJec't 'to flooding. - _____u --
Mr. Humphries says yes but measures can be taken and it
would not take away from the function of that land form.
Dr. Dunwiddie notes the client's entire house is in the
flood zone.
Mr. Krieger says he has been reading the definitions of
coastal banks in the local by law~ and the state laws and one
point keeps jumping out at him: in the local rlefinition it is
the seaward face or side of an elevated land form; in the
state regulations coastal banks, because of.the height and
stability, may act as a buffer and natural wall to protect
upland areas from storm damage and flooding--face, side,
buffer, wall. All imply a steeply, sloping land form. While
it's not quantified he thinks that was the intent when the By-
laws were written, to look for some measurable slope. Doesn't
think a slope less than 10 to 1 implies a wall and he doesn't
think it was the intent in writing the original definition to
consider a slope of 15 to 1 or 20 to 1 as a vertical buffer.
Mr. Humphries notes one of the original author's (Les
Smith) is here; suggests he be asked about the intent.
. c~ recycled paper
\
Town o.fNaIltucket
. " f',-.f :," :I~':.:-.;:f::""rr';ef~:"'\'
Conservation · . Commission
"
(508) 228-7230
10 South Beach Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
to
1
Meeting Minutes for May 16, 1991 Page 12
Mr. Smith responds when we developed the regulations we
didn't anticipate all things. Were considering land forms for
a coastal bank as two types: seaward face to protect sediment
and erosion and other types because of height provided a
vertical buffer. The idea of the 100 year flood came up but
there was no thought about slope, break in slope, and they
were thinking more of the function of land form between.
Since then the court cases have come along and guided the
issue and draft policies have evolved.
Dr. Dunwiddie says then you would acknowledge, given the
initial intent of what a coastal bank was, this would probably
not qualify.
Mr. Smith says the land form is provid-ing protection
between you and another landform.
-Dr. D'Inwiddie r:..esponric; .:lnythlnC) rlhnvP-s~al-evel then is
~roviding protection?
J
----Mr~ SnrttM-says land subject to coast-al.storm flowage-
regulations do not really exist. There is a big difference
~etween that and a coastal bank.
Dr. Dunwiddie says this is not the type of coastal bank
that is providing any sediment. That only leaves us with it
is providing a vertical buffer. As I interpret what you
represent to us, basically any land not going downhill from
the ocean is providing a vertical buffer up to the 100 year
flood line.
Mr. Smith says. he thinks that was the original intent but
they didn't anticipate the By-laws that would develop b~sed, on
that. Thinks the original intent was if you have a land mass
that encounters a 100 year flood it was to prevent altering or
changing which might cause damage further back.
Dr. Dunwiddie asks how could we alter this vertical buffer
that could cause greater damage to the area further back?
Mr. Krieger says the state laws are clearly interested in
the stability of the bank. Here you are not adversely
affecting the stability. ~
~@ nw/cled paper
t
I
/
.-
Town ofN"antucket.
Conservation'.' '.Commission
(508) 228-7230
'i
)
10 South Beach Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes for May 16, 1991 Page 13
Dr. Dunwiddie asks is it incumbent on us to demonstrate
that there is. a question of the project's impeding the
performance of this land form O-r.islt sufficient to say the
land form exists and might be impeded. Thinks there are
separate questions here.
Mr. Perry says if you do choose to consider this a coastal
bank and determine the project meets the performance standards
and will not adversely affect the s~ability of the bank then
you can allow it. The problem is i~ the local by laws where
we have regulations that affect that and will require waivers
for anything within th~ 25' undisturbed buffer and structures
within 50 feet.
Attorney Reade says a waiver is required for the project
under the ~ocalBy-law. He is not suggesting no order of
conditions should be issued on this site. We think that one
three bedroom house is the proper way to respond to this
w.a-i 'v't!Fi:n"-o Jee:t. - -----
p
Mr. Wasierski asks if this is going to open up Pandora's
Box wlth- other projects! Is Bt-ant-Polm, Delow Orange S't:ree't,
to be considered below the coastal bank?
Mr. Krieger says you are talking about 50' setbacks.
There is quite a difference bet~een lQcal and state
regulations.
Hr. Perry says with a waiver you have to decide where
reasonable lies.
Attorney Reade says the coastal bank issue. and ~aivers are
not the only issues. Also in question is thewe.tland scenic
view.
Mr. Perry says first we need to resolve the technical
issue as we need a determinatiol"l regarding the coastal bank
before we can get to other issues.
Mr. Krieger says it does not follow that if there is no
coastal bank found that you have accepted the project. But he
feels that the toastal bank has such a significant impact on
the project that it needs to be discussed at length before we
can get to some of the other issues.
~ reevcled paper
'.
"
Town of ' 'Nantucket
'. ,"_. ,":-:'~,' "'_":',h}><.:"i:~,c';-~;',;'t:,':: ' '. "
Conservation . Commission
10 South aeach Street
N antueket,Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes for May 16, 1991 Page 14
Mr. Perry says he had suggested they file a.determin..tion
solely.to resolve where the coastal bank is located. How.ver,
that would be appealed to the state and to superior cour~and
the notice would be continued until the decision was made on
the bank issue. The problem would be that no time will be
gained.
Mr. Wasierski asks what is the Board's pleasure?
Dr. Dunwiddie suggests we poll the commissioners one by
one on whether it is a coastal bank or not.
Mr. Perry says under local regulations a coastal bank is
the first discernable break in slope above the 100 year flood.
First have to decide that it is an elevated land form.. That's
the .definition ofa bank. Once you decide it is .abank then
thatopof the bank should be the top of the face of the bank
or abrea~ in slope above the 100 year flood plain elevat19n.
Where we .o~_n' t ha.'l.fL..a _nice stra-i.ghJ;_~ank--Which has an Obvious
top<to it, we go to the 100 yeac flood and say 6" back is a
break in slope.
,
Mr. Wilson says this isn'.t based on fact.
Mr. Wasierski says ,we've never looked up beyond the
wetland edge seaward slope.
Mr. Perry says in order to determine that line, we'd have
to have another field inspection and have the S' contour
flagged in order to find a discernable break above that.
Mr. Wasierski says we need to find out if weare going to
call it a coastal bank first.
Dr. Dunwiddie says there's also the thought of where that
coastal bank is likely to b~,if we de~ide there is one.
Mr. Wasier-ski says we have to find a break in slope
somewhere from the wetland to the beach.
Dr. Dunwiddie says given the low relief already there just
look at a contour map and see if there is a break in slope.
@recycledpsper
.
..
Town of. Nantucket
ConservatibrriComIIlission
\' . ~--~)~~~~i::
(508)..130
I.
I
10 South Beach Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes for May 16, 1991 Page 15
Mr. Krieger says you're getting into definitions of what's
a discernable break in slope. Says he walked the area today
and foundnodiscernable break in slope.
Dr. Dunwiddie says he doesn't see the local By-laws as
allowing the definition of the top of the coastal bank to be
the 100 year flood.
Mr. Krieger says he would like to point out again that the
information they have received from the DEP indicates they
have been trying to clear this up by creating definitions. As
a way of doing so they have gone to slopes. It's not law but
that's the approach th~y have taken at the state and regional
level--"'to use criteria based on slopes. And their latest
policy is anything less than 10 to 1 is not a coastal bank.
Dr. Dunwiddie says he still doesn't see anything in the
local By-law which allows them to come .up with anything other
tftaC"n the break i n-sl()pe!~- - ------ - ---
,
Mr. Perry says if you feel this is an elevated land form.
--_._..._-_.~...- -_...._~-- --
Dr. Dunwiddie says how can you call it not elevated, it's
above sea level isn't it? Whether this is bad wording or not-
-what it says is all we have to decide is if it's an elevated
land form, it's a coastal bank. "Seaward face or side of any
elevated land form other than a coastal dune, which lies at
the landward edge of the coastal beach, land subject to tidal
action or storm flooding or other wetland." It certainly does
do all of it. So all we have to decide is if this is an
elevated land form, if it's an elevated land form, it's a
coastal bank. The seaward face, or side...this side faces the
wetland, it's an elevated land form--subject to storm
flooding.
Mr. Perry asks Mr. Smith what his opinion is about this
under the curTentdraft policy.
Mr. Smith says it hasn't been acknowledged yet by the
director of the program.
Mr. Hu~phries says when the task force met to talk about
coastal storm flow, Mr. Brandeis was also one of the writers
and, speaking for him, his comments today indicate it was,not
the intent of what we wrote 13 years ago to include this type
.
) recycled paper t
_.
;<'
'.
Town 'of.Nantucket
Conserv~ti6ri"n;'c~rririti~si~~
~.;;;<r~
(508) 228-1230' ,.
Ii
}
10 South Beach Street
N antueket,Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes for May 16, 1991 Page 16
OT landform as a coastar bank when the regulations were
discussed.
Attorney Melissa Philbrick speaks to the issue
representing no Orie. Says if you are coming from a beach, if
you're coming from sea level--the word elevated has to mean
something other than holding back water.
Dr. Dunwiddie says that is a very good point. Clearly
there was an intent in using elevated other than meaning above
sealevel. And 1 think we sort of agree that is what we all
sort of thought. Asks if there is any guidance from the by-
laws as to the use of the word elevated.
Mr. Wasierski asks where the 100 year flood line enters
the issUe and if it includes an eleva~ed land form.
Mr. Smith says you don't usually have ~he same set of
-ely-namics. inla.nd J'.:;-~-::it~r.
__-1
Dr. Dunwiddie says it is somebody's idea of a reasonable
probab n i ty of protet-ti fig most of the resources and nu:rstof'
the people most of the time.
Commissioners are polled and agree unanimously it is not a
coastal bank.
Mr. Krieger asks for a continuation to discuss all the
other issues.
Mr. Perry asks before the motion 1S made is anything
specific wanted in house redesign.
Attorney Moretti asks for a final contours plan.
Mr Wasierski states that he would like tap see more detail
on the driveway and limits of fill.
Mr. Krieger says they don't have one as yet because they
are still discussing alternatives on the first floor
elevation. Will do worst case scenario.
Mr. Perry suggests a reduction in clearing around the
house.
@ recycled paper \
I
'~?)"B,l';<1,~~~'~~-n~~-l dJ.;''''~
~.t
/
..
I
Town of Naritucket
Conservatiotl<'Commission
_~;,)l,-_ _' ';{;".,'<
(~>228-7230
10 South Beach Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes for May 16, 1991 Page 17
,
Mr. Wasierski suggests information on scenic views.
Mr. Krieger says the cleCiring has been modified. Also,
the~ have elevations and photographs of the model and
photographs from the various water bodies which they will
bring to the next meeting.
MOTION: To continue for additional information is
made and setonded.
UNANIMOUS
4~ Nantucket Bank - 100 Pleasant St. - (55-145) - SE48-652
Present for the applicant is Robert Emack of Nantucket
Surveyors.
Mr. Emack ~ays with regard to the 0 il separators he has
looked intoit,and 5P,Qkewith .BrianDudley aj; ',Water '~o.IJution~,
and as they aren't dispersing into the wet'land there are no' -
requirements. Proposes use of absorbent pads in the catch
basins.- Says somethi~on the r>at'lre of, a ry"- ....ys.t'l WOllJrl
suggest need ofa gas trap with absorbent pillow. Couldn't
think of a way to vent up to the parking lot so wants to
suggest using the present trap more as a debris trap in
conjunction with the pads which don't absorb water, just oil.
Not sure if under normal use it will need to be changed but
should it have to be changed it will be hazardous waste. The
commission may want to request routine checking.
1
Dr. Dunwiddie says there must be a recommendation from the
manufacturer"
Mr. Emack says hets getting a catalog.
Mr. Wasierski suggests with a maintenance schedule we
could propose somethi,ng and two years down the pike perhaps
the interval could be lengthened.
MOTION: To continue for additional information is
made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
5. Lane - West Chester St. - (41-478) - SE48-653
/-;l;',
'.!i recycled paper
Town.oJ .Nantucket
. ;..<'_L(d1:.1 "%;'.'~'-/:';,~",~,-t ~ ',-
Conservation Commission
. (508) 228-7230
10 South Beach Street
N antueket, Massachusetts 02554
Meetin~ Minutes for May 16, 1991 Page 18
. Mr. Perry notes this is awaiting HOC review.
MOTION: To continue at the request of the applicant
is made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
C. REGULAR MEETING
1. REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION
a. Wannacomet Water - Meadow View Dr & Wamasquid PI (56)
Present for the applicant is David Worth.
Mr ." Perry says the hearing is, after the fact and that they
hava')extended their water I ines down' Meadow View Drive to
Wa"'i:~q~,duPla.ce.-=--u~--- __u_ . _ __ _~_
MOT ION:'
uut. will
To issue a, negative determination subject to
IIU I.. a :tter i s'made-and- se~() "ded .--
UNANIMOUS
2. ORDER OF CONDITIONS
a. Greenberg - 21 E. Tristram's Ave.
SE48-557 - (31-3)
Present for the applicant is Attorney Melissa Philbrick
and John Shugrue.
Mr. Perry says we have received a revised plan which
ctlrrec;ts a drafting error wHich lost 30-feet between the bank
and the house. Continues that changes have been made to the
order of conditions asfol1b,ws:
#14 to identify the revised plan dated 5/14/91 and to make
sure there is a 25' undisturbed buffer to the driveway.
#15 to identify the revised plan received 5/14/91.
Mr. Willet asks Mr. Shugrue if he has any comments on the
order.
@ recycled paper
\
I
"1,)"~:;:'';A\7~;;Z;;.;i>;;~::c;~''~'- - "~~~f'r-bt!L3J:.t,,~,":.
~;
..
Town of ,Nantucket
ConservatH,n .CommisSion
.---~
(508).~~~
10 South Beach Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02654
II
1
Meeting Minutes for May 16, 1991
Page 19
Mr. Shugrue says he went over it with Mr. Perry and if he
did everything we discussed, he bas no problems whatsoever.
MOTION: To issua t~~~rder as drafted with noted
changes was made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
ADDITIONAL SPECIAL CONDITIONS
GREENBERG ASSOC~~TES REALTY TRUS~
DE~FIL.;~!\JER SE4B - 557
ASSE~O~.~;JtlAft',31, PARCEL 3
21 EASjT~';~J~AM AVENUE
UNDER THE MASSACHtJSE;rT$,~~TLANDS PROTECTION ACT
( 'MGJ.,... CHaPT~IiJ,~~1 II SECTIOI\i 40 )
AND THE WETLANDS. BY~~~pF. . THE TOWN OF NANTUCKET
( CHA~~ER 13b )
3-.=::c=Eursuan-t--to Ge-ne-r<H~~"ntj j t-; ('\n Numb-er~ 8-,-_J:..h i c;; nrrlpr nf
Conditions must be registerad in the Registry of Deeds
Nantucket and proof of re~ording shall be submitted to
Commi'ssion, 1JTilJ..-to-cornrn~f.lCemen1;-of- any work approved
this Order.
for
the
in
4. Prior to any activity at the site, a siltation fence or a
line of haybales shall be staked 25 feet from the edge of the
established wetland boundary to the south of the project
site, or ata higher elevation, and between the ditch and the
project site. After the fence or haybales are installed,
notice shall be given to the Nantucket Conservation
Commission. No work shall begin on the site for 48 hours
after said notice is giyera, so- as to allow Commission members
time to inspect all siltatjon devices. The siltation fence
or haybale line, erected to prevent siltation of the wetland
during construction, will also serve as a limit of activity
for work crews. It shall remain in good repair during all
phases of construction, and it shall not be removed until all
soils are stabilized and revegetated or until permission to
remove it is given by the Commission.
5. An as-built plan, signed~('Id stamped by a registered
professional engineer or land surveyor in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, shall be submitted to the Commission at the
same time as a written request for a Certificate of
Compliance and shall specify how, if at all, the completed
/~ recycled paper t
r
/
Town of~9-J1tuck~'t
Conservation Commission
:'
(508) 228-7230
I.
I
10 South Beach Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Mee:ting Minutes f~r May 16,;1991 Page 20
.-;p.'"",",
"
/.k'o!;,. :
plan differs from the fina I approved plan. The:;l:;tt!ls-bu i It plan
shall include, but not be limited to, the fOllq~~119: any
pipe/culvert inverts for inflow and outfalls;< ~~~eslope,
size and composition; location of dtherdraina~~i~i'structures
and their composition; limits of fill or altel"a~J;on; location
of all structures and pavement within 100 feet\.~wetland;
the edge of the wet land; the grade contours wi to;tn 100 feet
of the wetland.
6.
Members, employees, and agents of theCommissi<>Pishall have
the right to enter and inspect the premises to;evaluate
compliance with the conditiOns and performal"lc~ '1iandards
stated in this Order, the Nantucket Wetlands'~,the
Regulations promulgated under the Bylaw, thEk~ chusetts
Wetlands Protection Act, andperti~eht Mass~ch ts
regulations (310 CMR 10.00thrbugh 10.99). Th.. mmission
may require the submittal of any data deemed n,~~ssary by the
Commission for that evaluation. HLi!
;c'o,.",
i eel
~
7. The applicant, owners, successor7> or assignee~!!hall be
responsible for maintaining anyon-site drainat!i,5tructures
and outfalls, assufi-rig the lasting -integritVcffJ~egetatlve
cover on the site and monitoring site activiti~soas to
prevent erosion, siltation, sedimentation, cheltl~c:al
contami nat ion or other detr imental impact to~~:'lon-si te or
off-site resource area. It shall be the resPP~~bility of
the property owner of record to see that the, ',n.!~~tenance
conditions are complied with as required by th~~~'order.
.:,;i-,:.
8. This document shall be included in all constru~j;ion contracts
and subcontracts deal ing with the work propose(i;;and shall
supersede other contract requirements.
9. Used petro leum produc ts from the mai ntenance o~',;.tonstruct ion
equipment, construction debris, and unused pa,i; land paint-
related products shall be collected and dispo's j.bf
responsibly off the site. No on-site disposal! these items
is allowed.
10. Dust control, if required, shall be limited t'o;:w.ater. No
salts or other wetting agents shall be used. L:!'
'-'.
;""',,'
11. Any refuse material found on the site shall beI':~::*!sposed of at
an appt-oved landfi 11 and in no case may these ".~erials be
buried or disposed of in or near a wetland.
@ recycled pa'lper
I
/
Town of Nantucket
Conservation. Commission
-'
(508J~O
10 South Beach Street
Nantucket, Massa.chusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes for May 16, 1991 Page 21
12. This Order of Conditions shall apply to any successor in
interest orsucce~sor in control of the property.
13. In all cases, no part of any structure, including decks,
shall be closer than SO feet from the wetland boundary to the
south or'50 feet fro~ the top of the coastal bank to the
north.
14. There must beat least a 25-foot undisturbed buffer zone
adjacent to the wetland boundary to the south of the project
site. Except for the walkway and stairway, there must be at
least a 25-foot undisturbed buffer zone landward of the
coastal bank.
15. No portion of any driveway or parking area may be closer than
25 feet to the wetland boundary or the top of the coastal
bank, and any dr i veway or park ing area must be constructed o.f
per'\,ious materia-l-. PIe-sse-note that-::this com:trti-on t-a:kes---
precedence over the approved plan d,-awn by John Shugrue,
received by the Commission May 14, 1991. This project has
not been granted a waIver from the c:J-footsetbac::k expTiuneo-----
above.
.
16. Notwithstanding the applicant's plan, drawn by John Shugrue
and received by the Commission August 24, the walkway to the
top of the bank may be placed directly on the natural
vegetation, but no cutting is allowed except to keep the
walkway clear. The stairway to the beach must be 3 to 4 feet
above the face of the bank.
17. All underground utilities leading to the house must be
installed in the existing roadway.
18. The ridge height of the house shall not exceed 27 feet above
existing grade.
19. The installation of the water line is to be done through the
use of a "ditch witch It type of machinery. No heavy
machinery is allowed.
20. After installation of the water line through the ditch, the
existing contours and ditch bottom elevation will be
restored, the banks stabilized and replanted with native
species.
'-~ recycled paper
Town.,qf'-Nantuck~t
Conservation Commission
-,
J (508) 228-7230
10 South Beach Street
Nantucket, M8$Sachusetts 02554
I.
I
Meeting Minutes for May 16, 1991
Page 22
21. To minimize adverse effects on wildlife, the use of any
pesticide or fertilizer more than 15 feet from the house is
prohibited.
22. No coastal engineering structure of any kind shall be
permitted on the property in the future to protect the
project allowed by this Order. Section 310 CMR 10.30 (3) of
the Wetlands Regulations, promulgated under MGL Chapter 131,
Section 40, require. that no coastal engineering structure,
such as bulkhead~ r'evetment, or seawall, shall be permitted
on an eroding bank at anytime in tHe future to protect the
project allowed by this Order of Conditions.
###
b. Bennett- 22 Lily Street - SE48-650 -(42.4.3-91>
--Mr-. Perr'f' ---::;3'1:: he went- -to.--M-r ~-Bennett. shay_it t-o-day-t-o
ask if he was happy with the order<:lnd he is. Notes the work
has been done already.
MOTION: To issue the order as drafted was made and
seconded.
. UNANIMOUS
ADDITIONAL SPECIAL CONDITIONS
DouglasF.Bennett
DEP FILE NUMBER SE48 -bSO
ASSESSOR'S ,MAP 42.4.3, PARCEL 91
22-Lily Stree~
UNDER THE MASSACHUSETTS WETLANDS PROTECTION ACT
('. MSLCHAPTER 131, . SECTION 40 )
AND THE WETLANDS BYLAW OF THE TOWN OF NANTUCKET
( CHAPTER 136 )
3. Pursuant to General Condition Number 8, this Order of
Conditions must be registered in the Registry of Deeds for
Nantucket and-proof of recording shall be submitted to the
Commission, prior to commencement of any work approved in
this Order.
4. Prior to any
staked along
@ recycled paper
activity at the site, a snow fence shall be
t~e upland edge of the established wetlands
t
Town of Naptuok(at
Conservation Commission
J
. ,', . .
(508),~~1~
t ...",....:
\.
I
10 South Beach Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 00554
Meeting Minutes for May 16, 1991 Page 23
boundary, or at a higher elevation. After the fence is
installed, notice shall be given to the Nantucket
Conservation Commission. No work shall begin on the site for
48 hours after said notice is given, so as to allow
Commission members time to inspect all siltation devices.
The snow fence is er~cted to prevent siltation of the wetland
during construction and wi 11 also serve as a I imi.t of
activity for work crews. It shall remain in good repair
during all phases of construction, and it shall not be
removed until all soils are stabilized and revegetated or
until permission to remove it is given by the CommIssion.
5.
An as-built plan, signed and stamped by a registered
professional engineer or land surveyor in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, shall be submitted to the Commission at the
same time as a written request for a Certificate of
Compliance and shall specify how, if at all, the completed
plan differs ,fromthe final approved plan. The as-built plan
~shall-i-nc: rud~. -but not be -l-i-m i-ted to, t/"le>fo 11 o loti nEJ+- -}-i mi tc::.
of fill or alteration; location of all structures and
pavement within 10~feetof wetland; the edge of the wetland;
the--qT"ade-l::-orrtour$ wt'ttfil'l 100 feet of the wet land. - - ---
6. Members, employees, and agents of the Commission shall have
the right to enter and inspect the premises to evaluate
compliance with the conditions and performance standards
stated in this Order, the Nantucket Wetlands Bylaw, the
Regulations promulgated under the Bylaw, the Massachusetts
Wetlands Protection Act, and pertinent Massachusetts
regulations (310 CMR 10.00 through 10.99). The Commission
may require the submittal of any data deemed necessary by the
'jCommission fbr that evaluation.
7. The applicant, owners, successors or assignees shall be
responsible for maintaining any on-site drainage structures
and outfalls, assuring the lasting integrity of vegetative
cover on the site and monitoring site activities so as to
prevent erosion, siltation, sedimentation, chemical
contamination or other detrimental impact to anyon-site or
off-site resource area. It shall be the responsibility of
the property owner of record to see that the maintenance
conditions are complied with as required by this order.
.".,~ recycled paper
t
.
/
. .
l. " ,.
To.wn of Nciritlicket
(-'-' "" ',: - ""'-:'
Conservation' Commission
(508) 2~g.,7280
I.
I
10 South Beach Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes for May 16, 1991 Page 24
8. This doeument shall be included in all construction contracts
and subcontracts dealing with,thework proposed and shall
supersede other contract reqt,jiremer)ts.
9. Used petroleum products fro.mthe maintenance of construction
equipment, construction debris, and unused paint and paint-
related products shall be collected and disposed of
responsibly of~ the site. No on-site disposal of these items
is allowed.
10. Dust control, if required, shall be limited to water. No
salts or other wetting agents shall be used.
11. Any refuse material found on the site shall be disposed o~ at
an approved landfill and in no case may these materials be
buried or disposed of in or near a wetland.
12. This Order of Conditions shall apply ,to any successor in
inte~st or successor in control of-the prooerty.
13. All excavated materlals,shall not be placed or stockpiled
within-any wetlands on the proper-ty.--
14. Natural vegetation between the wetland edge and the project
site shall be left intact except wher-e it is necessary to
temporarily use this ar~a. After construction, any disturbed
area within this buffer area shall be replanted with native
plants. -
15. To minimize adverse effects on wildlife, the use of any
pesticide or fertilizer more than 15 feet from the house is
prohibited.
16. The proposed wooden walkway a.roundthe pond shall be
constructed of non-le.~hinQ wood pr;oducts;be elevated
between 12 and 18 inches above the existing grade; have board
spacing of approximately3/~ of ah inch.
17. All other vegetation below the wetland boundary (edge of
lawn> shall be left undisturbed and not trimmed or thinned
further.
###
@ recycled paper
/
Town of,.,.,l'IClIl'thlcket
Conservation' Commission
(508)228-7~,c)
10 South Beach Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Mee~~ng Minutes for May 16, 1991 Page 25
c. Okonak- 35-37 Rhode Is. Ave.-SE48-649 (60.3.1-139";"'145)
Present fo~ the applicant is John Shugrue.
Mr. Shugrue questions condition 16 (numbered incorrectly)
which states the project is between two barrier beaches.
Says the whole island is between two barrier beaches.
Generally, h~ disagrees with the findings in the addi~ion
beingddenied.
Mr. Perry says there was more of a consensus for an
vertical addition rather than for going horizon~ally.
Mrs. Hussey ques~ians #15. Suggests looking at the
project in a couple of years to see what is happening.
Mr. Shugrue asks if the Commission will require removal of
the addition at that time?
Mr. Perry says it states a concern of the commission.
Mr. Wasierski says maybe in a couple of-years ff-ther-e-is---
no problem they could add on to it.
MOTION: To issue the order as drafted with numbering
corrected is made and seconded.
.. ~_.-
UNANIMOUS
ADDITIONAL SPECIAL CONDITIONS
.JamesR. Okonak Trust
DEPFILE NUMBER SE48 - b49
ASSESSOR'S MAP 60.3.1, PARCELS 139-145
. '35--37 Rhode Island Ave.
UNDER THE MASSACHUSETTS WETLANDS PROTECTION ACT
( M6L CHAPTER 131, SECTION 40 )
AND THE WETLANDS BYLAW OF THE TOWN OF NANTUCKET
( CHAPTER - 136 )
3. Pursuant to General Condition Number 8, this Order of
Conditions must be registered in the Registry of Deeds for
Nantucket and proof of recording shall be submitted to the
Commission, prior to commeneement of any work approved in
this Order.
-')
.,; recycled paper
.
Town 01 Nantucket
Conservation CommissIon
7' .. .. . ., ~_ '~,:
(50s) 22&.7~D' ..'
10 South Beach Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
t.
I
Meeting Minutes for May 16, 1991
Page 26
4. Prior to any activity at. the site, a snow fence shall be
staked along the upland edge of the established wetlands
boundary, or at a higher elevation. A~ter the fence is
installed, notice shall be given to the Nantucket
Conservation Commission. No work shall begin on the site for
48 hours after said notice is given, so as to allow
Commission members time to inspect all siltation ~evices.
The snow fence is erected to control windblown debris during
construction and will also serve as a limit of activity for
work crews. It. shall remain in good repair during all phases
of construction, and it shall not be removed until all soils
are stabilized and revegetated or until permission to remove
it is given by the,Commission.
5. An as~built plan, signed and stamped by a regi$tered
professional engineer or land surveyor in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, shall be submitted to the Commission at the
c;Am~i,m~ A-C;-., w,J"-i-+'i:~n r~quest fat:' a.-Certificate of
Compliance and shall specify how, if at all, the completed
plan differs from the final approved plan. The as-built plan
shall include,---out-no-t-be +imrted-to, the following:
location of other drainage structures and their composition;
limits of fill or alteration; ~ocation of all structures and
pavement within 100 feet of wetland; the edge of the wetland;
the grade contours within 100 feet of the wetland.
6. Members, employees, and agents of the Commission shall have
the right to enter and inspect the premises to evaluate
compliance with the conditions and performance standards
stated in this Order, the Nantuc~et We,tlands Bylaw, the
Regulations promulgated under the Bylaw, the M~ssachusetts
Wetlands Protection Act, and pertinent Massachusetts
regulations (310 CMRI0.00 through 10.99). The Commission
may require the submittal of any data deemed necessary by the
Commission for that evaluation.
7. The applicant, owners, successors or assignees shall be
responsible for maintaining anyon-site drainage structures
and outfalls, assuring the lasting integrity of vegetative
cover on the site and monitoring sit~,activities so as to
prevent erosion, siltation, sedimentation, chemical
contamination or other detrimental impact to anyon-site or
off-site resource area. It shall be the responsibility of
@ recycled paper
\
Town of Nantucket
Conservation, ,'Commission
(508) 22&-1230
10 South Beach Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
\.
,
Meeting Minutes for May 16, 1991 Page 27
the property owner of record to see that the maintenance
conditions are complied with as required by this order.
8. This document shall be included in all construction contra~ts
and subcontracts dealing with the work proposed and shall
supersede other contract requirements.
9. Used petroleum products from the maintenance of construction
equipment, construction debris, and unused paint and paint-
related products shall be collected and disposed of
responsibly off the site. No on-site disposal of these items
is allowed.
10. Dust control, if required, shall be l,imited to water. No
salts or other wetting agents shall be used.
11. Any refuse material found on the site shall be disposed of at
an approvedli:lndfill and in no case may these materials be
buried C?r~dj.sp-esed of in or near_a~etland.
12. This Order of Conditions shall apply to any successor in
"" _ ~--~inte-l=-eSt-or-slJccessor in control of- the proper ty.
13. Natural vegetation between the wetland edge or snow fence
line and the project site shall be left intact except where
it is necessary to temporarily use this area. After
construction, any disturbed area within this buffer area
shall be replanted with native plants. There must be a 25-
foot undisturbed buffer zone on the upland side-of the
wetland boundary.
14. To mi,nimize adverse effects on wildlife, the use of any
pesticide or fertilizer more than 15 feet from the house is
prohibited.
15. The project approved under this Order is for the construction
of a second story over to existing footprint only. While
this addition is approved, there ia still concern among the
Commission over the potenti~l adverse of effects of changed
wind flow patterns and the destabilizing of the adjacent
dune.
16. The existing
cantilevers,
allowed.
. .:9 recycled paper
footprint includes all decks, stairs, overhangs,
etc. No additional horizontal expansion is
~
I
/ '.
I
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
(508) 228-7230
10 South Beach Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes for May 16, 1991 Page 28
17. Contrary to the final submitted plans, the proposed addition
of a garag_,studio, bath, etc~ on the northeasterly side of
the existing dwelling is hereby denied. The Commission sites
the sensitive location of'the ar-ea between two barrier
beaches; the substantial recent landward migration of the
dune sand and dune in the area; concerns about storm damage
prevention and flood control.
18. The applicant has submitted evidence to the Commission that
the existing septic system, with a design capacity of 300
gallons per day and installed in 1974, has adequate capacity
to handle the flow frbm the additional bedroom to make the
total number of bedrooms allowed in this dwelling to be three
(3) .
19. It is unclear ifthe~xis~ing septi~ leach trench system has
SUfficient separation from the groundwater to meet Title V.
20. The number of bedrooms in the dwelling shall be limited to
three (3). This condition shall be considered on-going and
not expire with-the--rssuance 01 a Cer'Clflca'Ce of Compliance
for this project.
21. No coas~al engineering structure of any kind shall be
permitted on the pro~erty in the future to protect the
p\""oject allowed by this Order.
###
3. CERTIFICATE OF COMPL!ANCE
a. Dooley - SE48~433 - (55-422.6)
Mr. Perry recommends the certificate not be issued as
vegetation is still needed along the road.
MOTION: To not is~ue the certificate is made and
seconded.
UNANIMOUS
b. Booker - SE48-420 - (80-41)
@ recycled paper
/
/
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Coinm1ssion
(508)_723(r,;,
.;- - ,-~
10 South Beach Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes for May 16, 1991 Page 29
Mr. Perry says he has scheduled this for inspection next
- week.
MOTION: To continue for inspection was made and
seconded.
UNANIMOUS
4. EXTENSION
a. Brooks - 63 W. Chester St.- SE48-502 - (41-222)
Mr. Perry says he has scheduled this for inspection next
week.
MOTION: To continue for inspection was made and
seconded.
- - UNAN I MOt:JS--- .
b. Johnson - Almanac Pond Road - SE48-483 - (25-14)
Mr. Perry says he doesn't believe we can issue an
extension. Says the notice is for two structures and we
issued a Notice of Non-significance and there is really no
way we can extend it. He has suggested they file a
determination to see if it is now within our jurisdiction as
things have changed since 1988. If the commission agrees he
will write a letter requesting they file a determination.
MOTION: To send a letter requesting a Request for
Determination be filed is made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
5. OTHER BUSINESS
a. Polpis Bikepath Inspection Friday, June 7
b. Harris-19 Baltimore -SE48-622-(60.2.4-85-88) minor mod
Present for the applicant is Robert Emack, Nantucket
Surveyors.
~ recycled paper
t
I
Town of Nantucket
Conservation' Commission
"
(508) 22&;7230..
10 South Beach Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
,.
}
Meeting Minutes for May 16, 1991 Page 30
Mr. Perr;y says this is a minor modificati:on to put a brick
patio between the house and the top of the bank. Adds the
original request was to raise the house to add a foundation
and to replace the septic system. Asks how they plan to
access the patio from the house because there is no door out
of the building.
Mr. Emack says he doesn't know.
MOTION: To allow the minor modification _is made and
seconded.
UNANIMOUS
c. Greenhill-16 Hoicks Hollow -SE48-598- (23-1) minor mod
Mr. Willet abstains from the discussion and the vote.
. Prs$en..t-for--th.e -a.pp.l-i.c.ant. is Attor-ney"~l-is5a phi lhri(""k
who shows a plan which proposes to put a fence between the
greenhouse and the house, linking the main house, garage and
. --:gardeo -shecr;--:-She- reads her letter requesting the
modific::a.tion.
MOTION: To approve the minor modification to add a
fence is made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
d. Bailey - 82 Union St. - SE48-513 (55.1.4-40) minor mod
Mr. Perry says this request to add a fence to separate the
dogs and ducks was previously discussed. The new owners are
now formally making a request for this minor modification.
MOTION: To approve the minor modification is made and
seconded.
UNANIMOUS
e. Barnside-High Brush Path-SE48-612(56-381,382)minor mod
Present is Charles Gibson.
@reCYCled paper
\
.
Town of Nantucket
Conservation 'Commission
(508)$'2aO
10 South Beach Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
t.
I
Meeting Minutes for May 16, 1991 Page 31
Mr. Perry says th-e request for a minor modification is to
square off the building envelope and also to clean out junk
metal from the wetland area. In order to remove it he will
hav~ to cut some brush~
Mr. Gibson provides photos of the items scattered in the
wetland vegetation.
MOTION: To allow the building envelope to be squared
off and allow removing trash from the wetland is made
and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
f. Doucet te - 18 Grove Lane - SE48-601 (41-441) ,app,eal
Mr. Perry says that DEP withdrew the appeal so our Drder
stands.
~
g. Madaket Bridges - SE48-427 - minor mod
Present for the applicant is Jef,f Willett,-DPw.---
Mr. Perry says this is a minor modification to change the
culverts from pile driven wooden bridges to box culverts.
Notes they are narrower in width. They also plan to
straighten out the bike path.
Dr. Dunwiddie asks why the change.
Mr. Willett says the cost of the bri~ges is $1,000,000 vs.
$400,000 for the culverts.
Mr. Perry says they didn't want the channel under wood$n
bridges to be any greater than the cross section of the
culverts as they didn't ~ant to increase the water flow.
Dr. Dunwiddie says he has been told that all the cattail
growth in the north head of Long Pond has transpired since
1938. Much of the invasion occurred after they changed from
the old b~idgeto culvert. Thinks water flow potentially
would have a significant impact on the north head of Long
Pond.
\.
'-::; recycled Pliper
I
/
Town of Naritucket
Conservation Commission
(508) ~7230
10 South Beach Street
N a.ntucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes for May 16, 1991 Page 32
Mr. Perry says the culverts are collapsed and the water is
blocked.
Mr. Willett says at the second bridge only two are really
functional and a third is partially functional so the flow is
closed off substantially. Says six culverts are coming out
and a single span will be put in.
Dr. Dunwiddie asks where the water level will be.
Mr. Willett says it will have a natural
condition for fish migration, initially of
over time silt and sediment will come in.
fall with the tide.
bottom as a
crushed stone but
I t wi II rise and
Dr. Dunwiddie asks if the Division of Fisheries has the
approved ,design.
Hr. --~~i llctt =ays yes. n-AOds~-t~ea of impac:t4s between
two forms. The culverts will reduce by 50% the intrusion
into the neighboring wetlands and can be built in 1 or 2
di:lys-. Says they are gOl.ng to apa some guararal.ls tOlJr-event
people from parking on the edges of the culvert but there
still will be parking.
..
Dr~ Dunwiddieasks if we know if the alu~inum culvert will
do bet~er in brackish water than cement and what will be the
determining factor.
Mr. Willett says they are certain it will do better and
cost .is the determining factor. Adds he has recently read
an engineering study of the effect of brackish water on
prestressed con(:l"'e.te panels on a bridge in Florida which
concluded it db5s01ves. Says the old culverts were
corrugatedsteelar'\d after a few years in the brackish water
they disintegrated.
Dr. Dunwiddie says he recently read of an epoKY that can
be applied over the reinforcing bars to prevent deterioration
in this type of environment. Suggests this might be
considered and it is preferable to invest the additional
money to have something that lasts.
@ recycled paper
- ,..
. .
Town of Nantucket
ConservatiOfiCommission
(508) 228-7230
10 South Beach Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
Meeting Minutes for May 16, 1991 Page 33
Mr. Willet says he thinks the aluminum will last and knows
of no complaints of aluminum de~eriorating. Notes boats are
made of aluminum.
MOTION: To accept the minor modification to allow a
culvert instead of a bridge is made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
Mr. Perry says an item that he would like to mention that
did not get on the agenda is Bruce Poor's Enforcement order.
He was out there Tuesday and the silt fence and hay bales
have been put around the areas we were worried about.
Recommends a vote to rescind th~~nforcement Order.
MOTION: To rescind the Enforcement Order is made and
seconded.
-1JNAN I MOllS _.. _, _
t'
Mr. Perry also notes that the commissioners have been
given .:l dr.:lft pol iC'1 an-conser-vatiCH'l---re$-t-r~ti~aJ'ld says
the Land Council would like our opinion. They would like to
get a policy to the Board of Selectmen so they can be a
little more consistent.
Mr. Perry asks if the commissioners want to express their
opinion in the selection of a new Town Council.
The commissioners discuss and agree they would prefer to
stay out of politics.
01-. Dunwiddie says he would like to raise an issue.
Proposes the commission do something when lack of action
causes a wetlands problem. States the case of two houses
falling into the ocean at Cisco and the resulting debris.
Believes an enforcement order is appropriate.
Mr. Was iersk i says it cou,ld be issued when the beach
erodes to within 50' of the house. Asks what they did in
Chatham.
Mr. Perry says if they get an enforcement order to move
the house people will say they don't have $20,000 to do it.
:0) recvcled paper
t
t
~
, -
Town of Nantucket
;;.;' . :;'-.f;:~" - ,",: '-, '''' 'f - -~~_
Conservation' Commission
(508) 228-7230
10 South Beach Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
I.
J
Meeting Minutes for May 16, 1991 Page 34
Mr. Willet suggests Mr. Perry research.
6. CORRESPONDENCE
7. MINUTES: for May 2, 1991
Mrs. Hussey comments that on page 6 it be added "Mrs
Hussey and an abutter had a concern."
MOTION: To accept the minutes with noted change was
made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
8. BILLS TO BE PAID
9. FIELD INSPECTIONS - Tue~day, May 28, 1991, 4:00 pm
MOTION: At 10:15 p.m. a motion was made and seconded
to adjourn th~ meeting.
UNANIMOUS
@' recycledpaper
\