Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-3-13Minutes for March 13, 2013, adopted Oct.2 Called to order at 4:02 p.m. .—n. Staff in attendance: J. Carlson, Natural Resources Coordinator; T. Norton, Town Minutes Taker Attending Members: Steinauer, Oktay, Karberg, Braginton- Smith, Bennett, Golding (remote participation, called in at 4:13 p.m.), Glowacki Absent Members: None Agenda adopted by unanimous consent *Matter has not been heard 1. PUBLIC MEETING A- Public Comment- Kelly Grand, Nantucket Conservation Foundation, Chair Invasive Plant Species Committee - Provided the most recent Massachusetts Prohibitive Plants List; some of the species should be included in the local list. Provide materials for commissioners to look. Provided copy of suggested revisions to the 2013 Nantucket invasive exotic plants list. Nantucket is at the edge of different climate zone from the rest of the state; so some plants, which are on the Nantucket list, are not on the State list. II. PUBLIC HEARING A. Town of Nantucket Wetlands Regulations Revisions Sitting Steinauer, Oktay, Karberg, Braginton- Smith, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki Recused None Documentation Copy of Town of Nantucket Wetlands Regulations Public Emily MacKinnon. Resource Ecologist Nantucket Land Council Kelly Omand, Research Technician/Field supervisor Nantucket Conservation Foundation and Chair Invasive Plant Species Committee Karen Beattie, Manager of the Department of Science and Stewardship Nantucket Conservation Foundation Discussion: Carlson - Reviewed what was discussed with the last commission. If those changes want to be incorporated, they need to be voted upon and read back into the record. Definition: Depth to ground water. Added "by best information available, including but not to limited to the methods listed below:" Deleted, "The actual recorded depth to groundwater shall be the highest groundwater elevation determined by 1, 2, and 3 as subtracted from existing ground- elevation." Definition: Bulkhead. Golding - Asked if the ConCom had ever defined "bulkhead." It came up in earlier discussions. Carlson -There is no definition presently; but the commission can create one. Definition: Shoreline, eroding. Delete this definition. Oktay - Expressed the need for a proper definition; it is under Eroding Shoreline; do not need this definition. Definition: Eroding Shoreline. Added after six -year period: "ending on the date on which an application is filed." Oktay - Over the past 100 years, the island eroded at a rate of I foot per year and everything looks great. However, over the last three years mere has been a lot of erosion. Steinauer - It doesn't hurt to have more information such as might be provided as a graph showing shore line erosion over a period of time. It depends on what the applicant want to do; if an applicant wants to build a house to last 75 years, 6 years might be too short a time. Carlson - Read Performance Standard 7, which states the erosion rate is determined by averaging over 150 years. McKinnon - Eroding shoreline is used under Performance Standards for coastal bank resource areas and beaches, but coastal bank is not defined. Oktay -A short period of time is valid as we have had a number of big storms and 100 years could look safer. Braginton -Smith - Should be a more consolidated amount of time considering the way things are going on the planet. The jury is in on this, it (rising sea levels) is no longer fiction. Nantucket does have a problem; going back 10 or 20 years would provide a true number. Oktay - The shorter time is fine; but we need to ensure the definition links to a Performance Standard. Carlson - If "six-yew period" remains, should add "current." Steinanet - Suggested the six years prior to the date of filing. Carlson - Later in the regulations, it talks about looking at the erosion ram over 150 years and multiplying by 20 to get to the erosion rate. We either need to incorporate that into the definition or incorporate the "six years." Glowacki - The Performance Standard could refer to the 150 years times 20. Six years is an immediate trigger. Karberg - Looking at the Performance Standards, that longer time frame helps calculate how far from an eroding coastal beach a building should be placed. Steinauer - Have Performance Standards that prohibits structures no closer than 50 feet from an eroding bank. Time frame needs to be long enough to include one Page I of I,VIN NEE V AI MIN l.V1VllV1laJIlTIN c� �\\ 2 Bathing Beach Road C's Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 z —i M ' www.nantucket-ma.gov M W Cf Wednesday, March 13, 2013 4:00 P.M. rn BpONAiE� 2 "a Floor Training Room, 4 Fairgrounds Ro -C z Commissioners: Ernie Steinauer (Chair), Sarah Oktay (Vice- chair), John Bragin ton- Sitm)h, niferr cD Karberg, Andrew Bennett, Ian Golding, Michael Glowacki Called to order at 4:02 p.m. .—n. Staff in attendance: J. Carlson, Natural Resources Coordinator; T. Norton, Town Minutes Taker Attending Members: Steinauer, Oktay, Karberg, Braginton- Smith, Bennett, Golding (remote participation, called in at 4:13 p.m.), Glowacki Absent Members: None Agenda adopted by unanimous consent *Matter has not been heard 1. PUBLIC MEETING A- Public Comment- Kelly Grand, Nantucket Conservation Foundation, Chair Invasive Plant Species Committee - Provided the most recent Massachusetts Prohibitive Plants List; some of the species should be included in the local list. Provide materials for commissioners to look. Provided copy of suggested revisions to the 2013 Nantucket invasive exotic plants list. Nantucket is at the edge of different climate zone from the rest of the state; so some plants, which are on the Nantucket list, are not on the State list. II. PUBLIC HEARING A. Town of Nantucket Wetlands Regulations Revisions Sitting Steinauer, Oktay, Karberg, Braginton- Smith, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki Recused None Documentation Copy of Town of Nantucket Wetlands Regulations Public Emily MacKinnon. Resource Ecologist Nantucket Land Council Kelly Omand, Research Technician/Field supervisor Nantucket Conservation Foundation and Chair Invasive Plant Species Committee Karen Beattie, Manager of the Department of Science and Stewardship Nantucket Conservation Foundation Discussion: Carlson - Reviewed what was discussed with the last commission. If those changes want to be incorporated, they need to be voted upon and read back into the record. Definition: Depth to ground water. Added "by best information available, including but not to limited to the methods listed below:" Deleted, "The actual recorded depth to groundwater shall be the highest groundwater elevation determined by 1, 2, and 3 as subtracted from existing ground- elevation." Definition: Bulkhead. Golding - Asked if the ConCom had ever defined "bulkhead." It came up in earlier discussions. Carlson -There is no definition presently; but the commission can create one. Definition: Shoreline, eroding. Delete this definition. Oktay - Expressed the need for a proper definition; it is under Eroding Shoreline; do not need this definition. Definition: Eroding Shoreline. Added after six -year period: "ending on the date on which an application is filed." Oktay - Over the past 100 years, the island eroded at a rate of I foot per year and everything looks great. However, over the last three years mere has been a lot of erosion. Steinauer - It doesn't hurt to have more information such as might be provided as a graph showing shore line erosion over a period of time. It depends on what the applicant want to do; if an applicant wants to build a house to last 75 years, 6 years might be too short a time. Carlson - Read Performance Standard 7, which states the erosion rate is determined by averaging over 150 years. McKinnon - Eroding shoreline is used under Performance Standards for coastal bank resource areas and beaches, but coastal bank is not defined. Oktay -A short period of time is valid as we have had a number of big storms and 100 years could look safer. Braginton -Smith - Should be a more consolidated amount of time considering the way things are going on the planet. The jury is in on this, it (rising sea levels) is no longer fiction. Nantucket does have a problem; going back 10 or 20 years would provide a true number. Oktay - The shorter time is fine; but we need to ensure the definition links to a Performance Standard. Carlson - If "six-yew period" remains, should add "current." Steinanet - Suggested the six years prior to the date of filing. Carlson - Later in the regulations, it talks about looking at the erosion ram over 150 years and multiplying by 20 to get to the erosion rate. We either need to incorporate that into the definition or incorporate the "six years." Glowacki - The Performance Standard could refer to the 150 years times 20. Six years is an immediate trigger. Karberg - Looking at the Performance Standards, that longer time frame helps calculate how far from an eroding coastal beach a building should be placed. Steinauer - Have Performance Standards that prohibits structures no closer than 50 feet from an eroding bank. Time frame needs to be long enough to include one Page I of — Minutes for March 13, 2013, adopted Oct. 2 Definition: Soil Temperature. Add the definition, `the temperature of the soil four inches below the surface grade as taken by a soil thermometer." Carlson — From an earlier discussion to include Article 68 Work Group best management practice, included a definition for Sail Temperature. Definition: Shellfish. Oktay —Noted some misspellings and offered to go through it later and make the corrections. Definition: Pier. Add the definition to mimic the definition in the Town of Nantucket Zoning bylaw. Golding — Noted there had comments on the need for a definition for a pier. Oktay — Suggested a definition as ending at the mean high -water mark with the purpose of loading or unloading a vessel. The whole point is ending at the high water mark. Carlson — A pier is a structure that stops or extends past the high water mark. Glowacki — A boardwalk ends at the water; a pier goes into the water. Discussion about the difference between a dock/pier and a boardwalk. Carlson — Read the zoning definition for a Dock or Pier or Wharf. It reaches from land extending into coastal waters or seaward of the mean high tide line. Walkways stop before the high water mark. Suggested he could copy it into the ConCom regulations starting with "Shall mean any structure floating or fixed ..." Definition: Elevated Walkways. Add the definition. Carlson — Will have to add a definition especially for elevated walkways. This would preclude games of semantics between piers and walkways. Oktay — Suggested using the State definition of a walkway as any structure elevated over a salt marsh or vegetated wetland, coastal done fields and flowed tidelands designed for pedestrian access. Carlson — Beach stairs could technically be considered an elevated walkway; added that to the end of the definition. Steinauer— Asked about adding "from mean high water landward." Definition: Coastal Engineering Structure. Add "geotextile fabric" "multiple rows of fencing or other structure" change to "Structure, Coastal Engineering" and move to "Structure — examples." Oktay — Wants to add gemextile fabric to include quad bags. Golding — Structure is key word. Asked at what point does a sand -drift fence become a structure. Oktay — A single sand -drift fence has not been considered a structure; but two of them in conjunction with additional components we are saying becomes a structure. It would require a waiver to be permitted. Carlson — Suggested adding "multiple rows of fencing" so as to include different types of fence. Golding — Stated that a structure is something that can't be removed simply. A sand -drift fence is unrolled then rolled up. Some projects that have been recently permitted with driven piles are clearly structures. Oktay — Defining structure as an engineering thing that can't be removed by one person and no equipment. Applicants could better spend time admitting the project is a structure then defending why there is no adverse impact. Glowacki — Structure is defined, which we don't want to redefine; we are working on the coastal engineering aspect. Carlson — Suggested putting Coastal Engineering Structure as a sub section of the definition for Structure and titled Structure, Coastal Engineering. Oktay — Then add `including but limited to ..." Definition: Ponds. Add "Fresh or Salt" to the Pond definition then delete "fresh or salt" from first sentence. Carlson — Have a definition of Ponds that could be broken up for salt ponds. There is a resource area for Salt Ponds. Steinauer — If there is a performance standard that relates to salt ponds, the definition should reflect a difference. Cited Saccacha and Hummock Ponds. Oktay — Saccacha and Hummock Ponds are defined by the State w great salt ponds. Golding — Saccacha Pond has a salt component it was over washed from the ocean during the height of the last storm. Carlson — There is a resource area for a salt pond that is essentially a coastal pond. The Performance Standard is 2.07; Performance Standard 3.03 includes lakes, streams, ditches, ponds and flats. Oktay — Could add "salt pond as defined by the State." Golding - Looking at the State regulation 3CMR 10.332, does not define by salinity. Carlson — Add "Fresh or Salt" after Pond and delete "fresh or salt" from first line of definition. Karberg— There is a Performance Standard about changing the characteristic of a salt pond as it affects shellfish and wildlife habitat. Oktay — Salt ponds have calmdromous and anadromous fish action; but the other reason they are protected in Massachusetts is for oysters. Karberg — Under the characteristics of protect salt ponds it says nothing should be done to have adverse impacts on wildlife, fisheries, shellfish etc. wetlands or scenic views so as not to altar or pollute the critical characteristics of salt ponds. Oktay —Asked if there were changes to Land Subject to Coastal Flooding. Carlson — When the FEMA map changes, that will change. Do want to talk about that, but it will come up later. Definition: Water Dependent Projects. Carlson — Water dependent use comes in play only under the Buffer Zone Performance Standard, "All projects that are not water dependent shall maintain a 25 -foot natural unrestricted buffer. ." Had talked about requiring waivers even within those zones. It has been used with the misunderstanding that because it is water dependent, it doesn't require a waiver when that applies to that single performance standard. Coastal Bank Performance Standard 5 says, "All projects that are not water dependent shall maintain a 25 -foot natural unrestricted buffer." Standard number 3says "All projects shall be restricted as determined by the Commission to have no adverse affect on bank height, stability, wildlife habitat, vegetative wetlands or use of a bank as a sediment source," requires waiver for a coastal engineering structure or will have no adverse impact. Water dependency does not exempt the applicant. The definition because it simply states, "Projects which require direct water access for their intended use and therefore cannot be located out of the Area Subject to Protection." Asked if an applicant should be exempt from applying for a waiver due to water dependent use. Oktay — Should apply. Glowacki — Because it is water dependent, it can't comply with the buffer zone. Oktay — Could specify that even though it must be within the resource area, it does not imply a waiver should be requested. Glowacki — It only exempts from the set back. Karberg — Have been frustrated by a number of applications where people have not asked for waivers claiming water dependent use and have not gone through any other performance standards. Carlson — Suggested rather than rewriting the definition, it needs to be revised so as everyone understands it. Instead of "wetlands" it should say "resource area." Goldin¢ — The State definition includes cooling pipes and railroad tracks and public roadways that Page 2 of 4 Minutes for March 13, 2013, adopted Oct. 2 go over water; so their definition is broader. Carlson — Read the Zoning definition for Water Dependent. Nantucket has water dependent projects such as boardwalks cross wetlands. It is not an exemption, it exempts from dealing with buffer zone requirements. An applicant would still have to prove no adverse impact on the resource area. Steinauer — Suggested adding "Water Dependent uses are exempt from buffer zone setbacks but not exempt from any other Performance Standard." Glowacki — Suggested legal counsel might have something to say about adding additional verbiage. Carlson — It is incumbent upon my office and the commission to ensure that Performance Standards are adhered to. Lengthy discussion ensued about whether or not in list in the definition the variety of Areas Subject to Protection under the Bylaw. Golding — Asked if the commission recommended changes to the regulations will be reviewed by Town Counsel. Carlson — Yes. MacKinnon — It does seem the intention was for this to apply to all resource areas. Glowacki — Would like Counsel's opinion on this conundrum. Golding— If the definition says "resource dependent ", that would have to be defined. There is no definition for resource dependent Carlson — Will send the questions raised by the commission on this subject to Town Counsel for comments. Procedures: In general. Rewrite of NOI and RDA to be drafted. Carlson — The regulations talk about Notice of Intent (NOB, Certificates of Compliance and waivers. We do a lot of work on requests for determination for applicability (RDA) and under regulations for invasive species exempt people out of NOI for invasive species work within the buffer zone in an RDA. We do not have a procedure for RDAs and what gets included. Stated he will create a draft if the commission wants to include procedures for RDAs. In the rest of Massachusetts, work that takes place solely within Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage is frequently done under RDAs only. We require NOIs; want in discuss whether or not it is feasible to use RDAs in that case. Do not have a section that covers Amended Orders of Conditions (AOC). Consensus — Procedures for these items (invasive species under NOls, RDAs and AOCs) should be addressed in the regulations. Procedures: Certificate of Compliance. Add as a last sentence to paragraph 2, "The required as -built plan shall show all wetland areas, buffer zones, topography, other landscape features relevant to the project and any differences to the approved project" Carlson — Paragraph 2 was change last time requiring as -built plans. Golding — It was mentioned that topographical data should be included. Carlson — Sometimes topographical information is needed to show how much fill is being put in especially along a flood plain; it is required in that instance. Procedures: Waivers of Requirements. Change Paragraph 3e in Paragraph 4. Carlson — Paragraph 3e is virtually never used. This is actually more a commentary on the commission's ability to impose additional conditions on a project. Don't know why this is a waiver request. Discussion about where it would go, making it a stand -alone paragraph. Procedures: Fees. No change. Carlson — The regulations list the local fees. Additional fees include: $200 Consultant Fee, $116.30 Advertising Fee, and State -set category fee which is split between the state and the municipality. Procedures: Minor Modification. Carlson — Would like to end the term "Minor Modification" because no regulations refer in minor modifications. Our bylaws refer to a `plan change' and so changed the agenda. Rather than qualifying as a minor modification, it would qualify as a `non - significant change.' An amended order of conditions allows for an additional piece of work; that is subject to re- notification of abutters and notification in the paper as well as subjecting on the portion being applied to amend to appeal. When applying under a plan change, there is no abutter notification, no ad in the newspaper and not opening the permit up to other changes. Oktay — Plan Change would have to be defined and added to the Procedures section. Continued the Public Hearing on Regulations at for March 27, 2013 at 5 p.m. Carlson will schedule and post the public hearing on off weeks from regular meetings. Discussion about meeting schedule. Next regular meeting April 3, 2013. Fertilizer: Steinauer — Asked when ConCom wants to bring that up. Carlson — That will come up during the discussion of Performance Standards. Invasive Species can probably be done separately or can combine the two. Discussion among commissioners about what they would prefer. Golding — Mentioned that it had been discussed to add lawn demarcation to the plans and adding a 25 -foot buffer to the 50 -foot and 100 -foot setbacks from wetland resource areas. Asked if there was a decision not to do that. Carlson — Will be drafting a separate procedures section to address all of the filings and the filing requirements. When the commission goes over Performance Standards, they will have an updated section to add into the regulations. HI. PUBLIC MEETING A. Other Business 1. Reports: i. CPC — ii. NP &EDC — Bennett iii. Fertilizer Use Committee — Steinauer iv. Mosquito Control Commit tee — Bmginton -Smith v. Other/Miscellaneous Reports — Oktay, Shellfish Management Plan Page 3 of 4 — Minutes for March 13, 2013, adopted Oct. 2 2. Approval of Minutes —Have minutes from the last half of 2012 to present. There is a set from July that needs to be approved; the issue is to fix a section as requested by Mr. Glowacki via the recording. i. November 14, 2012 Motion to Approve (Glowacki) seconded. Carried unanimously ii. November 28, 2012 Motion to Approve (Glowacki) seconded. Carried unanimously iii. December 19, 2012 Motion to Approve (Glowacki) seconded. Carried unanimously iv. January 9, 2013 Motion to Approve (Glowacki) seconded. Carried unanimously v. January 23, 2013 Motion to Approve (Glowacki) seconded. Carried unanimously vi. February 6, 2013 Motion to Approve (Glowacki) seconded. Carried unanimously vii. February 20, 2013 Motion to Approve (Glowacki) seconded. Carried unanimously 3. Commissioners Comment: i. Braginton -Smith — Passed around photos from Chappaquiddick Island with similar erosion damage as Nantucket. ii. Okay — Has a mud and rack line from the most recent storm in her beach house. iii. Steinauer — Asked about the bike path wetlands issue addressed by Ms MacKinnon at the March 6 meeting during public comments. Carlson — There is a complaint on file with Town Administration withholding payment until the siltation issue is stabilized and the culvert is cleaned out. An effort to complete the work by March 15 is being required of the contractor; if it is not, an enforcement order will be issued to stop all work on the bike path until this situation is fixed. Braginton -Smith — Spoke with them this morning. Carlson — Once the level of siltation is determined and what needs to be done to mitigate it, the contractor might have to come back in to work on a way to fix it. There is 18 inches of water in there and no one can tell where the water is coming from. Commissioners discuss possible sources of the water. 4. Administrator: L Staff Reports ii violation Motion to Adjourn at 6:00 p.m. Submitted by: Terry L. Norton Page 4 of 4 Minutes for March 13, 2013, adopted Oct. 2 CONSERVATION COMMISSION ^/ 3ya ONrUC� 2 Bathing Beach Road Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 www nantucket- ma.eov Wednesday, March 13, 2013 4:00 P.M. 9pOgpiE� 2na Floor Training Room, 4 Fairgrounds Road Commissioners: Ernie Steinauer (Chair), Sarah Oktay (Vice - chair), John Braginton- Smith, Jennifer Karberg, Andrew Bennett, Ian Golding, Michael Glowacki Called to order at 4:02 p.m. Staff in attendance: J. Carlson, Natural Resources Coordinator; T. Norton, Town Minutes Taker Attending Members: Steinauer, Oktay, Karberg, Braginton- Smith, Bennett, Golding (remote participation, called in at 4:13 p.m.), Glowacki Absent Members: None Agenda adopted by unanimous consent *Matter has not been heard I. PUBLIC MEETING A. Public Comment — Kelly Omand, Nantucket Conservation Foundation, Chair Invasive Plant Species Committee — Provided the most recent Massachusetts Prohibitive Plants List; some of the species should be included in the local list. Provide materials for commissioners to look. Provided copy of suggested revisions to the 2013 Nantucket invasive exotic plants list. Nantucket is at the edge of different climate zone from the rest of the state; so some plants, which are on the Nantucket list, are not on the State list. H. PUBLIC HEARING A. Town of Nantucket Wetlands Regulations Revisions Sitting Steinauer, Oktay, Karberg Bmginton- Smith, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki Recused None Documentation Copy of Town of Nantucket Wetlands Regulations Public Emily MacKinnon, Resource Ecologist Nantucket Land Council Kelly Omand, Research Technician/Field supervisor Nantucket Conservation Foundation and Chair Invasive Plant Species Committee Karen Beattie, Manager of the Department of Science and Stewardship Nantucket Conservation Foundation Discussion: Carlson — Reviewed what was discussed with the last commission. If those changes want to be incorporated, they need to be voted upon and read back into the record. Definition: Depth to ground water. Added "by best information available, including but not to limited to the methods listed below:" Deleted, "The actual recorded depth to groundwater shall be the highest groundwater elevation determined by 1, 2, and 3 as subtracted from existing ground- elevation." Definition: Bulkhead. Golding— Asked if the ConCom had ever defined "bulkhead." It came up in earlier discussions. Carlson — There is no definition presently; but the commission can create one. Definition: Shoreline, eroding. Delete this definition. Oktay — Expressed the need for a proper definition; it is under Eroding Shoreline; do not need this definition. Definition: Eroding Shoreline. Added after six -year period: "ending on the date on which an application is filed." Oktay — Over the past 100 years, the island eroded at a rate of 1 foot per year and everything looks great. However, over the last three years there has been a lot of erosion. Steinauer — It doesn't hurt to have more information such as might be provided as a graph showing shore line erosion over a period of time. It depends on what the applicant want to do; if an applicant wants to build a house to last 75 years, 6 years might be too short a time. Carlson — Read Performance Standard 7, which states the erosion rate is determined by averaging over 150 years. McKinnon — Eroding shoreline is used under Performance Standards for coastal bank resource areas and beaches, but coastal bank is not defined. Oktay — A short period of time is valid as we have had a number of big storms and 100 years could look safer. Braginton -Smith — Should be a more consolidated amount of time considering the way things are going on the planet. Thejury is in on this, it (rising sea levels) is no longer fiction. Nantucket does have a problem; going back 10 or 20 years would provide a true number. Oktay — The shorter time is fine; but we need to ensure the definition links to a Performance Standard. Carlson — If "six-year period" remains, should add "current." Steinauer — Suggested the six years prior to the date of filing. Carlson — Later in the regulations, it talks about looking at the erosion rate over 150 years and multiplying by 20 to get to the erosion rate. We either need to incorporate that into the definition or incorporate the "six years" Glowacki — The Performance Standard could refer to the 150 yews times 20. Six years is an immediate trigger. Karberg — Looking at the Performance Standards, that longer time frame helps calculate how far from an eroding coastal beach a building should be placed. Steinauer— Have Performance Standards that prohibits structures no closer than 50 feet from an eroding bank. Time frame needs to be long enough to include one Page I Minutes for March 13, 2013, adopted Oct. 2 Definition: Soil Temperature. Add the definition, "the temperature of the soil four inches below the surface grade as taken by a soil thermometer." Carlson — From an earlier discussion to include Article 68 Work Group best management practice, included a definition for Soil Temperature. Definition: Shellfish. Oktay —Noted some misspellings and offered to go through it later and make the corrections. Definition: Pier. Add the definition to mimic the definition in the Town of Nantucket Zoning bylaw. Golding —Noted there had comments on the need for a definition for a pier. Oktay — Suggested a definition as ending at the mean high -water mark with the purpose of loading or unloading a vessel. The whole point is ending at the high water mark. Carlson — A pier is a structure that stops or extends past the high water mark. Glowacki — A boardwalk ends at the water; a pier goes into the water. Discussion about the difference between a dock/pier and a boardwalk. Carlson — Read the zoning definition for a Dock or Pier or Wharf It reaches from land extending into coastal waters or seaward of the mean high tide line. Walkways stop before the high water mark. Suggested he could copy it into the ConCom regulations starting with "Shall mean any structure floating or fixed ..." Definition: Elevated Walkways. Add the definition. Carlson — Will have to add a definition especially for elevated walkways. This would preclude games of semantics between piers and walkways. Oktay — Suggested using the State definition of a walkway as any structure elevated over a salt marsh or vegetated wetland, coastal time fields and flowed tidelands designed for pedestrian access. Carlson — Beach stairs could technically be considered an elevated walkway; added that to the end of the definition. Steinaaer — Asked about adding "from men high water landward." Definition: Coastal Engineering Structure. Add " geotextile fabric" "multiple rows of fencing or other structure" change to "Structure, Coastal Engineering" and move to "Structure — examples." Oktay — Wants to add geotextile fabric to include quoi bags. Golding — Structure is key word. Asked at what point does a sand -drift fence become a structure. Oktay — A single sand -drift fence has not been considered a structure; but two of them in conjunction with additional components we are saying becomes a structure. It would require a waiver to be permitted. Carlson — Suggested adding "multiple rows of fencing" so as to include different types of fence. Golding — Stated that a structure is something that can't be removed simply. A sand -drift fence is unrolled then rolled up. Some projects that have been recently permitted with driven piles are clearly structures. Oktay — Defining structure as an engineering thing that can't be removed by one person and no equipment. Applicants could better spend time admitting the project is a structure then defending why there is no adverse impact. Glowacki — Structure is defined, which we don't want to redefine; we are working on the coastal engineering aspect. Carlson — Suggested putting Coastal Engineering Structure as a sub section of the definition for Structure and titled Structure, Coastal Engineering. Oktay — Then add 'including but limited to ..." Definition: Ponds. Add "Fresh or Salt" to the Pond definition then delete "fresh or salt" from first sentence. Carlson — Have a definition of Ponds that could be broken up for salt ponds. There is a resource area for Salt Ponds. Steinaaer — If there is a performance standard that relates to salt ponds, the definition should reflect a difference. Cited Saccacha and Hummock Ponds. Oktay — Saccacha and Hummock Ponds are defined by the State as great salt ponds. Golding— Saccacha Pond has a salt component it was over washed from the ocean during the height of the last storm. Carlson — There is a resource area for a salt pond that is essentially a coastal pond. The Performance Standard is 2.07; Performance Standard 3.03 includes lakes, streams, ditches, ponds and flats. Oktay — Could add "salt pond as defined by the State." Golding - Looking at the State regulation 3CMR 10.332, does not define by salinity. Carlson — Add "Fresh or Salt" after Pond and delete "fresh or salt" from fast line of definition. Karberg — There is a Performance Standard about changing the characteristic of a salt pond as it affects shellfish and wildlife habitat. Oktay — Salt ponds have catadromous and anadromous fish action; but the other reason they are protected in Massachusetts is for oysters. Karberg — Under the characteristics of protect salt ponds it says nothing should be done to have adverse impacts on wildlife, fisheries, shellfish etc. wetlands or scenic views so as not to alter or pollute the critical characteristics of salt ponds. Oktay — Asked if there were changes to land Subject to Coastal Flooding. Carlson — When the FEMA map changes, that will change. Do want to talk about that, but it will come up later. Definition: Water Dependent Projects. Carlson — Water dependent use comes in play only under the Buffer Zone Performance Standard, "All projects that are not water dependent shall maintain a 25 -foot natural unrestricted buffer . Y Had talked about requiring waivers even within those zones. It has been used with the misunderstanding that because it is water dependent, it doesn't require a waiver when that applies to that single performance standard. Coastal Bank Performance Standard 5 says, "All projects that are not water dependent shall maintain a 25400t natural unrestricted buffer." Standard number 3says "All projects shall be restricted as determined by the Commission to have no adverse affect on bank height, stability, wildlife habitat, vegetative wetlands or use of a bank as a sediment source," requires waiver for a coastal engineering structure or will have no adverse impact. Water dependency does not exempt the applicant. The definition because it simply states, `Projects which require direct water access for then intended use and therefore cannot be located out of the Area Subject to Protection." Asked if an applicant should be exempt from applying for a waiver due to water dependent use. Oktay — Should apply. Glowacki — Because it is water dependent, it can't comply with the buffer zone. Oktay — Could specify that even though it must be within the resource area, it does not imply a waiver should be requested. Glowacki — It only exempts from the set back. Karberg — Have been frustrated by a number of applications where people have not asked for waivers claiming water dependent use and have not gone through any other performance standards. Carlson — Suggested rather than rewriting the definition, it needs to be revised so as everyone understands it. Instead of "wetlands" it should say "resource area." Golding — The State definition includes cooling pipes and railroad tracks and public roadways that Minutes for March go over water; so their definition is broader. Carlson — Read the Zoning definition for Water Dependent. Nantucket has water dependent projects such as boardwalks cross wetlands. It is not an exemption, it exempts from dealing with buffer zone requirements. An applicant would still have in prove no adverse impact on the resource area. Steinauer - Suggested adding "Water Dependent uses are exempt from buffer zone setbacks but not exempt from any other Performance Standard." Glowacki — Suggested legal counsel might have something to say about adding additional verbiage. Carlson — It is incumbent upon my office and the commission to ensure that Performance Standards are adhered to. Lengthy discussion ensued about whether or not to list in the definition the variety of Areas Subject to Protection under the Bylaw. Golding — Asked if the commission recommended changes to the regulations will be reviewed by Town Counsel. Carlson — Yes. MacKinnon — It does seem the intention was for this to apply to all resource areas. Glowacki — Would like Counsel's opinion on this conundrum. Golding — If the definition says "resource dependent ", that would have to be defined. There is no definition for resource dependent. Carlson — Will send the questions raised by the commission on this subject to Town Counsel for comments. Procedures: In general. Rewrite of NOI and RDA to be drafted. Carlson — The regulations talk about Notice of Intent (NOI), Certificates of Compliance and waivers. We do a lot of work on requests for determination for applicability (RDA) and under regulations for invasive species exempt people out of NOI for invasive species work within the buffer zone to an RDA. We do not have a procedure for RDAs and what gets included. Stated he will create a draft if the commission wants to include procedures for RDAs. In the rest of Massachusetts, work that takes place solely within Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage is frequently done under RDAs only. We require NOls; want to discuss whether or not it is feasible to use RDAs in that case. Do not have a section that covers Amended Orders of Conditions (AOC). Consensus — Procedures for these items (invasive species under NOIs, RDAs and AOCs) should be addressed in the regulations. Procedures: Certificate of Compliance. Add as a last sentence to paragraph 2, "The required as -built plan shall show all wetland areas, buffer zones, topography, other landscape features relevant to the project and any differences to the approved project." Carlson — Paragraph 2 was change last time requiring as -built plans. Golding — It was mentioned that topographical data should be included. Carlson — Sometimes topographical information is needed to show how much fill is being put in especially along a Flood plain; it is required in that instance. Procedures: Waivers of Requirements. Change Paragraph 3e to Paragraph 4. Carlson — Paragraph 3e is virtually never used. This is actually more a commentary on the commission's ability to impose additional conditions on a project. Don't know why this is a waiver request. Discussion about where it would go, making it a stand -alone paragraph. Procedures: Fees. No change. Carlson — The regulations list the local fees. Additional fees include: $200 Consultant Fee, $116.30 Advertising Fee, and State -set category fee which is split between the state and the municipality. Procedures: Minor Modification. Carlson — Would like to end the term "Minor Modification" because no regulations refer to minor modifications. Our bylaws refer to a `plan change' and so changed the agenda. Rather than qualifying as a minor modification, it would qualify as a `non - significant change.' An amended order of conditions allows for an additional piece of work; that is subject to re- notification of abutters and notification in the paper as well as subjecting on the portion being applied to amend to appeal. When applying under a plan change, there is no abutter notification, no ad in the newspaper and not opening the permit up to other changes. Oktay — Plan Change would have to be defined and added to the Procedures section. Continued the Public Hearing on Regulations at for March 27, 2013 at 5 p.m. Carlson will schedule and post the public hearing on off weeks from regular meetings. Discussion about meeting schedule. Next regular meeting April 3, 2013. Fertilizer: Steinauer — Asked when ConCom wants to bring that up. Carlson — That will come up during the discussion of Performance Standards. Invasive Species can probably be done separately or can combine the two. Discussion among commissioners about what they would prefer. Golding — Mentioned that it had been discussed to add lawn demarcation to the plans and adding a 25 -foot buffer to the 50 -foot and 100 -foot setbacks from wetland resource areas. Asked if there was a decision not to do that Carlson — Will be drafting a separate procedures section to address all of the filings and the filing requirements. When the commission goes over Performance Standards, they will have an updated section to add into the regulations. III. PUBLIC MEETING A. Other Business 1. Reports: i. CPC — ii. NP &EDC— Bennett iii. Fertilizer Use Committee — Steinauer iv. Mosquito Control Committee — Braginton -Smith v. Other/Miscellaneous Reports — Oktay Shellfish Management Plan Page 3 of 4 — Minutes for March 13, 2013, adopted Oct. 2 2. Approval of Minutes — Have minutes from the last half of 2012 to present. There is a set from July that needs to be approved; the issue is to fix a section as requested by Mr. Glowacki via the recording. i. November 14, 2012 Motion to Approve (Glowacki) seconded. Carried unanimously ii. November 28, 2012 Motion to Approve (Glowacki) seconded. Carried unanimously iii. December 19, 2012 Motion to Approve (Glowacki) seconded. Carried unanimously iv. January 9, 2013 Motion to Approve (Glowacki) seconded. Carried unanimously v. January 23, 2013 Motion to Approve (Glowacki) seconded. Carried unanimously vi. February 6, 2013 Motion to Approve (Glowacki) seconded. Carried unanimously vii. February 20, 2013 Motion to Approve (Glowacki) seconded. Carried unanimously 3. Commissioners Comment: L Braginton -Smith — Passed around photos from Chappaquiddick Island with similar erosion damage as Nantucket. it. Okmy — Has a mud and rack line from the most recent storm in her beach house. iii. Steinauer— Asked about the bike path wetlands issue addressed by Ms MacKinnon at the March 6 meeting during public comments. Carlson — There is a complaint on file with Town Administration withholding payment until the siltation issue is stabilized and the culvert is cleaned out. An effort to complete the work by March 15 is being required of the contractor; if it is not, an enforcement order will be issued to stop all work on the bike path until this situation is fixed. Braginton -Smith — Spoke with them this morning. Carlson — Once the level of siltation is determined and what needs to be done to mitigate it, the contractor might have to come back in to work on a way to fix it. There is 18 inches of water in there and no one can tell where the water is coming from. Commissioners discuss possible sources of the water. 4. Administrator: L Staff Reports i. violation Motion to Adjoum at 6:00 p.m. Submitted by: Terry L. Norton Page 4 of 4