HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-07-25
IF
'.
~
Town of Nantucket
Conservation Commission
4 North Water Street
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
HEET~~I'1INufE$ FOR .JuLy 25.1991
The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. i~ the Large
Group Instruction Room of the Nantucket High School.
Com,missioners present were Henry Wasierski, Laura H4ssey, Daniel
Kell ih.er, Diane McColl and Peter Wi lson. Also present were Bruce
Per~y, Administrator, and'Lu~ia Wyeth, secret&ry. I,
~ COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS FROM PRESS AND PUBLIC
6L PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Richards - 25 E. Tristram Ave.,- SE48-609 (31-1)
MOTION: To continue at the request of the applicant
is made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
2. Poor - Quidnet-SE48-635 (20-49, 50.2, 50.3; 21- 58, 119)
3. Poor - Quidnet - SE48-637 (21-122, 118.1, 119.1, 119.2)
Mr. Perry says the applicant has requested a
continuation. Adds there are a couple of areas that were not
marked as wetlands which he believes are now growing back.
When we went out on the enforcement order they were wet and
had been brush cut. He would like toiMspect now that they
have had a chance to grow and see what is coming up; one is a
brush cut area that had standing water and there are also a
couple of areas up around the house. Says he will contact
Mr. Poor next week to set a time and also make it clear he
should be here for the August 8th meeting to at least address
the culvert situation.
MOTION: To inspect the Poor property and request
appearance at the August 8 meeting and to continue
the hearing at the request of the applicant is made
and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
4. Lane - West Chester St. - SE48-653 - (41-478)
Present was the applicant Fred Lane.
fl4 rJ
{(-s-- 11 /J2- ~k ~ C~(
.
,
Meeting Minutes for. 3uly 25, 1991 Page 2
Mr. Perry says the applicant started the house but the
order ran out so a new notice was filed to finish the
framing. He was going to go to the HOC and get some
additional wings on the house but instead has a building
envelope he ....ould like approved, Notas the previously
approved footprint was closer to the silt fence and was much
bigger and the proposed is further away from the wetland and
is a littl~ larger so the shop can be away from ~he wetlands.
Says the decks in front mi9ht be closer than the existing
envelope and SUg~Rsts n~thing be allowed on the right side
e)(cep~~ chimney and have the decl<s go straight following the
ex i st i ng~nvelop.S! 1'i ne.
Commissioners compare the plans.
Mr. Perry says if the commissioners are happy with the
proposal we can draft an order.
MOTION: To close the hearing and draft an order is
made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
5. Craig - 1 Kimball Avenue - (30-33)
MOTION: To continue for a OEP file number is made
and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
6. Diehl - 44 Meadowview Drive - SE48-656 - (56-297)
Mr. Perry says the urgency for a decision is gone and the
applicant has requested that the hearing be continued.
MOTION: To continue at the request of the applicant
is made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
* 7. Reade - Polpis Road - SE48-658 - (46-1)
Present are Arthur Reade, counsel; Mr. David Haines and
Mr. 3eff Blackwell.
Mr. Reade says this notice is for the same property
discussed previously in two separate notices.
Mr. Perry says he inspected the property yesterday with
Ms. McColl but did not write a report as the wetlands have
not changed since the previous filings.
"
~';~'~;"J,r-':."-!':''''!i''C:-'-:' '5""~"
Meeting Minutes for 3uly- -25, 1991 Page 3
Mr. Wasierski askssbout the area where the bridge is
proposed.
Mr. Perry says it is the narrowest part of the wetlanC:;
there are thick shrubs but on either side it gets wider so
feels it is an area that would be the least impacted.
Mr. Haines says they selected that area as it is the
narrowest. It would require the c:utting of the shrubs.
Because of the shading of the bridge and cutting of the
shrubs and c,l minor amount of filling for o~e of th~ bridge
abutments 'of 7.0' sq. ' ft.-, t'h~y are' propo'si ng an equal area of,
wetland replication for the filling'and also 'for the shading'
which can be construed as an al teration. Points .-o\Jt the area
of replication which will be brought down to the same
elevation. The 'bridge attempts to span the wetland but does
require the placement of pilings just inside the wetland on
one side; the other area the pilings are outside. There is
also proposed here the sewer line to the septic system which
will be a forced main type system. Will be dropped down to
the wetland area in a trench. The area for the trench will
be restored and will be underneath the bridge. First the
shrubbery will be cut, the excavator should be able to work
from the upland and reach to the~ther side. Plants will be
removed first and placed so as to return and the rest of the
area will be excavated to the appropriate grade. The sewer
line will be set, the subsoil, sand and gravel replaced and
finally the soils and vegetation. The banks and the bottom
of the channel will be restored by matching the adjacent
grades using a landscape netting anchored onto the banks and
onto the bottom to stabilize the area and allow the
vegetation to establish a root system. It is an intermittent
stream and they plan on doing it at the lowest flow possible.
However, dewatering may be required in the trench area. If
that is done they will pump out of the trench into the area
where the proposed septic system is going which is an old
foundation for the barn, completely contained. They should
be able to do the sewer portion all in one day. Then they
will put the bridge pilings in with a pile driver and lay the
spanners. Any disturbed soils will be reseeded to come up
with a herbaceous vegetation. The replication will be
performed by putting up the sediment controls, moving the top
soil and vegetation from the area, excavating down to I'
below the grade of the adjacent wetland. Says itis a very
flat wetland with a very clear demarkation. Will add peat
from the cranberry bogs as organic soil and replant it with
herbaceous vegetation. They are only filling 70 sq. ft. so
they don't have as much to put back as they have to take out.
They will probably use what vegetation is there and the
shrubbery from the trench crossing to get a good density.
I
Meeting Minutes for 3uly 25~ 1991 Page 4
Mr. Perry suggests rather than cutting down tht! shrubs
from the banks for the bridge crossing they be used in the
replication area.
Mr. Haines says he was trying to prevent dis~urbing, the
soil beneath the. bridge but they could selectively remove by
hand.
Ms. McColl says shrubbery won't survive under the bridg~.
Mr. Hain~s.agrees.
. :
~i1r. Perry says 'they could end up wi th some sort of
grasses growing .there but not shrubs.
Ms. McColl says there is a better change of the
replication being successful if you move established piants.
Mr. Wasierski asks how wide the bridge is.
Mr. Blackwell says 14', h~ving ,4 12' travel space. Is
basically the same bridge as the one constructed at Randy
Sharp's; one of the biggest differences is that none of it
will'be visible from Polpis Road.
Mr. Perry asks if there will be a retaining wa.ll on the
face of it to hold the dirt back.
Mr. Blackwell says the fill will come up to the. beginning
of ~he bridge and stop at the pile cap which w~llprev.nt the
soil from moving down under the bridge. The p.iles wi,li be
cut off at or just above grade so any fi 11 wi II beblo,cked by
the pile cap on either side.
Mrs. Hussey asks how big the lot is now.
Mr. Reade says they have taken part of 2 lots a.nd part of
the back land to create one lot to meet the current zoning
requirements for a three acre lot.
Mr. Blackwell says he can bring in a schematic showing
the new lot lines in relationship to the current lots.
Mr. Perry says in the application they filed for a
limited project wetland crossing under 10.53 3(e).
Unfortunately it doesn't quite meet the criteria for a
limited project.
Mr. Haines says he noticed that and did not intend to
file for a limited project. He was filing to meet
performance standards for the resource areas. Thinks we got
an extra $250.
;..t'l""~~'i,""~"","~, .,"".,,", ""..1<1\1.1..'".....
Meeting Minutes for 3uly 25, 1991 Page 5
Mr. Perry says performance standards means they must
replicate and there is no adv.t's-e.affeet on the wetlands,
i.e. the banks, land under water, bordering wetland, etc.
Adds the commission usually ...equires'a Qreater than one to
one replication; wonders if they want to do that in this
case.
Mr. Kelliher says it's great~r than one to one.
Mr. Perry says it's becC\l.:se of the shading and is also an
'al terat ion. "
Mr. Haines says that's why he.gaveat what he thought was
a proper amount but it's subject to interpretation. For one
to one they e~timated 7.0 with the filling and 230.with the
shadir'lg so that's why he provided the 300. If you.ant to
increase somewhat we can do it.
Mr. Reade says considering the shading being involved he
thinks it'~ reasonable.
Mr. Kelliher agrees.
Mr. Wasierski asks what would cutdown the shading; 2'
gaps in the bridge?
Mr. Haines says a 2' gap betweenb' boards is not
sufficient to make a difference; it will be about 2 1/2' off
the wetland. Adds herbaceous material will grow there but
the shrubs will not.
Ms. Creighton brings up a subject previously raised of
whether or not to leave some or all of the shrubs under the
br'"idge area. Asks even if they diE! off wouldn't the roots
help to stabilize the banks?
Mr. Haines agrees they would and adds that was part of
the logic behind his proposal to cut, although, he adds, if
they dig them out by hand they will still be leaving much of
the root mass. Says it is better to do indigenous in order
to get a good replication. To compensate for the smaller
root mass in the Shrub you prune the size of the shrub down.
Ms. Creighton asks what will be done if you take the
shrubs out.
Mr. Haines says seed the area with herbaceous vegetation
and mulch with peat moss.
Ms. McColl asks if he didn't plan to landscape other
areas?
Meeting Minutes for July 25, 1991 Page 13
MY!. Haines respo.ndson the banks and on the channel and
they will mulch any disturbed areas.
Mr. Wasierski asks what replication he has done on the
island that he considers to have turned out well.
Mr. Haines says Top Gale Lane in 19813 and two sites on
West Chester Street.
Mrs.. ,Hussey asks what the I ife expectancy is _for the
sewer pipe.
Mr. Blackwell sClys part of the requirement of DEP for
crossing a stream with a sewer line is to put the 1 1/2'
pressure line within a 4" PVC pipe ~ithin 10' on either side
of: the stream. They also may place a conduit in the pipe for
electrical utilities.
Mr. Wasierskiand Ms. McColl question the size of the
pressure line; feels 2" is standard. Also does not know what
SDR 21 is.
Mr. Blac~well says the thinking is the smaller diameter
keeps the velocity up in the pressure line; SDR is ,the
heavier PVC line; does not remember if it comes in sections
or in coil. Says it is accepted by the town sewer engineers
for installation for sewer connections requiring pressure.
Mr. Wilson asks if there are connectors will they be
\
brass?
Mr. Blackwell says PVC.
Mr. Perry says he has suggested that once the pipes have
been laid they be pressure tested.
Mr. Wilson says he was wondering about the pressure line
itself and the joints.
Mr. Blackwell says he will bring in more information on
what SDR 21 is which 4s what the pre~sure line is going to
be; the 4' schedule 40 PVC is only the casing through the
stream bed and 10' on either side.
Mr. Perry says he would like to run through a couple of
things he plans to put in the order while Mr. Haines is here.
The first two orders had ridge height limitations and he was'
going to keep those in the new order. Also, he was going to
limit the digging to the dry season.
Commissioners discuss.
"'~j~1li:: ,:;;:,.;~:;'!~~~",
"'i,'c,,":::;'~'~'<-S'\~.'<-J: "'"
Meeting Minutes for 3uly 25, 1991 Page 7
Mr. Haines says he has pr.oposedreplh~a'tiondrelated work
to be done outside of periods of high water or when the
stream is flowing.' Thinks they_may have to dewater when
digging the trench but can pump the water into the old
foundation area and be ou,t of the stream wi thin one day.
Mr. Perry asks if the pipe will be built before it is put
into the trench; wonders when the best time is to pressure
test.
Commissionei-s oiscuss methods of pressure' testing each
pipe.
Mr. Haines says the 4" line will come out on each side of
the wetland and the pressure lin.will go through it. If the
pressure line ruptures in the center it will have to flow all
the way out to the ends and then flow through the ground and
go back down and that wouldn't be any different than a
pressure line breaking somewhere farther out; it does give
you a,buffer in that it doesn't fIb.., right up into the
wetlands. Adds it isn't anticipated that will happen.
Mr. Wasierski says according to the drawing it looks like
the ends of the 4" pipe will be well within the wetland area.
Mr. Haines says the state only requires that you be 10'
on either side of the stream; we can extend that to outside
of the wetlands if you like.
Mr. Perry proposes after commissioners discuss adding
that the double pipe will extend 10' outside the wetland.
Mr. Reade says he isn't going to be able to be at the
meeting on August 15 and wonders, since it appears the
hearing may be closed the next meeting upon receipt of a
little additional information and a file number, if the draft
order could be written for the next meeting so he could
review it.
Mr. Haines says they also have filed Appendix A even
though it appears from looking at the map they are not within
the resource area.
MOTION: To continue for additional information and a
file number is made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
c. REGULAR MEETING
Meeting Minutes for 3uly 25, 1991 Page 8
1. REQUEST 'FOR DETERMINATION
*
a. Landmann - 6 Squam Road
(21-'47 &,49)
M..... Wasierski reads the field inspection report; in
attendance was representative for the applicant Mr. Chris
Lewis. Recommends a negative determination, in the buffer
zone but will not alter.
Mr. Perry notes a plan from an expired notic~ was used;
the wetland boundary has not chapgad too much with possible
diffe1"'ence of 10-15'; the pt-oposed-garc.ge is 65'. The
envelope is 40x40 and the garage is 28x28. Has suggested it
be pushed to the north in the corner close to the road.
Notes the well is to be moved near to the house in the middle
of the lawn. Says moving the septic from the front of the
house and 30' from the wetlands to the corner of the lo~ has
....aised the question of where the neighbor's well is but adds
it is not our concern but that of the Board of Health.
Attorney Melissa Philbrick says she is here to listen on
behalf of the Beck's who are the people next door and their
question was regarding the well but she feels as well it is a
Bo.~d of Health concern.
MOTION: To issue a negative determination as the
proposed work is in the buffer zone but will not
alter is made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
*
b. Green - Woodbury Lane
(41-549)
Mr. Perry says he inspected with Mr. McGui....e (agent)
today. If the lot ends at the mowed line in the field, then
the work is not within our jurisdiction.
MOTION: To issue a negative determination is made
and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
2. CERT I FICATE OF COMPL lANCE
a. Krauthoff - off Hoick's Hollow Rd., SE48-473 (48-03)
Mr. Perry says this was a notice to move the house back
but the work was never done.
MOTION: To issue a Certificate of Compliance is made
and seconded.
~",-.._'<~f"i'~;'1-~_~~.
";l-~A",,-~jf~'_"{r~l('"
Meeting Minutes for 3uly 25, 1991 Page 9
UNANIMOUS
b. Sankaty Head Golf Club - SE48-S48 - (23-9)
Mr. Perry saysthi'5 requires a letter- from'a professional
and recommends it be continued.
MOTION: To continue for additional documentation is
made and seconded.
. '
UN~NIMOUS
3. OTHER BUSINESS
a. Flamm Con Restriction
review for compliance
Present for the applicant is Attorney Melissa Philbrick.
Mr. Perry says last meeting we sent this batk for some
plan changes.
Attorney Philbrick says this is a very old file where
some work was done not in compliance with the Order of
Conditions and the owners are concern~ about that. Part of
the workout situation for that was to remove a good portion
of the decks that had been built around the outside of the
structure and to do an extensive revegetation plan, both of
which were done and inspected by theco~mission some time
ago. The last part was to grant a conservation restriction
so that other structures couldn't be built in the wetlands.
The question Dr. Dunwiddie raised was if the two restricted
areas couldn't be linked. The client's concern is with the
easement area which provides access to an adjoining lot. If
the area is restricted under the terms it would prevent, for
instance, putting a driveway or anything else without going
to the holder of the restriction for permission to do the
clearing to provide access. It's not so much the clearing
but that you're actually servicing another piece of property
off of it and not just supporting a residential activity on
this house, which may seem excessive by someone thirty years
from now. The other thought is the two areas are actually
quite different in terms of resources. One is the Atlantic
Ocean and the beach and dune system, the other is a fresh
water wetland which is very distinct from what is happening
up here. My sense is there is not a lot of linkage in those
two areas. I understand the principle but in this instance
it doesn't serve a strong purpose~ So with those two reasons
it's not just no, we don't want to do it.
Mr. Wasierski asks if this addresses the buildings in the
white area.
I
Meetin.g Minutes for .July 25, 1991 Page 10
Attorney Philbrick says nothing can happen in the
restricted area except for maintaining what is there: wells,
septic. And it allow. a public ilgency to come in and inspect
that. It does not affect the white area. The Order had in
it that there will be no additionAl construction.
Mr. Perry says it does not so state but maybe we could
make that an ongoing condition.
Attorney Ph.ilbrick says maYb~ that was in Mr. McKelway's
iett'er 'tc? me "at the .time we were .doing th~ modifications.
Mr. Wasierski says he thought that was what we asked that
no other building be done on the property.
Mr. Perry agrees that was the intent. Reads from the
letter.datedApril, 1990, which states that there will be a
perpetual restriction prohibiting additional buildings on
thi-s parcel and prohibiting expansion of the existing
b~ildings.... Concludes while the restricted area is
Ijmited, the unrestricted area has potential of additional
building.
Attorney Philbrick says Mrs. Flamm is very aware ,that
there is to be no additions.
Attorney Philbrick says the problem is in the past the
Land Bank has stated they don't want just the whole lot
c.overed as they don't want to feel they are enforcing a
restriction right up to someone's doorstep.
Commissioners discuss how best to put a restriction for
additional buildings on the unrestricted land and reiterate
their stance. that all new construction be limited on the lot
in the future.
Attorney Philbrick agrees to work out a way to restrict
any additional structureJlimiting any work in the white area
to repair and replacement.
Mr. Perry adds a brick patio or landscaping is allowed.
Mr. Wasierski says this will be continued for further
discussion.
b. Doucette - 18 Grove Lane- SE48-601-(41-441) minor mod
Present for the applicant is Mr. Norman Chaleki.
'~""""~;;';:'~";--",{,r,
Meeting Minutesf'or 3uly 25, 1991 Page 11
Mr. Perry summarizes the request is that the replication
areas not be constructed. The idea is the wetl,ands are
already wetlands and why mess up the'whole place.
Mr. Chaleki says that was his premise in the beginning;
no one has as yet proved the wetlands are highlands. The
request is to leave the replication areas the way they are.
In order to replicate they will have to traverse from Grove
Lane to th~ replication area which will cause extensive
damage to the existing wetland.
Mr. Kell iher .-eads. the letter to th<<;! Commissioners
requesting a minor modification to. the ap'proved Order from
Mr. Chaleki. Say~ he agrees ~ith him. It's already a
wetland; let it be.
Mr. Wasierski says he thinks some of us felt the upland
was actually dig out from the ditch; that is wetland that was
put into a wetlandwhit:h brought the wetland higher to make
another wetland and now it's called upland. And it's not
that high.
Commissioners agree it's not that high.
Mr. Perry says first, the commission approved the plan
that showed a wetland boundary and by definition one side of
that boundary is wet, the other side is up. Whether it is
the unanimous consent or not, there is an approved plan.
Therefore there's an area for replication. They are filling
in wetlands. They are required by state regulations to
replicate it. The only place they can replicate is in an
upland so it's not a minor modification. To go through this
you would have to hold a public hearing and amend the order
of conditions. If you amend the order of conditions then you
are going to be subject to appeal byDEP because you
eliminate replication that's required by the regulations.
Mr. Chaleki repeats no one has ever proven to him that
there is an upland there. They talked about it and walked it
but never gave any physical evidence there is an upland
there.
Mr. Perry disagrees, says half the file submitted
supports it. There is a plant inventory on both sides of the
flagging from Dr. Standley and it was agreed on two or three
site walks with the commission and Dr~ Dunwiddie agreed with
it.
Mrs. Hussey asks if this is up to us or to DEP.
Meeting ' Minutes for 3uly 25, 1991 Page 12
,Mr. Perry says we (:an amend the order and remove the
replicaticn-but,feels we will be just setting ourselv.s up
for an appeal to DEP and they will jU$t say put it back in.
Mr. Chaleki .says who's going to do that.
Mr. Perry says DEP can appeal on their own account.
Mr. Kelliher says let them do it. They will do more
damaQetrying to replicate than they will leaving it alone
wh~ther or not you agree there's an upland on the other side
of the'wet1and.
Mr. Perry says the other point, the reason we have to
come all the way to the wetland, is because ac~eS$ has been
denied from the wetlands on the upland side. If the property
ownftr -would allow us access from that side then it would be a
lQt .less disturbance. But he won't do it and we have no
othe~ choice but to go all the way through the wetland.
Mr. Gary Winn comments to support the proposal and says
he can build the house and mess up nothing. Can put hay
bales and siltation fence; or they can make a big mess by
doing the replication. And they don't always work. The area
,back there is all wild; leave it that way.
Mr. Perry says he doesn't think we have the option.
Mr. Kelliher says he'd rather take the chance than see
them ruin what's back there.
Mr. Wasierski says let's try it.
Mr.
setting.
damage.
Perry says he think's it's a bad precedent to be
Doesn't think they are going to do that much
Notes there is clay in the area.
Mr. Wasierskisays previously the area was pasture and
was m,owed by animals, not machinery.
Mr. Perry concedes if the commission wants to go through
with it they have to hold a public hearing and issue an
order.
Mr. Wasierski a$ks what is the distance from the house.
Notes they will have to bring in a back-hoe and trucks. If
it's 75' )( 15, you destroy that much of wetland vegetation to
do 700 sq. ft. of vegetation.
Mr. Chaleki says that's a travesty.
~"';f ."'"*'~\"t\; "'qt,~~ C""'f' r
Meetin9Minu~es for 3uly 25, 1991 Page 13
Mr. Perry says the order states 2500 sq. ft. They are
replacing more then they are fillin9. These are permanent
alterations from the house construction.
Mr. Chaleki says common sense must prevai-l;youcan't
expect to replicate that area without destroying the natural
wetland.
--./
Mr. Wilson asks what was the method that Dr. Standley
suggested.
, ,
;' Mr. Per'ry 'says t'o' lay plywood; the Exact typ,~of
machinery wasn't discussed. She didn't feel it'would be a
great alteration because the plywood was spreading the
weight.
Mr. Chaleki says to perpetuate a wrong just the follow
the rule, he doesn't think that is the purpose of the
commission.
Mr. Perry says he thinks the commission first set a
precedent in allowing the house to be constructed entirely in
the wetland. Secondly, by not requiring replication, you're
setting a precedent for people to come in and put a house in
a wetland and nOt have to replace it.
Mr. Chaleki says no one has proven to me there is an
upland in that_rea.
Mr. Perry says it doesn't have to be proven to you. It
was proven to the commission by people who are experts on
botany that one side of the line is a wetland the other side
of the line is an upland. The ~bmfTli.sion approved the plan
that had the wetland boundary delineated on it.
Mr. Chaleki says two wrongs don't make a right.
Mr. Perry says if they. want to go round this again they
will have to file for a public hearing to amend the order of
conditions. It's not a minor modification. We can save all
this for the public hearing.
M~. Chaleki says if you would entertain that I'm sure the
parties involved would cbme back with a request to amend.
Mr. Kelliher moves we turn down the request for a minor
modification.
MOTION: To deny the request for a minor modification
is made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
I
Meeting Minutes for 3uly 25, 1991 Page 14
c. Anapol - Penn Ave. - SE48-192 (60.3.1-17) discussion
Mr. Perry says the state at the request of an abutter has
askednim to ask the comm.ission a couple of' ,quest:iC)ns. The
1982 or '83 or;der allow.d them in an (m-going c;ondipion to
grade or move sand around to provide access to theh-ouse.
When the order was issued it was only good for one year. Can
anyone remember Anapol actually moving sand around the first
year the order was out there.
Commissioners ~Hs,c;uss and'dec,ic;le they' don"t. know.
Mr. Perry asks if there was a driveway there before the
sand dune blew in. Says he thinks until recently the ~ccess
came in through the front on Mass. Ave.
Mr. Wasierski says no; when he did the plJ,Jmbing before it
was a two story building you came right up Rhode ISland
Avenue and straight up to a dune right near his house; there
was a dune and a boardwalk to the front step. There was a
cut for all those houses and yo~ could p~ll off the road.
Mr. Perry says that what DEP is saying that since the
work wasn't done during the one year when the order was
active that the commission cannot allow it to be maintained
""S an on-going condition. He therefore needs to file a
Notice to create and maintain the driveway.
Mr. Kelliher says he would suspect he does that every
year.
Mr. Perry says b...t not that specific access. He's been
coming through down Mass. Ave.. fora number of years.
Concludes he will tell them that no one remembers him
act~ally doing ,it but that doesn't mean he didn't have a
driveway and maintained it. Adds he did send a letter a
couple of weeks ago requesting he come in with a replanting
plan to stabilize.
d. Dooley/DeShazo - 219 Madaket Rd.- (59-43) - violation
Mr. Perry says this is thebrushc~tting in Madaket that
we inspected on Monday. We need some direction as to where
we are going from here. Do you want to take any action such
as enforcement orders to prevent any more mowing and
potentially a replanting scheme since it's a lot shorter than
what it used to be. And do you want to fine either the
property owner or the contractor.
Mr. Wasierski says he thinks to start with we need the
wetland delineated, where it's been mowed.
,,;, ~.: T,,'iO:. Jlr ,~
Meeting Minutes for 3uly 25, 1991 Page 15
Mr. Perry says an Enforcement Order will require they
file a Notice of Intent to al<l"ow the commission on the
property to d.. 1 ineate the wei)liand and ,then after that is done
also require a replanting plan.
Mr. Wasi.rski says let's have them delineate it and then
we either approve or reject it.
Mr. Perry say~ a replanting plan is probably ,in order.
M~..Wasie~sktsay? he thinks that showld be decided af~er
the notice is fil~d.
Mr. Kelliher asks how big was the stuff they took out.
Commissioners agree itis hard~o tell other than by
looking at the vegetation on ei~her side of the cleared area;
the cuttings were mulched on site.
Mr. Perry suggests enforcement orders for the two
property owners involved requesting they file a notice; one
notice filed jointly will be adequate. Will comment that a
replanting plan will be part of the order of conditions.
Ms. McColl asks if they don't meet the conditions can we
go a step farther and fine them?
Mr. Perry says we can fine the~ for the activity itself
but the commission doesn't usually do that. We can give them
a date to respond by: the first meeting after Labor Day
(September 12th) would give them a little over a month to
file.
Mr. Wasierski summarizes we want a motion for an
enforcement order, a filing of a notice of intent, a
delineation of the wetlands and a repl~nting plan in the wet
areas and perhaps the buffer as part of the order of
conditions.
MOTION: To issue an Enforcement Order to the two
property owners to request a Notice of Intent be
filed is made and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
Mr. Perry adds the property owners are 30hn DeShazo and
Peter Dooley.
Commissioners agree to sign the orders in the office the
following day after Mr. Perry has prepared it. Ms. McColl
says she will sign now.
I
Meeting Minutes for July 25, 1991 Page 16
Mr. Perry says we also have to decide if we want to fine
the person who did the work. Notes Mr. LindSley Perry who is
present in the f'!oom has photos of thepersQndoittg .thework
and you may recognize the machinery-involved. n"is person is
also aware of the wetlands. He h'as two notices presently
before us and he did the . same t'ype of work last su..."'er on
Long Pond Drive andMadake~ Road, Mr. Baker's lot:s. We are
allowed tciissue an Enforcement Order ag~inst the contractor
who did the wO,rk even though it's aft~r the fact/~Adds he
has ,talk~d with DEP tO,verify the procedure.
"
i1s.McColl' says he (th'e contractor)- knows what a wetla'nd
is. It's just his total disregard if he doesn't feel like
filing. Perhaps we should now get his attention.
Mr. Wilson says all contractors should be aware of this;
this is going to continue and it's only going to get worse.
Mr. Wasierski says it's something we're going to have to
enforce on all contractors.
Mr. Perry says in cases where we find a wetland
brushcutting we've got to start putting our foot down.
Commissioners look at the photos; request to keep for the
file.
Mr. Wilson suggests putting something in the paper to
educate contractors and the public as well.
Mr. Perry says he~elieves the papers will ~e calling
about this activity. Say!:) we have brochures that could be
sent out to people who do brushcutting.
Mr. Wilson says a building contractor is ult~~ate~y
responsible for their wot'kmansh i.p ; if there is a catastrophic
failure he is responsible.
Mr. Reade from the audience offers a parable that in
ancient Babylon if a man doth build a house for another man
and the house shall fall down the man who hath built the
house shall be put to death.
Ms. McColl says she doesn't think that people who know
the rules and regulations and have been a contractor on the
island for as long as~his man has been should be allowed to
flaunt the regul~tions and to do whatever he feels like doing
and, if it is within our power to do something to make him
aware that we are no longer going to allow him to do this, I
think we should do it.
r .~u
~':;i,:;:t;'~':~;J~1~,~,'; t:P_:~':!'_G:/(' \{"'";ir
.
Meeting Minutes for 3uly 25, 1991 Page 17
Mr. Wasierski asks what can we legally do as a fine for
an amount in a case li I<e th is.
Mr. Perry says, it's a maximum of $300 per activity. Each
tree cutdown could be considered a separate offense.
Commissioners agree to fine in this case for two
activities; one on each piece of property.
MOTION: To fine the contractor (Mr. Bruce Poor) for
two offenses is made,and second~d.
3-yes (Wilson, 'Hussey, McCol'U
1 no (Kelliher)
Mr. Kelliher comments he thinks the town should be fined
first and notes various wetlands that they mow: Polpis
roadside, 3etties beachgrass.
Mr. Perrys~ys they are allowed to maintain roads that
were in existence prior to 1983.
Mr. Kelliher says what about the Lily Pond.
Mr. Perry says it's the same with New Lane but they now
have permission to mow once a year.
Mr. Kelliher says he thinks they should be mowed but
doesn't think we should pick on individuals and let the town
do much the same thing without taking action.
Mrs. Hussey suggests we get on with the one before us.
Mr. Perry continues, with regard to fine amounts under
the state act we can fine up to $25,000; under the local
bylaw we have up to $300. Was going to suggest a $200 fine.
It's not the worst thing that could happen; hadn't thought
about splitting it between lots.
Mr. Wilson says he's not sure the amount is as important
as the notification.
-, ,
Commissi.oners discuss the amount; Mr.''"Wasierski wonders
how far the state will back us on anything we fine.
Mr. Perry says the new Endangered Species Act took effect
in March and includes plants and animals in wetland and
uplands. Dr. Dunwiddie has identified the Nantucket Shadbush
which is listed in the act as being of SpeCial Concern and he
called to see what they have for enforcement and they have a
minimum of $500 fine for each bush. They have as yet not had
to enforce it. He however was not going to suggest we
.
Meeting Minutes for 3uly 25, 1991 Page 18
involve the state as it involved a police officer and we
don't have the authority to enforce that act. He seemed to
think the state would back the commission at least in that
act. Thinks DEP would probably do ~o,aswell. Adds he
agreeswithMr.WilsQn. If you mow three acres of_~.t meadow
is that only 50% worse than 1500 sq. ft. of isolated wetland.
Asks the ~ommissioners to choose a number.
Mr. Wilson says it seems awful arbitrary; asks are we
deciding what the fines will be for ever and ever?
Mr. Perry agrees it is arbi trary but it is for:' tn i 5 case'
only. If we ,feel that a -smaller- alteration had a greater
impact we could fine more.
Mr. Wasierski asks could the fine be based on the amount
of replicatEtd plants that we would require?
Ms. McColl says we're requiring the replication of the
property owners and we're fining the contractor.
Mr. Perry says he thinks what you're doing is fining the
activity--the fact that he went in and did the brushcutting.
Ms. McColl suggests $100 for each violation.
Mr. Wilson says in this case since we don't know just
what was destroyed it would be the two separate properties.
MOTION: To fine the contractor (Mr. Bruce Poor>
$200, or $100 for each offense, in this instance, is
made and seconded.
4 yes (Wilson, Hussey, McColl, Wasierski)
Mr. Kelliher abstains
e. Weiss - Sheeps Pond - dune signs
Mr. Perry says on the left side of Sheeps Pond where
Proprietor's Road goes out to the beach she wants to have a
dune restoration sign to keep people from driving across her
property just so people know it's private. Says she
understands she cannot do anything on Proprietor's Way or on
the Foundation side of the property.
Commissioners agree whatever she wants to do on her own
property is fine.
f. Pocomo - SE48-644 - (14-12,13,14,58,60) minor mod
Present for the applicant is Attorney Melissa Philbrick;
present for the abutt9rs is Attorney Arthur Reade.
~'t'f';~'1~::~'(..... .l]:! W~
6
Meeting Minutes for 3uly 25, 1991 Page 19
Mr. Perry summarizes the request which is to not encase
the top wire of the fence in PVC pipe.
Attorney Reade says this is part of the settlement that
has been worked out between his clients, the'Newquists, with
the Robinsons.
Attorney Philbrick says the fence is three strand wire
and the top was to be black coated plastic. She talked today
,-with one of the,wildlife people <Paul Lelito) who had
'sugg'ested at the ,!1earings. that this'might he~p.. He had
explained that tine afth~'reasons he fiad brought this up w~s
he had seen this used in circumstances where you need to
increase the visibility of guy wires to support towers so
migratory birds don't collide into them. At this height and
in this location the kinds of birds you are going to get are
indigenous to this area.
Mr. Wasierski says the ones who can't afford to go south
for the winter.
Attorney Philbrick continues you may have some impact in
the first couple of weeks; after that they'll all know they
are there and it will become part of the habitat. He didn't
think he had any objection to the change and the neighbors
didn't like it nor did the HDC so they have agreed to build
the fence without the PVC.
MOTION: To approve the minor modification is made
and seconded.
UNANIMOUS
g. DEP Site Visit August 15 - Burke and Lugosh
4. CORRESPONDENCE
5. MINUTES: for July 11, 1991
MOTION: To accept the minutes as drafted IS made and
seconded.
UNANIMOUS
6. BILLS TO BE PAID
7. FIELD INSPECTIONS: Monday, August 5, 1991, 4:00