Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-8-8Minutes for August 8 2013 adopted Oct 16 CONSERVATION COMMISSI SPECIAL HEARING 2 Bathing Beach Road Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 1p www.nantucket-ma.gov Thursday, August 8, 2013 4:00 P.M. Community Room, 4 Fairgrounds Road Commissioners: Ernie Steinauer (Chair), Sarah Oktay (Vice- chair), Jennifer Karberg, Andrew Bennett, Ian Golding, Michael Glowacki, Leslie Johnson Called to order at 4:04 p.m. Staff in attendance: Jeff Carlson, Natural Resources Coordinator Attending Members: Steinauer, Oktay, Karberg, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki Z No Absent Members: Johnson as w Late Arrivals: Bennett 4:23 p.m. ?t p Earlier Departure: Karberg 6:48 p.m.; Glowacki 6:55 p.m. m Agenda adopted by unanimous consent ;c N n m a *Matter has not been heard '-1 rn I. PUBLIC MEETING o 9 rn A. Public Comment - None £ 3 0 Z N IL PUBLIC HEARING n A. Notice of Intent 1. - Sconset Beach Preservation Fund - Baxter Road Area SF48 -2581 mi't Sitting Steinauer, Oktay, Karberg, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Thud -party Richard Doughty, Milone and MacBroom Inc. - Hired by the town to review the submissions. consultant Summarized comments: Survey should be updated to the most recent conditions. Construction plans could provide additional information beneficial to permitting; the cross sections would help. Run off from the top of the bluff could cause tills and erosion; need remediation plans for that. Coastal plantings along the bluff need a more detailed schedule to determine the speed at which they will take root; is board agreeable geo -grid to stabilize bluff till plants take hold. Once the revetment is built, there is still instability where the sloop meets the revetment; there will be slump if the toe of the slope is not held up. Sacrificial sand number needs to be represented in the total number of trucks needed to deliver that sand. Concerned with stability of the top of the sloop handling the traffic volume delivering the sand. Crest of the revetment is proposed 10 feet; guidelines are for a wider crest. The 2/1 sloop might be too steep. No information on the gradation of the sand. Revetment stones shown to be about 1 X4 feet; there is concern about scour; need more information. Flanking issues are not addressed. Delivery of the stone will be by barge, need information on the environmental impact of the delivery of the stone and beach truck traffic placing the stone. Constructability needs to be addressed; excavating to build the revetment could affect stability and need information addressing that. Would like to see other options for saving Baxter Road and the infrastructure. There were no concerns with over - topping. Devin Santa, Roberge Associates Coastal Engineers, LLC - Providing insight and guidance on the Coastal engineering aspect of the project. Discussion Steinauer - Asked with current mitigation is based on 2.2 erosion per year, but the project is based on a higher rate of erosion; is the higher rate going to be the new norm and how would that be measured. Doughty - Stated the revetment will alter the erosion rate; would have to get the data from comparable areas. Discussion about how to tell whether or not the revetment is affecting adjacent erosion or the shoals. Oktay - Pointed out that the third -party comments are all from a coastal engineering view point and do not address the environmental impact. Page] of 4 Minutes for August 8 2013. adopted Oct 16 Applicant Steven Cohen, Reads, Gullicksen, Hanley, Gifford & Cohen LLP — Taking this seriously and want to be Representatives responsive to the concerns of the commission and the community. Will be making adjustments to the (4:31) project to address those comments. Reviewed issues that have been brought up.'Sconset Beach Preservation Fund has an agreement with the Town to be responsible for all of Phase I and go forward in conjunction with the Town to go forward on Phase II. Reviewed Town financial requirements of'Sconsst Beach Preservation Fund. For long -term stability, the Town can create a betterment or tax improvement district. The revised revetment addresses scow, beach sand mitigation & undermining. Reviewed public access stairs; there will be three. Agreed with concerns raised about how to track this to meet sand replacement issues in the future and will agree with Order of Conditions that address that Responded to findings and comments in Mr. Doughty's report. In regards to alternatives to save Baxter Road, said they thought about that; sheeting will not prevent erosion and is not a long -term solution. Project comes down to three aspects: whether or not it is legally approvable, it is the best possible means of saving the bluff, conditions to make it a comfortable permit Reviewed condilions'Sconset Beach Preservation Fund thinks are appropriate for an approval. Bryan Jones, Ocean and Coastal Consultants — Reviewed a revised cross section of the revetment. Les Smith, Coastal Geologist Epsilon Associates Inc. — Reviewed how the following issues were addressed: sand mitigation, end scow & flanking, and the inventory of coastal structure. Addressed project design in regards to the proposed bank vegetation. Addressed a concern, based on a California report, expressed about the effect on the Sand Fleas. Responded to comments in the Nantucket Land Counsel letter dated July 30, 2013. Addressed comments made in the Applied Coastal memo dated July 29, 2013. Reviewed other revetment project in environments with similar wave energy. Jamie Feeley, Construction Manager Cottage and Castle Inc. — Addressed concerns about construction and stability of the bank top. Plan is to use a landing barge with a ramp to the beach and there will some access involving Hoicks Hollow. Discussion Bennett — There has been talk about imminent danger; looking at the road, it is not in imminent danger continued except possibly around 87 Baxter Road. Suggested a shorter Phase 1. (5:12) Cohen — The concept is something they are willing to work on with the commission. Oktay —Asked where would the barge land and the depth of water and how would that area be protected. Feeley — Barges have spuds to stabilize them while off loading. Have not chosen a landing zone. Oktay — Listed her concerns: How deep is the water at the landing zone, haw will rocks be put in place, how will sand be put on top of the base, how far will the freeboard of the Dutch toe sink, loss of the beach and how would the rocks be moved around if the beach is lost in the future. Feeley —There will be a platform above the revetment that can be used for access. That will be addressed as part of the protocol. Golding — Asked about the comment that if there is no visible change nearby, there won't be any far away. Asked upon what that comment was based. Cohen — Revetments cause the most impact nearby; so if there is an isolated incident elsewhere and nothing happening nearby, that is an indicator that the revetment is not the cause. Agree that there are lots of factors that need to be tracked based on changes that are not physically apparent but are mathematically calculable. Golding — Stated he doesn't understand the contrast in volumes per linear foot between this project and the last one. The prior was over 20 cubic yards per linear foot and now it is down to 9. Cohen — The prior application was looking at a narrow high -loss area plus a bonus amount of sand added in. The information will be revised with the Post-Saudy data. Smith — Talked with state officials and other ConComs about their experiences with hard structures; they all said use bank retreat rate. The Woods Hole group has been monitoring the beach for years; worked with them to establish the monitoring control areas. Golding — Had asked for more data on up -drift and down -drift contribution. Smith — That sediment modeling is being compiled. Golding — Understood that asking for an escrow account is not legal. Cohen — The commission can require certain escrows; a removal escrow might be beyond ConCom authority. The two reasons for removal escrows were: mattress/gabion was a pilot project that could be removed; the Town has required removal escrows and has the power to require that. Golding— Under coastal wetlands regulation last paragraph states that ConCom can impose any requirement it feels necessary to protect interests protected by the by -law. Asked the applicant whether or not that is a reasonable request for the commission to make. Cohen — Need to lay out failure criteria. It is reasonable for the commission to look for financial security on certain issues, but argued removal is a step beyond their powers. Discussion about how a project this size would be removed should the commission decides it needs to come out. Oktay — Stated that other revetment projects have resulted in the loss of property on either side of the Page 2 of Minutes for Aueust 8. 2013, adopted Oct. 16 Discussion Golding — Read from the Town Wetland Bylaws 136& 136.9. Asked ifajudgment requiring a removal continued fund would be challenged. (5:40) Cohen — Stated the belief that an escrow is not the best way to address failure nor is removal the best way to address a failure. Steinauer — Since most work is on Town property, asked if ConCom can put the financial burden on the people behind the revetment or should it be on the property owner. Carlson — Will pass the question along to Town Counsel. Public John Merson, 71 Baxter Road — Spoke to Richard Murray, a Selectman from the Town of Scituate. (5:43) Reviewed notes from that conversation. Whoever pays for hard annoying, the initial cost of construction is quickly dwarfed by the cost of maintaining; there for hard armoring is a bad long -term solution. Cormac Collier, Executive Director Nantucket Land Council (NCL) — Completely agree a bond or deposit of money can be placed for removal, maintenance and sand renewal in perpetuity. Request through the chair to Mr. Carlson to pass the application to MEPA for determination if it needs an environmental protection form. Stated the opinion that all owners should sign the application and there are upwards of 30 owners. Have heard several different ways re- nourishment is to be calculated and a clarification of what will require re- nourishment. Each meeting has presented beach loss differently; respectfully request a prediction of how much the beach will thin. In no way can the applicant disagree that they are forever altering a natural coastal beach. The upper beach community provides a wealth of habitat; it will be destroyed. A question is how will the nourishment or lack thereof affect down -drift areas. John Ramsey, Applied Counsel and Research, NCL consultant— Expressed the opinion that the commission is being asked to create the mitigation program; that should be up to the applicant to provide. Reviewed and addressed Mr. Smith's responses to his memo. Some trausects indicate a beach erosion rate of 10 feet a year; the applicant using the 3.18 a year for the bank, resulting into beach has retreated 160 feet and the bank has retreated only 50 feet; those calculations put the bluff in advance of the beach. Dirk Roggeveen, Quidnet/Squam Association (QSA) — The technical review talked about measuring the re- nourishment sand in truck loads; not sure the mitigation amounts are right. Wants to get a handle on the dollar amount; should know what the long -term costs are. The revetment is touted as lasting 100 years but the island sand source will last only 20 year; at that point, the Town has in pay to import sand. Have been told it would cost a lot to relocate the road; expressed skepticism with the numbers so looked up betterment. Around the state, betterment assessments are used to build roads to better the existing of a small group of people. North of Hoicks Hollow, the beach is flat and wide which protect Quirkier and Squam. Have not seen any information about littoral drift; they have the burden of proof that their project will not adversely impact communities to the north and south. Do not think the commission could issue an approval due to the lack of information; the decision would not hold up in court. Also need to ask what happens if the barrier beach in front of Sesachacha Pond and how would it be repaired. That is also prime nesting for plovers; so if the beach is lost, the nesting area is lost. Stated the opinion that removal of the rocks is probably more expensive than putting them in and the commission needs to ensure a bond is in place for that removal. In six year the Order of Conditions will expire and there is no mechanism to ensure mitigation continues. Richard Burke, 30Sesachacha Road — Can't help but see holes in the proposal. Is concerned about how much occurrences on the bluff affects Quidnet and Squirm. There is no knowledge of where the sand is coming from and the erosion rate. Would like to know where the sand inputs and outputs are there are no quantifiable models. Margaret McQuade, 97 Baxter Road — Residents have lost over 150 feet of bluff; our beaches and land are going away very fast The Bluff is an historic and important part of the Island. The need is for the best possible assessment to save a piece of `Sconset. Need to deal with what you can know and not base decisions on assumptions. Alix Nelson, 58 Squirm Road — There we many more habitats and houses that can be affected than the 14 on the eroding bluff.'Sconset Beach Preservation Fund sponsored a talk by John Trowbridge, PhD, which was cancelled 24 hours in advance to allow'Sconset Beach Preservation Fund to review his suggestions. Stated her belief that Dr. Trowbridge had three suggestions for the applicant: Strength of the revetment in relation to eroding forces needs further investigation; replenishing sand `can't be determined" in advance; and the long -term costs are so prohibitive and has to be solidified. D. Anne Atherton, 48 Squam Road — Presented at the table a letter from Robert S. Young, PhD, dated August 8, 2013 on behalf of Jeri Eldridge. Read bullet points from the letter. The letter has been entered into the record. David Roby, 85 Squam Road — This is too big and too complex and can't be done without consequences that cannot be planned and could have serious adverse affects to the Island of Nantucket. Page 3 of 4 Minutes for August 8 2013 adopted Oct 16 Final statement Cohen — This is a complex project. Several important points. One — can't apply until there is imminent (6:42) danger and that time is now. Two —the characterization that the commission is being asked to design the project. Three — disagree with choosing to save one house over another; pre -1978 houses and infrastrucnue have certain priorities. The goal is to file plans on Wednesday August 14. Request continuance to Tuesday August 20. Next hearing Steinauer would like the plans and responses submitted and time allowed to review all that information properly. Tuesday, August 20 at 4 p.m. Motion Continued to August 20 without objection. Vote N/A B. Other Business 1. Reports: None 2. Commissioners Comment: None 3. Administrator /StafReports: a. Hummock Pond Bike Path Enforcement Order Carlson — Reviewed the wetlands seed mix list and orders of conditions. Kara Buzanoski, Director DPW — Before any planting, applicant is to pull back the core matting to ascertain the correct grade, then replace the matting to stabilize the and bring in the surveyors to contain the grade. That report will be reviewed by Mr. Carlson and the commission. Motion to Authorize the administrator to proceed with points 128. (made by: Glowacki) (seconded by: Oktay) Carried 5 -0 Corinne Collier, Executive Director Nantucket Land Council — Comments are inaudible. Carlson — Wants the as -built in hand by Sept I to allow plants time to establish; will add those timeline dates in and issue out to the Town. Will add a Condition 9. Buzanoski — Do not want them going back over the area they have repaired. Arthur D. Gasbarro, Blackwell and Associates Inc. Motion to Adjourn: 7:00 p.m. Submitted by: Terry L. Norton Page 4 of 4