HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-9-11Minutes for September 11 2013 , adopted Oct 16
CONNERVATMN UUMMISJIUIN
SPECIAL HEARING
2 Bathing Beach Road
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
www.nantucket -ma. eov
Wednesday, September 11, 2013 4:00 P.M.
Nantucket High School Cafeteria, 10 Surfside Road
Commissioners: Ernie Swimmer (Chair), Sarah Oktay (Vice- chair), Jennifer Karberg, Andrew Bennett,
Ian Golding, Michael Glowacki, Leslie Johnson I
Called m order at 4:15 p.m. y
Staff in attendance: Jeff Carlson, Natural Resources Coordinator, Terry Norton, Town Minmid Ta
A. Notice of
Attending Members: Swimmer, Oklay, Karberg, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki c
A
Absent Members: Johnson r-'
n
Late Arrivals: None ...q
Rt
Earlier Departure:
Documentation
Agenda adopted by unanimous consent o �
rrn
f
C7
*Matter has not been heard z N
Applicant
I. PUBLIC MEETING
Representatives
A. Public Comment - Speakers asked to keep their presentation brief, to the point and address c�* is4 within
the Conservation Commission prevue. �o
71
system. Also stated that in his opinion the Town third -party consultant is satisfied with the revetment
11. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Notice of
Intent
1. •Sconset
Beach Preservation Fund - Baxter Road Area SE48 -2581
Sitting
Steinaueq Oktay, Karberg, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki
Recused
None
Documentation
Supporting documents and plans. PowerPomt® presentation.
Third -party
None
consultant
Applicant
Steven Cohen, Reade, Gullicksen, Hanley, Gifford & Cohen LLP - Stated that the concern should not be
Representatives
where sand goes as that is determined by nature but how much sand is being introduced back into the
(00:02:02)
system. Also stated that in his opinion the Town third -party consultant is satisfied with the revetment
system. Reviewed a letter from the Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management (CZM) that
addressed: pre -1978 structures, slope of the structure, construction protocols. There are two issues in the
letter his clients disagree with: a higher volume of sand mitigation than proposed and the warning that the
sand supply is limited.
Michael Bruno, PhD, PE Dean, Stevens Institute of Technology- Reviewed his credentials and history
with the `Sconset Bluff erosion issues. Stated that in fact he has problems with the revetment. Pointed out
that the shoreline is dynamic and aggressive prone to major storm events: stone size is too small, slope is
too steep to be stable and toe design is inadequate to what might happen. Stated he recommended those
changes be made and they were accepted. Explained that the proposed design mitigates impact and most
reflect the natural situation. Stated that the primary impact of this structure is very unusual: it eliminates
the bluff as a sand source to the beaches in front and north and south. His recommendations have
revolved around that impact; it requires a long -term (forever) commitment to replacing that sand. Stated
his opinion that sand replacement should be made a very strong condition of the permit. In addition to the
volume there is a commitment to replace any sand lost north and south to end affect as well as any sand
lost in front of, there are potential impacts due to shut -off of the sand, to end affect and to frontal
reduction. In his view, the best practice is to provide sand in front of the revetment. Stated that he does
not know of other revetments with a nourishment program. Stated that removal of the revetment is do-
able; suggested that if a problem arises, the requirement be put on building up the beach. There is no
predicting where the sand will go; only replacing the sand volume can be predicted. Suggested that the we
stone being exposed should be the trigger to add more sand. Stated that he does not see the cobble habitat
off shore being impacted by the revetment and the sand replenishment program. They need to guard
against flanking and pronounced erosion at the end to make sure end -scour does not happen; the
revetment will be slowly tapered back into the bwL which should work. Pointed out that a uniform
coastline helps prevent the development of a peninsula.
Page 1 of 4
Minutes for September 11, 2013, adopted Oct. 16
Applicant Les Smith, Coastal Geologist Epsilon Associates Inc. — Replacement of sand happens only in the region
Representatives of the bluff, not all along the coast to replicate normal down drift.
Cohen — (In response to a question from the public.) There are two kinds of impact, localized wave
deflection and down -drift impact caused by a starvation of sand. If the right amount of sand is put into the
system to mimic nature; that removes the impact on down drift.
Smith — Reviewed the size and location of the cobbled marine habitat; stated the project will not impact
those. Reviewed what is known and not known about the drift of sand and how the nourishment amount
was calculated. Reviewed studies of the wave action and how to vertical settlement is being addressed.
Addressed comments made in the CZM letter in regards to aspects of the design. Recapped best practices
being used in construction of the project and nourishment the mimics what is coming out of the bank.
Stated that sand cost is based upon bringing sand in from off island so it would be covered when the local
sand pits urn out. Reviewed the monitoring plan and whendhow, sand would be replaced in an effort to
mimic nature. Recapped what had been presented at this meeting and answers to previously posed
questions. Reviewed a graph about beach erosion.
Jamie Feeley, Construction Manager Cottage and Castle Inc
Josh Posner, 77 Baxter Road, Chairman'Sconset Beach Preservation Fund
Discussion Oktay — Stated that Dr. Bruno's concerns reflect those of the commission.
Karberg — Questions whether or not replacing loose sand will rebuild lost beach.
Golding — There has been an emphasis on sand replenishment, but is concerned the cobblestone habitat,
which benefits marine life is a result of the components of Sankaty Cliff.
Discussion about the cobble that comes from the bank and would create a future cobble marine habitat.
Oktay — Stated the opinion that 5 piles at the transept points is not the same as evenly dispersed sand and
that nourishment should include silt and cobble. Once there is end -scour erosion, it is difficult to mitigate
for; it's gone.
Bennett — Expressed concern that the revetment could cause a peninsula to occur.
Golding — Asked if it is a reasonable request to have the revetment removed in the event a peninsula
starts to occur.
Oktay — About the transepts, asked how impact would be monitored. (Answer: There are six and none
will be eliminated.)
Golding — Looking 50 years forward, erosion would take place elsewhere along the beach so there would
be the peninsula affect from the reinforced part of the bluff. Asked how that would impact the littoral
patterns and if increased amount of sand would be needed to protect the revetment. We are talking in
perpetuity here.
Smith — What happens further afield is hard to predict. One area erodes, one accretes; it is back and forth.
The bluff has always been a source of sediment. As a community, you want to arrest the erosion of the
bluff. With that decision comes the next step, committing to replacing the sand.
Golding — Expressed concerns with the apparent way the representatives dismiss CZM's calculations of
56 linear feet per year, asked the chairman to get in much with CZM to get them to be more specific.
Also, the angle of the beach could become much steeper before the actual toe of the revetment is exposed;
wonders if the original angle of the beach will be maintained. He is worried about the amount of beach
that would be lost before the toe of the revetment is exposed.
Karberg — Echoed that concern.
Oktay — Pointed out that the representative keeps saying they are going to use the Woods Hole
monitoring plan but that is not included in the application packet.
Cohen — Stated that'Sconset Beach Preservation Fund is committed to putting the right amount of sand
back into the system.
Oktay — Stated that CZM is in the process of doing the littoral cell mapping at this time.
Steinauer— Stated that calculated roughly it would cost over $.5M a year to buy the sand and that doesn't
include shipping it to sight.
Cohen — The estimated costs are $12M to $15M to install and $I M to $2M to maintain sand; they are
looking at the cost of removal. Stated the opinion that the value of the properties off -sets the amortized
cost of maintenance.
Glowacki — Expressed the opinion that all these numbers do not have anything to do with protection of
the bluff; the money is all a political question.
Steinauer — Disagreed. Wants to see estimates for the cost of removal and a proposal on the funding
mechanisms that Town Counsel could review and then be forwarded to the Board of Selectmen.
Page 2 of 4
Minutes for September 11 2013 adopted Oct 16
Discussion Golding — Would also like there to be waivers to the right to appeal a decision should the Conservation
continued Commission rule that the revetment must be removed.
(01:39:39) Steinauer — If failure occurs, the commission needs to allow a reasonable amount of time for the problem
Page 3 of 4
to be fixed; should that fail, the commission then needs to be able to require the structure be taken out.
Cohen — Suggested that the next hearing focus on the order of conditions.
Oktay — Stated the presentation shows bare sand and the applicant's representatives state there is no
habitat; however, she has not seen grab samples to ascertain whether or not a habitat exists below the sand
surface.
Public
Catherine Stover, 5 Liberty Street — Through the chairman asked to have the terms `rate of progress"
(Due to
and "general commitment' explained. Asked who will schedule the monitoring and set the standard for
acoustics some
reasonableness, who will be responsible for the east of maintaining in perpetuity, and as landing a barge
comments and
in those waters will be a feat how will sand be off - loaded if that is necessary.
questions were
Cohen — The life of the project is perpetual. Stated general commitment is self explanatory. Applicant is
unintelligible.)
proposing reporting quarterly and after major storm events; the commission can put in additional
requirements. The applicant would pay for that. Commitments made under the order of conditions would
be a private obligation of applicants not the Town, thought the Town is one of the applicants. If there is
statistically significant change in measurable erosion it would trigger coming back to the commission to
determine if that would require a change to the base amount. We 100% expect the Town and the
commission to require that there to be perpetual legally- binding mechanisms or enforcement and financial
liability or payment in place whether they are private or public. Explained that sand would be delivered to
the beach by truck even if it is shipped in from off-island. Only rock would be delivered by barge.
Julie Hensler, 3 Flom Street— Asked why the project focuses on such a small section of Baxter Road.
Stated a fund should be set up and an administrator established to facilitate perpetual support by the
landowners and future land owners benefitted by the revetment Pointed out that there is no predicting
human impact on the situation in the future.
Cormac Collier, Executive Director Nantucket Land Council (NCL) — Reiterated what Ms MacKinnon
has said in previous hearings about lack of conformity to by laws and acts. Asked for a poll of the
commission w to whether or not the structure conforms before an order of conditions is drafted.
John Ramsey, Applied Counsel and Research, NCL consultant— (Mostly unintelligible) Reviewed
unresolved previous concerns.
Cohen — Stated that he could not respond to some of the questions now but would draft a response. Stated
an analysis should be done by the commission to determine whether or not the project is compliant with
the State law and the by -law.
(Speaker's identification unintelligible) — Looking at the cross - section based upon the most recent LIDAR
dam, the revetment extends 15 feet above the beach and excavating down 9 feet; inevitably sheeting will
be needed. Stated that temporary sheeting could affect the upper bank. The angle of the upper slope
affects stabilization.
Feeley — Material from the toe excavation could be used to flatten out the revetment The excavation
down would not be for 9 feet nor undermine the bank as it will be built out away from the bank.
Discussion about the construction methods and angle of the toe and the revetment.
(Speaker did not identify himself and was unintelligible)
Carol Donlon, 36 Exeter Road — (unintelligible) Asked about adjacent beaches in regards to something
Dr. Bruno said.
Cohen — Nearby adjacent beaches are a defining factor.
Dunton — Asked about the increases stability of the bank.
Cohen — Stability is increased compared to the original proposal.
Donlon - Asked about the causes of the undulation of the bank
Cohen — The revetment follows the face of the bank and stops at the last protecmble house.
Glowacki — Point of order: that there not be individual conversations between the audience and the
applicant. Asked all questions be directed through the chair.
Dunton — (unintelligible.)
Steinauer— Stopped the conversation between Ms Dunton and Mr. Cohen.
Dunton — Stated for the record that she felt the interruption was inappropriate and that she had only one
more question.
Steinauer— Allowed her to make one last question.
Dunton — Stated she has an observation. Second proponent stated there was no way to predict erosion.
Page 3 of 4
Minutes for September 11. 2013. adopted Oct. 16
Public
Dirk Roggeveen, Quidnet -Squam Association (QSA) — Reiterated concerns of his clients about starvation
continued
of their beaches, which is a concern that could be reflected by properties south of the project. Stated that
(02:25:21)
the DMS 20 concern from the nourishment project did not provide information on the silt material and the
(Due to
associated habitat loss. The response was that the Sesachacha Pond beach would accrete 40 feet as a result
acoustics some
of nourishment being put into the system. The first nourishment project, if it failed, would have done so
comments and
by releasing sand into the system. This is the first proposal that would not fail in that manner. Wave
questions were
action hitting the bank without putting sand into the system will cause starvation down drift; that has to be
unintelligible.)
figured out. Expressed concerns about the financing maintenance and removal and the need for a better
prediction of costs. Propose the administrator be asked to contact CZM for further review, an explanation
about the data provided on the along -shore drift is needed, Town Counsel or the Finance Department
should be asked to provide information about Betterment District limitations and the Board of Selectmen
should be asked if they are willing to commit to spending money on mitigation for the next 100 years.
Michael May, Nantucket Preservation Trust— Read a written statement about the significance of the
North Bluff over the past 130 years to the island as well as important architectural structures. Points out
that moving historical structures is considered to be an unacceptable
practice.
Closing
Discussion about bringing funding into a wetlands protection issue.
Glowacki stated the opinion it is
discussion
outside ConCom purview. Stemmer feels it is integral to the project.
Staff
Said he will follow up on Mr. Roggeveen's requests for further information. Stated that most of the
conversation has focuses on the coastal bank; there is also coastal beach, land subject to coastal flowage,
land under the ocean, direct down drift, and coastal dune fields. There is significant impact to the beach
that has to be mitigated and it should be taken into account that the width and function of the beach will
change over time. A significant part of the discussion needs to include the coastal beach and the
performance standards for coastal beach that include land under the ocean; mitigation will be required for
those, outlast the bank. Stated that before he can draft an order of conditions all resource areas and
performance standards have to be accounted for. Still holds the concern that the project requires waivers
to a number of performance standards, specifically Coastal Bank Nr. 3. Still waiting for the Massachusetts
Natural Heritage response. Will call CZM and request Town Counsel attend the next hearing.
Next hearing
Oktay can't attend the week of the Ills'. Decision about the next meeting date continued to the next
regular meeting.
Motion
Continued to September 18 without objection.
Vote
N/A
B. Other Business
1. Reports: None
2. Commissioners Comment: None
3. Administrator /Staff Reports/Enforcements: None
Motion to Adjourn: 7:12 p.m.
Submitted by:
Troy L. Norton
Page 4 of 4