Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-09-26 r , Town of Nantucket Conservation Commission (508) 228-7230 10 South Beach Street Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 ;' . I MEETINS MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 26.- 1.991 The meeting was ca,lledto order at 7:05 p~m. in the Large Group Instruction Room of the Nantucket High SchoOl. Commissioners present were. William Will.E!t, Laura Hussey; Henry Wasierski~ Diane McColl, Daniel Kelliher, and Peter Wilson. Also present were Bruce Perry, Administrator, and Lucia Wyeth, secretary. The Commissioners were polled and voted unanimously to got into Executive Sessi9n to discuss litigation. A. EXECUTIVE SESSION a. Litigation The open meeting was reopened at 7:15 PM B. COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS FROM PRESS AND PUBLIC C. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Richards - 25 E. Tristram Ave.,- SE48-609 - (31-1) MOTION: To, continue the hearing at the applicant's request was 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) MOTION: To continue the hearing at the applicant's request was made and seconded. UNANIMOUS 4. Diehl - 44 Meadowview Drive - SE48-656 - (56-297) MOTION: To continue the hearing at the applicant's request was made and se~onded. UNANIMOUS e, recycled paper 5. O'Neill - 98 Wauwinet Road - SE48-662 - (11-25) lL4.rA I!:ZS........~-. f'}..rlf..' t/.. .... 1-.$ ~sr ~. .. Meeting Minutes for September 26, 1991 Page 2 Present is Mr. O'Neill who reads a letter he has written to present his proposal. His architects have prepared Scheme E which reflects the 50'setback from the bltiff~Compares the new design of a 2400 sq. ft. addition with the old des~gn. Comments that the new scheme turns the addition 90 degrees'in order to bring it back. Notes this'~akes the house 6ver I~O' long and he feels it gives it a motel effect. At his request the architects have also drawn Scheme F which reduces the size of the addition from 2400 sq. ft. to 1800 sq. ft. This plan would require a waiver to extend the existing envelope 10'further south (toward the bank). This will give them the living room but they will give up the deck and bow window. Feels the plan is far more aesthetically pleasing and more of a traditional Nantucket house than the conforming scheme and notes the waiver is entirely within the envelope of the present house. Presents a model of Scheme F. Shows the elevation comparisons 'between Scheme E and. F. The setback is 41' from the bank in Scheme F. .. ~. '\ Commissioners agree Scheme F is preferable. -4 Mr. O'Neill says he will have Mr. Emack draw up a consolidated plan. . Mr. Willet asks if we had any questions on the septic system. Mr. O'Neill reviews the number of bedrooms and the septic capacity. Says there are 5 in the present house and they have always had 5. One is being removed to make the new living room. The system is rated for 6 or more. There is one bedroom over the gara~e. Mr. Willet asks if there is any other information anyone would like to see. Mr. Perry says he would like to see final grade. Mr. O'Neill says he will have Mr. Emack put the final plan on the contour and also get a final plan from the architect. Asks if the plan is acceptable. Mr. Willet says yes. Mr. Perry adds the design for ~he deck should the squared off deck, not the half round; alsn the bay window is out. MOTION: To continue for anditional information is made and seconded. UNANIMOUS Me~tingMinutes ~or September 26, 1991 Page 3 6. Hoffman 16 Tautemo Way - SE48-665 - (83-14) .. Pr~sent for the applicant is Glen Wills. Mr. Willet ~ays at the last meeting we we~e concerned with the height of the docl<and the fact that."it was stationary. Mr. Wills says the whole dock is moveable. The pos~s at the end and those ne~t to the bulkhead have holes every six inches and the dock rests on through-bolts that can be unscrewed and raised and low~red. It is now lowered to its lowest po i nt . I t a)-lows him to k~ep the doc k 6-12" above the water le~el of the pond and therefore allows him use of the dock when it recedes without leaving him stuck in the air and even at its lowest position is not hitting the bottom. The reason he wants to keep it elevated is in the summer if the. dock is in the water as a floating structure the wave action causes the dock to scour out the plantings. By keeping it up 6-12" allows the waves to pass underneath. Mr. Perry says he understands they will raise it for the wi~ter since the pond does come up and wonders if tpe commission wants it stored on shore. Mr. Wills says dragging onto the lawn will destroy vegetation. Mr. Willet says he supposes it's a good idea to pull it out for the winter. . Mr. Wasierski asks how long the dock has been there. Asks about ice damage. Mr. Wills says it was there when the Hoffmans bought the house but it was a floatindSvariety and it used to float up onto the beach. It has been ori posts for about 4 years. Mr. Kelliher sugqests they leave it on the posts rather than damage the bulkhead. MOTION: To close ~he hearing and draft and order is made and seconded. UNANIMOUS Mr. Perry asks for clarification on whether it can be left on the posts over the winter. Commissiorlers express diverse opiniol":'s; Mr. Perry will write the order accordingTy. . ..., ,~:: .' Meetin~ ,Minutes for Septembe~ 26, 1991 Page 4 7. Dunham - Tristram Avenue - SE48-666 - (31-02) ~. Attorney Arthur Reade asks this be cQntinued. MOTION: To continue at the request o~ the applicant is made and seconded. UNANIMOUS . 8. Bordes - 12 Oakland St- SE48-664 -(59.4-187-192, etc.) Present for the applicant is John ~hugrue. Mr. Shugrue presents a revised plan. Says ~e followed M~. Wasierski's advice and turned the whole system around. This makes them go about a foot deeper in the ground but when th~y put the tank in they will be further away from the edge of the wetland and not down in the area between the two' buildings. Mr. Perry says so you are going to~be 3' under water with the tank instead of two. Mr. Shugrue says yes. Adds the problem is he has no where else on the lo..!: to put the...septic~ystem. Mr. Perry agrees, although if the well were moved you might increase your separation from the wetlands five or six feet. . Mr. Shug~ue asks if the salt marsh on Hither Creek isn't a more significant wetland than the two little pieces on the inside. Says this is replacing 3 cesspools. Mr. Wasierski asks what is needed: a waiver for the two isolated wetlands? Mr. Shugrue says yes and a waiver on th. addition. Notes the addition is a 9x12' kitchen expansion. . Mr. Wasierski says he doesn't have a problem with the septic. Commissioners question the need for the addition. Mr. Perry states that it appears that the addition has gotten larger on the latest submitted plans and asks if this is true? Mr. Shugrue state~ that the deck is larger. Mr. Wa7:iers~ iCQmmeTlts that the .app licant is tryi ng to slip something past theCom~ission. Meeting Minutes for -September 26, 1991 Page 5 Mr. Wilson says without doing the addition do you feel you need to do the septic? .. Mr. Shugrue says the only reason they want to do the addition is to ~traighten the kitchen out inside the house and have decided to do the septic at the same.:time. Acknowledges the new plan has additional square feet. Mr. Willet says he thinks the consensus is they don~t like to see the addition but think the septic should be replaced. Mrs. Hussey asks ,if they have to go together. Mr. Wilson asks which plan are we approving; #1 with the original addition footprint or #2 with the revised septic plan and the enlarged addition. Commissioners agree to leave the hearing open for a new plan showing smaller addition footprint with smaller deck from the first plan and the revised septic system from the sec~nd plan. Mr. Perry will draft an order for review. - MOTION: To continue the hearing for a new plan is made and ~econded. UNANIMOUS 9. Hawkes - Esther Island - (36.2.3-97) Present for the applicant is Attorney Arthur Reade, Mr. Jeff Blackwell and Mr. Phil Marl(s. M~. Blaekw~ll present5 the plan showing the former location of the house, the temporary position of the house, the new septic and well. Says Richard Ray has recommended 5' groundwater separation in order minimize the amount of filling brought out to the area and to balance between the Board of Health and your interests. The system a!:i reco~~ended won.t have to be mounded which would have been more susceptible to wind and water erosion. Mr. Perry asks if it won't then have to be made twice as long to'bemade m~re shallow? Mr. Blackwell says yes, but there is only 6' of gravel beneath the pipe which is the minimum allowed under Title V. Attorney Reade says they are relocating the house to the best location on the lot and putting in the necessary septic and well to serve it. .' Meeting Minutes for September 26, 1991 Page 6 Mr. Perry asks what the old system was. ~' Attorney Reade says primitive. Mr. Perry asks how will the water be supp~ied, is there a generator. Mr. Marks says yes. Mr. Perry asks if the house wi,ll be on pi I i ng~. Mr. Blackwell says the engineers have suggested driven p i 1 es . Mr. Perry questions the site location. Mr. Marks says the site they have selected is the highest dune on the south side and the high grgund extends the furthest. Adds the first floor elevation is 2 - 2 1/2' above existing grade-so the water will wash though. '" Mr. Perry asks what the piling design is and if a screening lattice will be used. Attorney Reade says they will supply detail. MOTION: To continue for additional information and a file number is made and seconded. UNANIMOUS 10. Leet - 24 Western Ave. - (87-76) Present for the appli~ant is Mr. Lester Smith of Daylor Consulting and Attorney Melissa Philbrick. Mr. Perry notes we have received revis~d plans from Mr. Smith. Also received is a number of corresponden~es frbm abutters opposing the project to include Anthony Farrell, James Mullen, Helen Davis (twosubm~ttals)"Mary Louise Apthorp, James Wittemore, Russell 'Bentley, tlorothy Cooper Ames and Jim Hammond. Primarily thei~ concerns are with the proposed septic system being located in the dune and the fact that the dunes haven't always been there ~nd also,the fact that the dune in which they plan to put a well and septic may disappear during the life of the house. , Notes the letter from Mrs. Davis has excerpts from 'The NaDtuc~et Weather Book' which describes various storms which have affected the coastal bank in tha~ area~the most recent being in 1976. Mr. Willet asks Mr. Smith if he has any comment. J Meeting Minutes for September 26, 1991 Page 7 Mr. Smith says he hasnit really seen the correspondence until tonight. ~ Mr. Perry says there is also a letter from Mr. Stan Humphries commenting o!'l the project and notinq waivers which he believes would be required. , ,.' Mr. Smith says he is prepared to go over the materials asked for at the last meeting. The two new plans include the septic and a minor revision to the site plan. The septic will be submitted shortly to the Board of Health. The only real change to the site plan is the leaching trench is lower and is no longer being mounded above grade. Also, for reference, they have added a few elevations. Otherwise, the plans are the same with the addition of the, septic. You asked fo~ landscaping information and basically, once the well is constructed, they will do beach grass planting, approximately 18" on center; after the leach contours are constructed they will do the same thing. You also requested we request a waiver and they are doing that with the statement that they are of the opinion this .is not a coastal bank, it doesn't confine the 100 year flood. ~ ~ Mr. Perry asks if he requested the waiver for the septic installation in the dunes? Mr. Smith said no, you didn't make that request, but we will make that request. Mr. Perry states that it is not up to the Commission to ask for the waivers, it is up to the applicant to request the necessary waivers to allow the project to go forward. Mr. Smith adds you asked'additi~nally that the ridge height'be provided and since it isa proposed two story house they feel the ridge height would be about 51' or 26' over grade. Mr. Smith continues there was some question on whether these dunes are significant. In 'reviewing the McMaster fi Ie I didn't see a request fOr a waiver on the dune but that was before 1987 when the regulations were not in effect. Basically that is the information you 'requested. Offers to review Mr. Humphries letter. Discusses reference to the bank being a vertical buffer to wind and rain erosion. Says there is no such thing. There are two types of vertical buffer banks: one is supplies sediment and also associated to rising sea and 100 year flood'and the other is just a vertical buffer to 100 year flood. One is an actively eroding one, such as is out at Sankety, and the other is one that's there and by its actual physical presence is a vertical buffer. But again the regulations speak to actually ::, '. . Meeting Minut~s for September 26, 1991 Page 8 confining the 100 year flood. The ver~ical buffer that confines the 100 year flood, the performanca $tandards talk ~' about not decreasing the stability of the bank. The stability that might be affected by wind and rain erosion--I think that's probably what Stan's getting at. . So if you were to call this a vertical buffer it woul,d be that type that you'd be protecting--the stability from wind 'and rain erosion. .", Mr. Smith continues by commenting on variances recommended: ~he first, Sectione03 (2) all structures not water dependent shall be at least 50' from a coastal dune. Page 7 of the town regs talks about structures and a leaching trench wouldn't be treated as a structure. Reads from the regs which defines structure as a combi~ation of materials assembled at a fixed location to give support or shelter.... Basically it's saying it is a frame type structure, and a . leaching trench in his interpretation ~ould "not be one. The next section talks about no part of any septic system shall be placed in shifting sands or on a coastal dune and that is applicable and that's where the variance is required. Next is Section 205 (5) concerning coastal bank and ypu have asked us to request a waiver, ~hictl we have reques...ted, whether it isa coastal bank or not. Lastly they go i,nto a number of standards of the Board of Health which he does not think are applicable to be discussed here but with the Board of Health. So basically he is saying we need to get variances and we are requesting those variances. There are some other requests in terms of Coastal Zone Management Policies on sea level rise which I don't think are applicable here. They have never been requested by the Board for any other project. With regard to the CZM Policy, if you are interested, that was a policy that was developed when CZM was beginning to look at the. effect of sea level rise on coastal. areas; they were basically on how sea level rise submerges coastal areas and looked at various projections. They looked at static sea level rise and asked what would that elevation change to. They didn't look at dynamic shifting, i.e., how it would affect shoreline change. To his knowledge he doesn't think anyone has looked at that. It's difficult enough to predict shoreline change without trying, to add a dynamic characteristic as well. When we look .at shoreline change we look at it historically, what are the trends of that historical data, and try to project from there. Ms. McColl asks if Appendix A has been filed. Mr. Smith says no.because the project area of. the alteration is not within that area. I Meeting Minutes 'for September 26, 1991 Page 9 ~ttorney Philbrick confirms filing is unnecessary if the projec1; ~rea is qut~~de their j(u-isdiction, even though a portion of the',property lies within. f' Mr. Willet asks Mr. Smith when they are g~ing before the Board of Heal th. . " Mr. Smith says shor~ly, w~t,hin the ne~t ,few days. They wi~l be using the plans before tHe 'Commission. They have di~cussed the project with Richard Ray prior to doing the tests out there. Mr. Bill Sherman, assisting an ~utter,\ asks,about the height of the proposed structure 9f 20'; believe! the project was represented to the zoning board of appeals as being 22'. Mr. Smith says no higher than 26' but it is a hypothetical figure. Attorney Philbrick S4YS when they were at the Board of Appeals in July for' a side line hearing a condi,tion for the variance, they agreed to no higherthar22'; they agreed to that at tl1.t poiril:Qut they are going back and she - - 'w- understands right now their decijion is pretty much in question as their decision has been appealed. So at this point the Zoning permit doesn't mean a lot and therefore 26' is an appropri~te height to suggest for the concerns with which this Board have a interest in. If we end up with a permit from you that says 26 and one from the ZBA that says 22, we would have to go with the 22. Mr. Sherman says the reason he asks is this board has jurisdiction with respect to scenic view. Asks also if the board might have a concern nat with the technological issue but with the public perception that the septic fields are being introduced just behind the public beach used by thousands every summer. In other words would you be trying to make a constitutional juogement at this level rather than leaving that to a court to decide. Mr. Willet says it is something we might consider but we have never denied on that considerati~n. Mr. Kelliher says it would be up to a court to decide. Ms. Creighton of the Land Council says based on historical information from ~The Nantucket Weather BQ9k~ and also on some of the commissioners comments at the public hearing ac:ouple of weeks ago recognizing the shoreline in that. area does go through periodic changes of accretion and erosion and having seen comments in the Weather Book that there have been times of extraordinary storms where the water J Meet~ng Minutes for September 26, 1991 Page 10 ... has come up to the coastal bank and up over the dune areas, that ther~ ar~ areas where you can have severe erosion and ,:- . ,.",.! !' - : .:' __~ _ " - - ,':,', . - _ - _ ' - f overwash;Giv~n also soils with that d~ne syste~j the soils survey states that those sands are such that are exposed to winds and support fragile vegetation and \'IIhe." ,that vegetation is disturbed as for instance in times of tonstruction for installation of a well and sewage disposal t~~t~those sands are subj~ct to winds,and blowing. Those sand~ have a high permeabiii~y and water capacity a~d she questions the . , installation of a well in that location as to t~e.draw dowri effect on ground water and how that might affect ~he dune vegetation and the stability of that land form in that area. She thinks sh,has understood the commission to feel that the entire dune fo~mation to be of significance. Also, the State Wetland~ ProtectJo~ Act, as far as tha presum~~ion regarding Title V, clearlystates~shall be presu~edto protect the interest of the wetland act only if none of the sewage disposal system components are located..within the resource area." The trenches are proposed within the resource area so that clearly doesn't meet the presu~tion. Also the local regs clearly state no part of any septic syst~m shall be placed in shifting sand or a dune. And the sUpporting Board Qf Health regulations again as was stated at.. the last hearing ~tearly make a distfnctionof talkin~ about th~ intercoa~tal dune as opposed to not being able to meet the maximum setback distance~ These things seem to be very clea~ly stated. They , ~~re adopted by the Town for very good reasons. ~ Attorney Philbrick says she will respond to a couple of Ms. Creighton's points. One is the point about historical shoreline dynamics and as much she understands the accounts that are in The Nantucket Weather Book and that they track certain things here locally, at least in terms of, observation, notes that the letter from the Land Council's engineer recognizes that the 700' of coastal beach is adequate to the protection of the coastal bank. Asks rather that the commission loOk at sea level change. Suggests the commission look at the scientific data and base their decision more on that than on the historic data--both Mr. Smith's information and that from IEP. Asks if the exact locations are known where the storm affects are noted in the Weather Book. Also, with regard to T~tle V, says that it creates a presumptiOn and if that presumption is not met it doesn't mean thing? are prohibited. It is the Commission's job to listen to tria facts and then make a decision about whether the interests. of the Act are protected. Mr., Perry addsJha t it. is, uptp the applicant to make a clear and convincing showing to the Commission. Mr. Smi th saY!:i.be>,bas o'l.er"layslr4h ch may be, of . interest. Says they are not,,~~i~,rng aboutanyth ng' that does not I Meeting Minutes for September 26, 1991 Page 11 already exist in terms of leaching fields. Points out the project lo~ation and ~xtstinghodj~s. All the leaching F fields tend to be on this side (sejward)' o~ the coastal bank. Shows the edge of the glacial land form, the area that has accreted and the sui:n~rimposed shore! ine chang~. Notes that at the same time that this shore line accreted was also the time that it accreted and was built on by the town with all of the septic leaching facilitiis 'at Miacomet. If you look at ~horeline change and presume that it is going to erode back into the area where our leaching field and proposed well are going to b~ and iook at the histo~ical shorelines back then, you mi~ht also say the Town is going to lose all its septic leaching fields too. He thinks you have to look realistically. This hai built out quite a ways and is continuing today. This is a unique area in that it has built and continues to build and it has been reflected in previous decisions involving leaching trenches out here (in the dunes) . .. Mr. Willet. says other than McMaster, anything else we allowed was for an existing house. Mr. Pe~ry s~ys sever~l of the houses are fairly old aodR he',s not sure we had any say in the, location. He'll go through the files again. , Mr. Smith says we're at elevation 15. The flood zone is 11 for velocity and still water flooding is 8. Even the velocity'zone is 900' away from the toe bf the glacial bank; its 4' lower and you have this huge dune of 17' and all this volume intervening that is there for protection. When FEMA looks at pr imary dune area they have a... 540 sq. ft. rule which they apply. He hasn't done a cross section engineering although he could do that but he's sure its an order of magnitude higher than 540 sq. ft. What they say is if you have a dune with a volume of 540 sq. ft., you take the crust elevation and do a transit down to mean sea level and look at that volume, then you assume that dune would be eroded during a 100 year event. We can do that type of analysis here but you have a hugh, hugh volume of sand and thinks 540 sq. ft , would be a small chunk. With regard to Ms. Creighton's statement that drawdown from the well ~ould cause problems with vegetation. They didn't encounter ground water. They dug down 13 1/2' for the leach t~~t pit. All the vegetation thrives from surface rain water. Mr. Willet asks 'where ground water is. Mr. Smith,says the Horsley, Witten 8c Hegemann maps show the overallt,rend of9roundwater and he would. assume it is a couple feetb~low where they dug their t~st pit. Adds he can find howdeep~McMaster's well is. ~ Mee~ing Minutes for September 26, 1991 Page 12 Mr. Perry adds 2'below ~here you stopped digging is sea level and the fresh water' lens should be in that area. Mr. Smith says the fresh water lens is us~ally at low tide.mc1ork before you can see it but you can,prpject it back. Says its probably a foot or two below where ~hey.have their trench. They certainly have plenty of good sand for a leaching facility. In terms of problems with anyone using the beach" there are hundreds of feet before what gets transmitted down to ground water and would exit; plenty of room to cleanse. There are a lot of areas on the island closer to the beach including the Town's own septic system. Really doesn't think that is a problem especially wh~n Title V talks about 50' and this is 500'. Ms. McColl says you're still pu~ting a leaching field in shifting sands. Mr. Smith s~ys take a look at the existing areas out there. Have yoJ eVer.seen anyaf those e~posed, ever? You don't see that much shifting sands there. It's not that much ~ different at the toe of ~pat bank than at the tap of the b,ank . Ms. McColl states that just because it was done before does not mean that it should receive immediate approval. Mr. Kelliher says sands don't normally shift when its vegetated. MOTION: To, continue for additional information is made and seconded. Attorney Philbrick asks if the Commission wants any specific information for the next time. Mr. Willet says he would like to know what the Board of Health has to say. Mr. Perry suggests the wording of the waiver requests be more thorough. . : '~~ I ."~.!~ ,,', :..~ : "~""'; , ~'.;jI UNANIMOUS * 11. Mink - 83 Squam Road - SE4B-668 -(13-5) Present for the applicant is Mr. David Haines. Mr., Wi llet reads:th~ Field Inspfi?ction report. I Meeting Minutes for September 20, 1991 Page 13 Mr. Haines says the resource areas are the coastal bank and two isolated, vegetated wetlands. They are proposing to replace an existing septic system which is currently located within 20' of one of the vegetated wetlands and within 100' of the existing well. It's not in very good shape environmentally. Also, to put an addition on.the existing house which reportedly has 3 bedrooMS. The proposed building envelope meets the 50' setbacks. They do not have design at this time. The site is very level and they don't anticipate regrading. The other aspect is the relocation of the septic system which has been designed in an area as far as possible from leach fields and also meets the setback requirements from the existing wells as required by the Board of Health. It is within 67' of the front of the isolated wetlands and requires a waiver from the by-law. The existing system is environmentally insensitive. It is within 20' of a wetland and 100' of an existing well.' The proposed system is designed for 3 bedrooms; there is no enlargement of the system. They feel this is a betterment for the area for the septic system.. A waiver is being requested. The sewer line will extend along the edge of the driveway. The ~rea has a~ready been disturbed so they did not request a waiver from the 25 foot undisturbed buffer. .' , ...... Commissioners agree this is the best alternative to existing condition. MOTION: To close the hearing and draft an order is made and seconded. UNANIMOUS * 12. Newquist - 8-10 Fargo Way - SE48-667 -(14-15 ~ 61) Present for the applicant is Mr. Lester Smith and Attorney Arthur Reade. Mr. Smith reviews the prop6sal for the pool pump house, footpath and fence along the property. ThE! only disturbance of the property would be for the 10xl0 foot pump hause. ':!i,-' Mr. Perry comments that this area.is probably the only area on the lot. that was not going to be disturbed by the various projects and notes the abutter slips have not been received. Mr. Smith says Design Associates has th~~J will see that they get them to us. MOTION: To continLJe the hearing and, draft an order pending receipt of'abutter slips is made and seconded. , .' Meeting Minutes for September 26, 1991 Page 14 UNANIMOUS ~' * 13. Ledgewood RT -- 355 Madaket Road - (60-130 & 134) P~esent for ~he applicant is John Shugrue; Mr. Willet reads the inspection report. Mr. Willet asks about removing "the buildin~ as disc~ssed in the Field Inspection report. Mr. Shugrue submits a revised Appendix A page that states the property is not within the jurisdiction of the rare species people. He ~tates has spoken to the client _bout that and the cost of $40,000 is prohibitive. Says the size of the addition is 12' x 17 1/2'. He does not anticipate any change in the roof height. .. Mr. Perry asks about the property line that is shown on some plans but, not others. Mr. Shugrue responds that it is the old property line tha~ has since been merged under zoning. ~ M~. Perry says the amount of work needed in addition to the addition is going to cost the same as moving it. Mr. Wasierski ask the relationship between the dune and the septic tank ? Mr. Shugrue responds that the dune is close to the house and the replaced leach facility is more than 100 feet away. Ms. Hussey comments that th~ dune comes right up to the side of the house and if the addition is allowed it will need to be continually dug out. Mr. Shugrue responds that the snow fence that was put up under the, old Order has caused the sand to, be dE!f?osited there. He adds that the dune is "not moving that much". MOTION: To continue the hear~ng for a file number is made and seconded. UNANIMOUS . '* D. REGULAR MEETING 1. REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION * a. Frazier __ 88 &90 Baxter Rd - (49__05, 06) Meeting Minti:tes Tor September 26, 1991 Page 15 Mr. Perry says the abutter notification has been sent but we do not yet have the slips. .' MOTION: To continue for the abutter notification slips is ~ade and seconded. :' . 1 UNANIMOUS * b. McCullough - Eel Point Rd ( 33-1 e , 13 S. 32-16) . Present for the applicant is Attorney Melissa Philbrick. Attorney Philbrick presents the abutter notiTication ships and a full size sample of the proposed sign which is smaller and less intrusive to 'our scenic 'view considerations'. Mr. Perry asks where it will be placed. Attorney Philbrick says it will be put above high water . .. in the same location as the current sIgns. Mr. Willet suggests it should be at the base of the bank. Attorne~ Philbrick says the point of the sign, whether you accept the point of the sign or not, is to p~t it where the traffic is. Mr. Wilson says that means they are going to be driving closer to the bank rather than closer to the ocean. Mr. Kelliher suggests less than one vehicle width from the bank so they can't go on the upland side. Attorney Philbrick says they won't object to that. So it's subject ~o but will not alter provided it's less than one vehicle width from the bank. MOTION: To issue a negative determination subject to but will not alter with the noted provision. UNANIMOUS * c. Matthews - 59A Monomoy Rd. - (43-35) Mr. Willet reads the Field Inspection Teportr An abutter, Roger Ernstead, 62 Monomoy, raises the proposition that they would lik~ assurance the improvements will not interfere with the flow of water from tHi! marsh which runs back, to Brewster Road and drains out through a traditional. channel. ,Says there is a culvert under, the road and if it were to' be blocked they would'have a marvelous mosquito crop. ,The channel collects the excess water that , .: Meeting Minutes for September'26, 1991 Page 16 comes out of the m~rs,h. The l~t is adjacent to it and the far southwesterly end~ presumably those lower elevations, will be involved in the drainage system. . ' After some discussion the Commissioners seem to agree that the ditch in question is not on the prop~rty. Mr. Perry says he has 70' to the wetland. Mr. Willet says there appears to be a fairly good distance there. MOTION: To issue a subject to but will not alter' determination is made and seconded~ UNANIMOUS * d. Chap~n - 34 N Liberty St - (41-269) ~ Mr. Perry says he looked at the site today and says there is a swale full of water and had a lot of moss around it. Suggests the commissioners go and look at it to see if there is,?ufficientJdrainage ~oming out of it and it the swale q~uld be considered a.wet land. Says there is a purchase and sa1es agreement contingent on this being a negative determination~ In order to continue, they need the , app!ican~'s permission. He will give him a call since he is nD~ present tonight. (After the continuation Mr. Perry spoke with an agen' of the seller, Melissa Philbrick, who had no problem with the continuation.) MOTION: To continue for a Field Inspection is made and seconded. UNANIMOUS * e. Green 11 Loretta Lane - (14-56.2) Mr. Perry says this is forra small addition on Pocomo. Mr. Willet reads the Field Inspection report. Mr. Green says no bedrooms are proposed. Mr. Willet suggests no new bedrooms be noted on the determination. MOTION To issue a negative deter",inat,~on subject to but wi 1 not alter is ma~~ and se~o~d~~~ . ".<.1 Meeting Minutes !for September'26, 1991 Page 17 UNANlMOUS ..' * f. Tower - 3 Lit~le Neck Way -(38-18, 19) Present for the applicant isJan Thoren., Mr. Perry says he didn't get a~t to the site but there i~ a ~lan showing a determination from 1989Eand a 100'buff~r zorie. The proposed clddition, is into the' buffer zone by4'. The septic was repl~ced and was outside of 100'. Ms. Thoren says the actual wetland i~ on the other side of Little Neck Way which is the back side 0'" Hither Creek Boatyard. Shows the'footprint of the existing house. MOTION: To issue a negative determination subject to but will not alter is made and second~d. UNANIMOUS 2. ORDER OF CONDIT IONS a. Reade - Polpis Road - SE48-663 - (26-26.1) '04 Present are Mrs. Susanne Reade and Attorney Arthur Reade. Mrs. Reade comments on the following items in the draft: #15 - when you came to inspect the property I asked if we could replant in the are~ which had been cut down in the wetland and the general feeling was yes we could replace some of the trees that were cut down. Mr. Willet asks if they have a replanting schedule. i Attorney Reade s~y~ it's a fairly wide swath and suggests they not specify each pl~nt lhey put in but the types of 'plants. Mrs. Reads says she would put in wetland5 plants such as red maple. They would not be all the same species. Mr. Perry suggests Mrs. Reade write that she proposes to replant in the area that was brli~hcut'and will provide a species list before they do theplant,ing. - ," :~)/"(."':.,:::(: Mrs. Reads,says on #19: they have tog_from the house to the garage which isall on'the same plair1. It's quite dark, shows the house and garage relative t'6the wetland, and asks if they can have low lighting along the path rather than lighting which is attached to the house. Notes the order says it has to be attached to the house. .' Meeting Minutes fon peptember'26, 1991 Page 18 Mr. Kelliher says he thinks t;he low lighting would look a lot better than a spot light high up in the house pointing ~' downward. Mqs. R~~de cont~nues with #20,which limits landscaping outside 13f15'from the house to i~9igenous,drought- resistent spe~ies. They oave 40' between the house and the garage >wh ich leaves a 10' -,'swath i n,the midr;:lle. If you took 15' outside the garage and 15' to the hous~, in the middle of that strip where we walk from the house to the garage we'll have to have this indigenous planting. She would very much like to put a herb and flower gardenln there. She pretty much uses her own compos~~ Along the driveway, more or less out of your jurisdiction, they want to replace some of what was cut down also and would be willipg to use drought resistent, non-invasive materials but not necessarily indigenous. ' Mr. Willet says that can be included on the planting schedule. Mr. Perry suggests a cbapge to #20 to ~ead 'with the exception of the proposed garden-between the ~ouse ~nd garage~landscaping9utside of 15' from the.h.ouse shall be limited to drought resistent, non-invasive species.' MOTION: To issue the order as amended is made and seconded. UNANIMOUS ADDITIONAL SPECIAL CONDITIONS M~. '.' Su!;an17le Reade DEP FILE NUMBER SE4B ...:. 663 ASSESSOR'S ~ 26, PARCEL 26.1 249 ro1pits Ro~d UNDER THE MASSACHUSETTS WETLANDS PROTECTION ACT ,( HGL CHAPTER 131, SECTION 40 ) AND THE WETLANDS BYL~W OF THE TOWN OF NANTUCKET ( C~APTER 136 ) 3. Pursuant to General Condition Number ~, this Order of Conditions mus,t 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. No l10rk approved un~fi!r ,this Order shall take plClce until all administrativ~ apR,~\periodsfrom the Order have elapsed, or,Jf an,appeal Qas b~en filed, until all procl1ledings have been complete~~ ' Meeting Mlnute's for" September' 26, 1991 Page 19 5. Prior: to any activity at t,he site,.a siltation fence or a li\1e"of haybales shall be staked; along the 1 ine "proposed .' silt ,fen'ce" , or at a higher' elevation. After the fence is inst~lled, notice shall be'given to the Nantucket Conservation Commission. No work shall begi~ on the site for 48 hours after said notice is give(l, so as ~q":allow Commission members time to insPEjc'tall siltation devices. The siltation fe\1ce, erected to prevent siltation, filling of the wetland during construction, wi'll also serve as a limit of activity for" work cr-ews~ It shall remain in c;;aood repair during~all phases of coristr-uction; and it shall not be removed until all soils are stabilized and revegetated or until permission to remove it is given by the Commission. 6. An as-built pTan, signed and stamped by a registered p~ofessional~engineer or land surveyor in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, shall be submitted to the Commission at the same time as a wrftten request for ~ Certificate of Compliance and shall specifyh6w, if at all, the completed plan differs from the final approved plan. The as-built plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following: any pipe/culvert inverts for inflow and outfalls; pipe slope, . size and composition; location of other drainage structures ~ and their composition; limits of fill or alteration; location of all structures and pavement within 100 feet of wetland; the edc;;ae of the wetland; the grade contours within 100 feet of the wetland. 7. 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, t~e Nantucket Wetlands Byla~, 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 Commission for that evaluation. 8. 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 site activities so as to prevent erosion, siltation, sedimenta~ion, chemical contamination or other detriment,al impact, to any on-site or ;< of'~';"site resource area. It shall be the....'~;o,~$ibility of the property owner of record to see that thf~~intenance conditions are complied with as required by this order. 9. This document shall be included in all construction contracts and subcontra<:.ts ,dealing with. the work proposed and shall supersede oth~r coritrac~ requirements. .' Me,eting M,inutes for September'26, 1991 Page 20 10. Used pe~t;:,oleum prqducts fro,,", the maintenance of construction e,quiptl,\ern~, con~~r.uction d~bri$, and u,:,u~ed paif,l.,~ and 'J:!aint- f' related"pr,oducts $hall, be collected :,and disp~s~dof responsi~ly off t~e site. No on-site dispo~~. of these item$ is allow,ed. 11. Oust control, ~f required, s~all be limited e~ water. No salts or other wetting agent$ shall be used. 12. Any ref~se mate~ial found on the site shall be disposed of at an approved landfill and in no case may these .mate.rials be buried or disposed of in or near a wetland. 13. This Order of Condition$ shall apply to any successor in interest or successor in control of the property. 14. In all case~, no part of any structure, including decks cantilevers, stairs, etc., may be closer than 50 feet from the wetland boundary. 4 15. With the exception of some replanting of previoy. brushcut areas, the natural vegetation between the wetland ,.edge and siltation fence shalt b~ left intact. The area between the wetland boundary and the siltation must remai~as an undisturbed buffer even after construction and in all cases there must be at least a 25-foot undisturbed buf~er zone on the upland side of the wetland boundary. The applicant will provide a species list of the plants proposed to be planted for ~he Commissions approval prior to the start of planting. ... 16. To minimize adverse effects on wildlife, the use of any pesticide or fertilizer more than 15 feet from the house is prohibited. 17. The use of timber pressure treated with CCA (cromated copper arsenate) or its equivalent is allowed. Creosote treated timbers are prohibited. The wood preservative must be dry before the tr-eated wood is used in construction. In addition, the use of untreated lumber or suitable wood alternatives is suggested. 18. To limit erosion and filling of the wetland, roof downspouts on the wetland side shall b~ placed iri dry wells. -~ 19. To minimize ef~ects wetland side of the directed downward. volta~e lighting to garage. on wildlife, outdoor lighting on the oouie ,sha~ 1 be attached tq(, the house and The only exception is the use of low', light the footpath between the house and 20. With the exception,ofthe proposed garcjen between toe house and the garage, 'lancjscapi ng outside of' fi fteenT~~tfromthe -i;".:~l' Meeting MInutes for S'eptember'26, 1991 Page 21 house shall be 1 inti ted to non-invasive drought resistant species. .. *.. b. Crozier' - SE48-649 - (60.3.1-139-145>', ~Amendment Present for the applicant is Mr. Chris Holland who notes on the previous drawings there has 'always, been the request of a dormer which wasn't included on the order and he'd like to be sure he wouldn't be out of order by building what would be considered a new structure on the dune side. Says it's on the plan for the amendment as well. Mr. Perry says they aren't adding a bedrooM, it is just for air space. Mr. Holland says it's not legal headroom, it cantt be a bedroom. This is,t~e only change. .. MOTION: To issue the order as modified is made and seconded. ... 5 YES 1 NO AMENDED ADDITIONAL SPECIAL CONDITIONS ~ames R. Okonak Trust DEPFILE NUMBE~ SE48 - 649 ASSESSOR. S'MAP 60.3.'1, PARCELS 139-145 35-37 Rhode Island Ave. UNDER THE MASSACHUSETTS UETLANDS PROTECTION ACT ( MGL CHAPTER 131', SECTION 40 ) AND THE WETLANDS BYLAW OF THE TOWN OF NANTUCKET ( CHAPTER 136 ) 3. Por$uan~ 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. No work approved under this Order shall take place until all administrativ~ appeal. periods ftom the Order hav~ elapsed, or, if an appeal has been filed, until all proceedings have been completed. 5. 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. Aftert~efence is installed, notice shall be given to the Nantucket r .: , Meeting Minut.s for September'2o, 1991 Page 22 Conserya~i.on Commission. No work shall ,begin o.f1the 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 erected to control windblown debris during construction and will also serve as a limit of. activity for work crews~ It shall remain in good Tepair\ duting 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. 6. An as-built plan~ signed and stamped by a registered professional engineer or land surveyor in t~e Commonwealth o~ Massachusetts, shall be submitted to the Commission at the same time as a written request for a Certificate of . Compliar:'lc;e and shall specify how, if at all, the completed plan differs from the ~inal approved plan. The as-built plan shall inclUde, but not be limited to, the following: locat~on of other drainage structures and their composition; limits of fill or alteration; location#of all structures and pavement within 100 feet ofwetl~nd; the edge of the wetland; the grade contours within 100 fe~t of the wetland. ~. Members, employees, and agents of the Commission shall ha~e 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 Commissi~n for that evaluation. 8. 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 contamlnatio~or othe~ 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. '# ~.It 10. This document shall be included in ali construction contracts and subcontracts dealing with the work proposed and shall supersede other contract requirements. , \ ":rt , Used petroleum products from the maintenance of construction equipment, construction debris, and unused paint and paint- related products shall be collected and dispo~ed of responsibly off the site. No on-site disposal of these items is allowed. ' ' 9. ,;.,:,)__,:~~,rt_:,.:Z::'.i.:;1_;;;",'i.<r;:f~~~?*'$~,W;}~...!w~t (\~?';,,}:'~:..i~"~ ~"-''',':.'.} --. MeetingM'inutes for September 26, 1991 Page 23 11. Du~t cohtrol, if req~ired, ~h~llbe limited to water. No salts or other wetting agents shall be used. to 12. Any ,refuse matet"ial fqund on the site shall be disposed of at an approved landfi 11 :and in 'no case may these materials be buried or disposed of in or near a wetland.. i.: 13. This Order of Conditions shalt apply to'any successor in interest or successor in control oT the property. 14. Natural vegetation between the wetland edge or snow fence line and the project site shall be left intact except where it 'is necessary to te,rip6rarily use thi~ anita.After - construction, any disturbed area within this buffer 'area shalt b~ replanted with native plant~. There Must be a 25- foot undisturbed buffer zone on the upland side of the wetland boundary. 1~~ To miniMize adverse effects onwildlif~, the use of any ~esticide or fertiliz~r ~ore than 15 feet from the house is pr.ohibi ted. 16. The project app.r'oved under this Order is for thflt cpnst.rll.c;ti.on of a single ~~ory ~arage/storade area and a ,dormer within the existing building fooiprint only~sshown on the submitted pl~ns. Whil~ this ~ddition .and dormer is a~proved, there is still concern clrt.Qng the'Commission over the potential adverse of effects of changed wind flo~pa~terns and the destabilizing of the adjacent dune. ... 17. The existing footprint includes all decks, stairs, overhangs, cantilevers, etc. 18. Contrary to the fin_I submitted plans previously accepted, the proposed addition of a second story to the existing dwelling is hereby denied. The Comm1ssion sites the sensitive location of the area 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. 19. The applicant ha* submitted evidence ~o 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 from number of bedrooms allowed in this dwelling - three (3). 20. It is unclear ifthee~isting s~pticlea~h trench system has sufficie'nt separation from the groundwater to meet Title V. 21. The number of bedrooms in,th~d""elling shall be limited to three (3). This condition shall be considered on-going and Meeting Minut~~ for; September'26, 1991 Page 24 not expire with the issuance of a Certifica~~ of Compliance for thiaproject. .. 22. The ridge height of the appr9ved additton shall be limited to the height of the existiryg structure. 23. No coastal engineering structure of any kind 'shall be permitted on th~ property in the future to protect the project allowed by this Order. ### 3. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE a. Sherman - Squam Road - SE48-335 (21-120) Present for the applicant is Mr. Shugrue. Mr."Perry says it's oltlmost ready to pa~s. The order calls for 6x6.timber~ to~eysed at the edge of tbe"fill along the a culverts; onlyorie set of timbef~ has been done. iiI;t' Mr. Perry conti nues with ano ther i ssu~: these has been wetland brushcutting in th~ area. Soltys they sent Mr. Sherman a lett~r ~n the spring aDd at. that time he asked about brushc:~tting to make ihe 'potential homesite more visible. He told him to come in for, a dfi!termination. Mr. Sherman resiJonded that he wa.sgoingto talk to Mr. Poor about it and Mr. Perry suggested he have Mr. Poor call him. He did so and he told Mr. Poor also to come in. When he was out there for t~e inspection he noted the area has apparently been flagged but it wasn't an official determination. Asks if we want Mr. Sherman to come in and discuss. Ms. McColl asks if he asked them to come in for a determination and they didn't. Mr. Perry says yes and there are a couple of "exploratory" trips to the ditches that have' been culverted. Mr. Willet says why don't we ask him to come in and asks for a motion to deny the certificate at this time. Mr. Perry suggests they continue rather than deny. r Mr. Shugrue says he will see that they do the second cul~ert. ' rJ MOTION: To continue for compliance with the order of conditions is made and seconded. UNANIMOUS .',-" Meeting Minutes for September'26, 1991 Page 2S b. Godfrey - 325 Polpis Road - SE48-466 <25-40) . Mr. Perry says this i.s just 'for, the garage which is completed. He will be in with ari as-built for the house in the next couple of weeks. . .' . MOTION: To issue the certificate of compliance is made and seconded. UNANIMOUS c. Sheldon - Polpis Road - SE48-138 (44-7.1) Mr. Willet abstains from the discussion and the vote. Mr. Perry says there was no activity on the order but since it was recorded they would like a certificate. Since then there have been two determinatiorii filed to construct the house. MOTION: To issue the certificate is made and seconded. "", UNANIMOUS d. Barrows - Tenn. & Cambridge ~ SE48-367 (59.4-8) Mr. Perry says this is 'for a small laundry room/shed. MOTION: To issue the certificate is made and seconded. UNANIMOUS 4. EXTENSION a. Linburg - 31 Cod~ish Park - SE48-514 - <73.1.3-11) Mr. Willet suggests we continue at Mr. Shugrue's request in Mr. Shugrue's absence. MOTION: To continue at the ap'plicant's request is 'made and seconded. ;$ i'" ";0. Dooley - 12 Polliwog Pond Road - SE4S....438 (55-432.1) UNA", I MOUS j.'. b. Present are Mr. Dooley, Mr. Glen Wills, Attorney Arthur Reade. . ,M~~tingMinutes for s~ptembera6, 1991 Page 26 Mr. Perry says this is the second extension request. Last year ~e bad ,them revise the plans to show revised wetl~nd boundary and b~~lding footprint. The project hasn't started and ~othing has changed since last year. He has no problem withext~nding another year. MOTION: To issue a one-year extension J~:made and seconded. UNANIMOUS 5. OTHER BUSINESS a. Anapol - discussion Present for the applicant is Attorney Andrew Leddy and Mr. ChampoUX. Mr. Perry showS photo, from anoldfi)e from 1979 and 1980 called "Madaket Sand" of how the town used to dig out the dunes in the area to keep them open. Adds. the Anapol's were given an enforcement order in 1979 for cutting a parking area into the dune without anyone's permission. They came in 2 years later to raise the house. It's beeQ an ongoing discussion with this lot. ... Mr. Willet asks why they changed their access. Attorney Leddy says there was a Madaket gentlefolks agreement with the abutter who allowed the Anapols to go in that way. The question of maintaining legal access didn't exist. Apparently property changed hands or the landowner changed his mind, he believes the former, and fenced it off, cutting off the Anapol's from any access to their house by this former method of going on a north to south route by the Smith's point accesS road. They ended up, so to speak, dune locked. Mr. Willet says they" did have an order at one point to . cut a driveway in where it is now, however that had expired? Attorney Leddy says no, they had permIssion to maintain the i r access, to the proper ty on the:: Orqer of Cond i t ions l1A- 6, where it says windblown sand maYio,be relocated on the applicant's property to permit egr$s....maintenance may be on-going and will not expire with the termination of these oT7d.ers o. f C"ondit,,i,O..",,s,,., .50. in, essenq',.,...ee",.... t.o,..."d.,..a...y,.".,.t, hey have no means of access to the",l1buse e)(cept for,."e df~~eway, what would have been the original driveway, w"ichwas: 'opened up by Steve Rickard a coupl~,C?tmonthSago. The question then was drawing up a stabilization plan to maintain the corrected situation as much<,8$ possible. '~ " .? ~ ..~ -j...:" Meeting Minutes for 'September 26, 1991 Page 27 Mr. Willet notes that other property owners in the area t essentially walk in to their property; the drivf:tttay appears to be blowing out sand, it's moving allover the place. They are skeptical it can be stabilized very ea45il~ there. Mr. Champoux says he bases his plan on his experience with working with the Soil Conservation Service on the Dionis project which essentially has been 'successful. Mr. Perry says it didn't have a bare sand driveway going through the middle. Mr. Champoux says something has to be done anyway with the wind scouring around the house; the house essentially creates a Venturi effect that doesn't really impact where the driveway comes in. It'~ mainly around the perimetef of tha houses where the wind does the most scouring. Thinks the northern side has stabilized. .. Mr. Willet disagrees and comments that there is sand blowing through there. .... Mr. Erichsen, driveway has been before. ' Says the "" an abutter, says he has had sand since the cut through, when he's never had a problem actual cut has the sand to migrate. Mr. Champoux says yes, because there are no structures there to run interference to the wind. He has quite a fence system specified here in his plans. Mr. Erichsen raises the question about maintaining a driveway that was never a driveway. Mr. Perry says there is a question with regard to that. He has had talks ~ith DEP regarding the fac~that the work wasn't done while the permit was in effect. Tht!se are one year permits. If ~he activity wasn't done during the permit period then it can't be ongoing~ the permit had expired before the activity occurred. Mr. Champ.oux says he haG based his plan on Bachman's plan of 1981 where he indicated a driveway'atthat point. Mr. Erichsen says but that driveway was never installed and the dune grass well stabilized the dune. Attorney Leddy says but there was a driv~ay on the plan; when they were doing the construction he believes they had a r;jrivewayther-..... .We. could get into .!i quibble about the nature of on-going maintenance. It simply wasn't necessary for them while they hadthiscourtes~ from the n~ighbor. Once that I . . Meeting Minutes for September 26, 1991 Page 2S was withdrawn then the necessity of maintenance comes up. In effect they have an absolute right of access to their property. p Mr.Wlllet says but do they have a right to, a driveway and getting automobiles up there. We've discussed a small parking area and a footpath. Mr. Leddy says a family member is handicapped and requires vehicle access to it. Mr. Wilson says if this driveway is maintained and the" sand continues to erode away from the driveway and eventually the dune is destroyed, what have we achieved. Mr. C~a~poux says he thinks there was an erosion problem there prior to this. They talked ~o him a year ago about developing long ter~.plan before the driyeway was cut in because they reali~ed the importance of main~aining it. Mr. Wil~et asks when he expects to do the work. "" Mr. Champoux says he thinks they want to 00 it over a period of time. Mr. WilJet says our concern is to get ~his stabilized as quickly as possible. Mr. Leddy says it would seem ~o' him that it would be best to do it in stages so YOllJeould jlldge the "effect of what you're doing. Perhaps first a basic stabilization, then more, then more with on-going adjustments. Mr. Perry says piecemeal isn't going to stop the sand. !{~ An abutter, Mr. George Pappageorge, says he has been a resid~nt on ,Rhode Island Avenue for 24 years and the Smith Point Association has bee,n working along the south shore closing up bJowholes. He remembers that area as'one massive rose hip dune prior to the house being built there. What you're going to have is a 20' blow hole and there's no way you can stapilize the drive. He says th,is k.nowing the history of the south shore for the past 24 years. The other point, after Hurricane Bob it's taken down about a third of the frontal dllnes. There is a lot of erosion Ollt there. Any continued maint~nanceat that point should be doneln the sense that there is no four wheel access. If you zig-zag a footpath you have a much better chance of stabilization. 'Me,. ChalllpoU)( suggestsa. driveway with a central apron. ";' , ,.% \,,\-J'/,;'+-: ;'-::: '" "'_ :';'~:-3b ,~;,~X;~-,~;;,n:"~~.r~~~t--:";: ;' )." -,' Meeting Minutes for September 26, 1991 Page 29 Mr. Willet is skeptical, a~ long as there's a straight shot going through there without some kind of break in it, . it's just' going to blow right through there. Mr. Kelliher asks if there is any documentation that a handicapped person does in fact stay there., Says he understood it was rental property. Mr. Leddy says> Mrs. Anapolhas 'spoken. to him about 1:his; is not the immed'late'family; says the'family al~o uses it. He will ask Mrs. Anapol. Mr. Perry says to move this on, does the commission want to see a reduced width of the access and have it'reduced to a footpath'and plantings. Mr. Willet says he'd like to ,look at it from that point of view only becau~e he thinks it's the m6st practical way to stabilize the area. Then you can zig zag a bit, you can break it. Mr. Perry says the proble~ is the foundation is exposed again, it'~ down to the footings. "" Mr. Erichsen says you are talking about two different points there: what happens at the east side of the dune cutting right through the primary duneah~ what happens around the house. Mr. Willet says he thinks they are pretty much related and would like to see them both tidied up. Mr. Erichsen agrees. Says no one should be denied access and thinks a footpath is called for but a driveway with two tire tracks and a grassy strip in the middle--d~esn't see how you can do something like that in a dune. Mr. Leddy says he thinks you are getting into an area that could lead to significant legal problem where people in the construction of'the hOtJse showed a driveway that was appr'oved and investe!ti their money and to remove that driveway access would severely impact the value of the property, to say the least, so you're really getting into a situation where the town might have to buy the property. Mr. Perry says I disagree entirely; there"snoway you can say we are taking his property because hecan't'dfive to it. That's ridic:uloius. . Mr. Wil1fi!~!iays you'l"'e taking a pretty hard line here. We just want. the ,area ~tab'ili~ed; I can't see with a direct shot thatit's,goirigv>ti)'lle;stabilized. If yqu c,il., t:cHfte up Ml!!eting Minutes for September '26, 1991 Page 30 something else. We're just try.iog to come up with some alternatives. ~ Mr. Leddy says this part of the discussion I would leave to Mr. Ch~mpoux because I think ha;~nows more abqut this than anyone around this island. Mr. Wasierski reads some comments from 1976. Mrs. Anapol is quot~d as saying, when asked ~ha~ Qthercommunities do when drifting sand interferes with the primary dune on the property, "..will cooperate with the commission but sincerely hopes the result will not be the burying of her house." 1977 - blowing sand - Anapol: "Mrs. Anapol's already dug out driveway was inspected.,' Reported that before we get through to the driveway the road itself had to be cleared. The sand was all taken for use at the sanitary landfill, only the driveway on Anapol property was dug, leaving a considerable dune between it and the house itself. The dune is probably between 15 and 20' above the road bed. In some spots beach grass grows on top." This was in 1976. You had a parking area and you still had to walk over the dune to get to the house. There was no dr~veway to the house. ..... ... Mr. Leddy says I thought I heard a reference to a driveway. Mr. Wasij!!rski says it refers to it as a driveway. Mr. Kelliher says but then you had to walk over a dune frpm the driveway to get to the house. Mr. Leddy says he thinks there was a dune closer to the house. Mr. Wasiers.kisays this dune that has b,een bulldozed through was there. They had a parki~ng. space at the end of Rhode Island Avenue, beyond this gentlemen's driveway, which they refer to as a driveway. Notes there is also a picture. Mr. Willet says if you can rjevelop a plan along those lines he thinks there wpuld b.a lot bette,r chance:o~f stabilizing that, area: a parking area and a footpath up from there. ........ ~. Mr. Erichsen says that primary dune comes down t~ ~he edge of. h,is property ,andpaD~rpzier' ~property and in the Orderof.(:oncUt~ons YOllg"ve to Dan Crozier- aecouple of months ago you were very concerned ~ith !!ill thesa.,d right to Rhodl!! I s land Avenue. ' Meetirtg Minutes for September'26, 1991 Page 31 Mr. Erichsen .ays how can you access it if it's going up t on a 30 degree ~nole~ If yo~ dug a parking ~rea it's all just going to cave in, it's sand. Mr. Willet ~ays there will be essentially'some build up in front of it, as'there was before, accordirig to Mr. '\ Wasierski, a dune there, and you'll pass over that. There will be a break in that blow hole that's going through there. Mr. Erichsen says he doesn't see how that will work. Since that time in 1976 that dune has stabilized and the town has ceased maintaining it since 1980 and 81. Mr. Wasierski says all they've had is a dug out area at the end of Rhode Island Avenue which they called a driveway. Mr. Willet says which is what we're essentially proposing .. now. Mr. Erichsen says he believes this will also have to go to DEP since it has primary dune status before anything is done. ... .. Mr. Willet says but you don't want to deny him access? Mr. Erichsen says no, what you suggest of a footpath jogged through and planting would be fine. Mr. Willet says he's talking about a minor little incursion into the dune so they can park their car and from there a footpath in. Mr. Pappageorge ~ays eventually, projecting his knowledge of the area, that will continue to fill in every year; you need something to contain the sand in the area. Mr. Willet suggests Mr. Leddy run the proposal past his client. Mr. Leddy agrees. Also proposes filling in the cut and creating an alternate route in, within the Anapol's property, to an area where there would be room to maneuver through so you didn't get a straight run. Then replanting this and ending the trench effect. Mr. Erichsen obj.ctsas you will be disrupting a stabilized dune and the wind pattern. Thinks, we should work with whatexist!liltocraoatea footpath.Says'the.,ltighbors do not ob jes~,~o,~,~,,";;;r:.~:U::l,~p~,~Ji,. , They, 1)C)~~.ver, are, t9..~~~lY opposed to. any vehicular".:tc:fits!i'lfven .aparkint~rarlfa. ,~ay. they can park there' r ig,'1c~{j.')o)'~;," dLtJh)' do they, haye" to d ig'rh~", ' '-:';5,';~F<<;:.~" ','>' : Meeting Minutes for September 26, 1991 Page 32 Mr. Willet says.he wasn't really talking abQut digging in. t't;fe's just talking 'about a parking area and then a footpath. MOTION: To continue to the next meetfng for additional information is made and s~conded. UNANIMOUS b. Polpis Road bikepa~h discussion Mr. Willet says we need to decide whether or not this qualifies as a limited project. Says it doesn't appear to fall under that. Mr. Perry says limited project status allows ongoing m,;lintenance of water structures and for widening of road and shoulders of less than one lane. The,bike path is less than one lane, is only 8' wide, but it.s separated from 25 - 50' from the road so it's not connected. And it's a bike path, itls not a road. They ar~ trying to call it a road . expansion; also ~ public safetY,improvement._ Mr. Kelliher says it is a public safety improvement but it isn't part of. the road. Mr. Perry says since we're not going to al~ow limited project status they will have to replicate 50,000 sq. ft. Dr. Standley is handling it through Vanasse Hangen now and w~nts to know if we would like to see 36 little replication areas or a couple of large ones. Commission agrees a couple of large ones. Mr. Perry points out th~ regulations require in kind replication to the same wetland but he thinks it would be impractical because the Town would have to take more land to - do the replication. Suggests we try to find town land that can be replicated. Mr. Perry continues, the third P9~nt, do you want greater than one to one. Mr. Willet says the state requires one to on~, on priva~e project~ we've required more than that; frankly my feeling is go with one to one in a public project like this. ',,:.::' ~- 'j' repl~cation never .. f _ "j't.", <,: # Meetirig Minutes for September-26, 1991 Page 33 Mr. Willet says we never required replication on that. The Superseding Order did and it was found, not quite up to snuff. c. Greenhi 11 SE48-657 - (23-1) - minor mod Present for the appl icant i$ Attoroey Mel,issa Phi lbrick. Ms. Philbrick says skylights were turned down by the HCD so they have now requested a cupula which would extend above the ridge height by 3'10" which they would like approved. Also changed is the addition of a bulkhead to the basement and a 2' extension on the pond side, and a cooking grill outside where the trellis is. .' MOTION: To accept the minor modifications is made and seconded. UNANIMOUS d. Cranberry - West Chester St. - SE48-425 - discussion Present for the applicant is Mr. David Haines who says he wanted to talk to the commission about the size o~ the replication area. They have flagged the replication area since the last inspection and have accurate numbers on the size of the area less the wetland that was running through the middle. The R2 area is 1,178 sq. ft., giving a total replication area of 2,\889 sq. ft. vs. the fill area which is 3,377. They are actually short 488 sq. ft. of replication area. One of the reasons they are short is he was trying during construction to preserve a large cherry tree, apple tree and hedge. It's about 14% short. Right now Mr. Kaye is talking abou~ going in and digging the area out again and lowering it to get it wetter. He is still trying to save the hedge and trees and he was going to edge it out. wherever he could and give it back wherever he could and wanted the commissions feelings. Mr. Willet says he'd like to see it saved and if you can nudge a little here and a little there that would be good. Mr. Perry says if you could get it down to 5 or 7% that would be better. Mr. Kelliher says but absolutely savejthe hedges and trees. as much> as ,you can without .~ Meeting Minutes for September 26, 1991 Page 34 Mr. Wasierski asks about pipes noted on the plan. t Mr. Haines says they were. put in as equalizer pipes. They Were put in at grade to allow the water to pass through varying area heights. Since the pipe under t~e drive was repaired, this area drained and all the other'"areas did too. So did the replication. e. Administrator's annual step 'increase MOTION: To recommend approval was made and seconded. UNANIMOUS 6. CORRESPONDENCE 7. MINUTES: for September 12, 1991 .. MOTION: To accept the minutes as drafted is made and seconded. UNANIMOUS ~, B. BILLS TO BE PAID 9. FIELD INSPECTIONS: 4tf Monday, October 7, 1991, 4:00 ./ - -','.,..',',.'.",'.' . ;;~.\ . "..,