Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-10-2Mmutes tot October 2, 2013, adopted Oct 16 CONSERVATION COMMISSION 2 Bathing Beach Road Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 www nantucket- ma.gov 1W Wednesday, October 2, 2013 4:00 p.m. Training Room, 4 Fairgrounds Road Commissioners: Ernie Steinauer (Chair), Sarah Oktay (Vice- chair), Jennifer Karberg, Andrew Bennett, Into Golding, Michael Glowacki, Leslie Johnson Called to order at 4:04 p.m. Staff in attendance: Jeff Carlson, Natural Resources Coordinator; Terry Norton, Town Minutes Taker Attending Members: Steinauer, Karberg, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki, Johnson Late Arrivals: Johnson 4:40 p.m. Absent Members: Okmy z "' Agenda adopted by unanimous consent o n / A *Matter has not been heard T I. PUBLIC MEETING M~�] n A. Public Comment —None rn o � < II. PUBLIC HEARING f 3 rn z A. Notice of Intent o p 1. FAD ACK2, LLC — 15 Lauretm Lane (14 -10.1) SE48 -2589 c�a Sitting Steinauer, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki p rn Recused Karberg, Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative Arthur D. Gasbarro, Blackwell and Associates Inc. — Proposal for coastal stabilization to protect a pre-1978 structure. Waiver for no reasonable alternative. Soil samples have been taken and processed and lab analysis indicates gravelly, sandy soil on the beach; not a lot of fine. Plan to add nourishment along base of bulkhead annually with on -going monitoring with photo surveys. As an engineer, stated he believes the structure should extend along the whole property beach front. Softest solution would be a rip-mp fence with tubes; do not believe it will properly protect due to over - reaching of the bank without taking more beach space. A steel bulkhead would take up less beach. Gabion baskets would work but would have a greater footprint sin; also there is an aesthetic component in regards to the black plastic. Sloped -rock revetment would have a wider footprint and the waves would ramp up toward the structure in the case of a severe storm. A rubble -round revetment which would take up beach but not provide height to protect the structure. Access for the annual nourishment would be from the top of the bank. In answer to his MacKinnon's comments: Annual contribution is the minimal; but certainly there would be post -storm event contributions if needed. Addressed the failure criteria question. Arthur Reade, Reade, Gullicksen, Hanley, Gifford & Cohen LLP — Request a continuance to allow the absent commissioners time to read back in. Asked that an order be drafted. Discussion (4:06) Steinauer — Asked about the wave reflection off the near vertical structure. Gasbarro — This is corrugated but there will be wave reflection and that is the purpose of the nourishment program. There is a similar structure off Quaise Road. Steinauer — Would like to have a beach profile, width and depth of the beach, included so that the commission knows the beach is being maintained. Gasbarro — That would be provided with the as- built. Steinauer — As neighboring properties continue to erode, overtime this will stick out and erosion would occur around the ends from lateral wave action. Asked how a peninsula would be prevented. Gasbarro — Adding nourishment on the ends should help prevent that from happening. Bennett — Said the plan refers to 34 feet from the high tide line to the toe of the bank. (Answer: that is from 1930 datum.) Glowacki — Reviewed the resource areas. Said when the commission looks at erosion control and talks about nourishment to prevent the loss of beach, it seems to him that the commission is encouraging the applicant to do something that in other cases it goes to great pains in preventing other applicants from doing: that is keeping material out of resource areas. Finds that confusing. Steinauer — Stated in his opinion the attempt is to match the natural condition as much as possible in providing sediment to the beach and neighboring beaches. It is not always clear what the function that sediment has. With coastal erosion projects, the lack of nourishment impacts beaches. Page I of 5 Minutes for October 2, 2U13, adopted Oct. 16 Discussion Glowacki — It seems in some situations it is taboo for any sediment to go anywhere near the resource continued (4:33) areas. Bennett — In many cases the commission tries to keep sand out of the wetlands; beaches are a different environment. Staff —The difference is explained in the state wetlands protection act. The state views coastal banks as having two functions: a vertical buffer against storm waters and floods and a sediment source to maintain beaches, to provide habitat, or to maintain itself. Other resource areas that are looked at similarly are coastal dunes and coastal banks. Looking at sedimentation controls, most resource areas aren't providing sediment; such as a bordering vegetated wetlands and ponds and lakes. When looking at dunes, it is important to take into account its function. If the commission were to find that this is not a sediment providing bank, that would affect how it is permitted against the state act. For a bank that is solely a vertical buffer to storms, the nourishment and mitigation requirements change. The purpose of the performance standards in cases such as this is to mimic that function by providing nourishment. Gasbarro — Sediment is an important element here in that it will address the end scouring concerns; the sediment will help feather back the eroding beach. Public Emily MacKinnon, Nantucket Land Council — The regulations for vertical bulkheads to protect pre- 1978 structures, it seems there are more viable ways to protect the structure in keeping with the Performance Standards. Bulkheads like this stick around for many generations, therefore, it is important to consider whether or not the nourishment will be there in the future. Would like an elaboration on "as- needed basis" included in the file. Staff Will draft an order. Motion Continued to October 16 without objection. Vote N/A 2. 23 Commercial Wharf JA -23 Commercial Wharf (42.2.4-5) SE48 -2604 Sitting Stemmer, Karberg, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki, Johnson Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative John Bracken, Bracken Engineering — Submitted a letter on the waiver request for the coastal bank. Did a sill boring between the brackets to ascertain the type of soil/sand. No boats will tie up to the float and stops will prevent it from dropping too low. Kevin Dale, Vaughan, Dale, Hunter and Beaudehe, P.C. Discussion (4:40) Golding — Asked about the depth where the float is going so that it won't hit bottom. Sleinauer — Most of the structure is over already disturbed land. Public Emily MacKinnon, Nantucket Land Council — Concern last time was documentation for the file in regards to what makes up the harbor bottom where the pilings will go; the commission should ensure there will be no damage to plants or wild -life. Staff There is no space to store materials; it will have to go off site. Have everything needed to close. Motion Motion to Close. (made by: Bennett) (seconded by: Karberg) Vote Carried unanimously 3. Desert Island LLC — 64 Cliff Road (30 -66, Lot 2 &3) SE48 -2600 (Coot. 10116) 4. Desert Island LLC — 64 Cliff Road (30 -66, Lot 4) SE48 -2601 (Coat. 10116) 5. Desert Island LLC — 64 Cliff Road (30-66, Lot 5) SE48 -2602 (Coot. 10116) 6. Desert Island LLC — 64 Cliff Road (30-66, Lot 6) SE48 -2603 (Cont. 10/16) 7. -Benedict — lOD Crow's Nest Way (12 -44.3) SF48 -2605 Sitting Steinauer, Karberg, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki, Johnson Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative David M. Haines, Haines Hydrogeologic Consulting — This structure is in a condominium complex; this NOI combines work on a tight tank and an addition to the structure. Resource areas are bordering vegetated wetlands and 100 -foot buffer zone with the house within 50 feet of the bordering vegetated wetlands. Asking for waivers for work within 50 and work from the water. No permanent dewatering is proposed; but temporary dewatering will be necessary. Explained how the temporary dewatering method won't affect the wetland. Paul Santos, Nantucket Surveyors — The complex is seven units and 5 septic systems, which are getting technical failures from the Board of Health. This is an individual system for this unit alone. Discussion (4:47) Bennett — Asked the age of the house. (Answer: 1978.) Public None Staff Have everything needed to close. Motion Motion to Close. (made by: Bennett) (seconded by: Karberg) Vote Carried unanimously Page 2 of 5 Minutes for October 2, 2013, adopted Oct. 16 8. •7 /11Nominee Trust -7 & 11 Squam Road (21 -8) SE48 -2607 Sitting Steinauey Karberg, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki, Johnson Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative Arthur D. Gasbarru, Blackwell and Associates Inc. — The property has a RDA for confirmation of the resource areas. The structure is within the buffer zone with a failing foundation. NOI is to replace the foundation with a crawl space and move the structure away from the property line and a foot away from the dune. A timber retaining wall runs along the dune to catch sand and is buckling; a post and board wall is to be constructed in front of it. A new pool is to be constructed within the 50 -foot buffer. Asking for waivers based on net benefit. Sarah Alger, Sarah F. Alger P.C. — Request 2 -week continuance. Discussion (4:56) Golding — Asked the depth of the foundation. (Answer: 4 feet to the bottom of the footing.) Asked how the hole would be protected from sand falling in. (Answer: plywood shoring.) Public None Staff The commission can require a waiver under any grounds it feels is most appropriate if it is not satisfied with long -term net benefit. Do not have the Massachusetts Natural Heritage letter. Willing to draft an order. Motion Continued to Oct 16 without objection. Vote N/A 9. -Salt Marsh Cranes R.T. — 5 Saltmarsh Road (55 -297) SE48 -2606 Sitting Stemmer, Karberg, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki, Johnson Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative Arthur D. Gasbarro, Blackwell and Associates Inc. — Propose to install an elevated walkway across the salt marsh, which will stop at the regulatory mean high -water line. There will be no floats or appurtenances for tying up boats. There will be no walkway through the bordering vegetated wetlands, just a trail. Will seed the trail with a charim/fescue mix; no fertilizer or irrigation is proposed and the mix takes a cut very well and requires little water. Stated this is the same design as the walkway approved for next door. Explained the construction method to mitigate damage to the resource area. Stated he does not believe there is an impact from the foot path. Request continuance to provide the requested information and submit any necessary waivers. Steven Cohen, Reade, Gullicksen, Hanley, Gifford & Cohen LLP - It would be an access point. It does not extend into the water and nothing is tied up to it. It is a more environmentally friendly way to reach the water without damaging the salt marsh. The handrail is preferred as a safety measure. Discussion (5:06) Johnson — Doesn't understand why the elevated walkway as opposed tojust a path. Stated that if there is no dock, it seems to just be a viewing platform. The walkway takes away the sense of view from the water. These are starting to crop up all over the salt marshes; stated she is opposed. Steinauer — Stated that property owners have a right to access the water across their own property; and an elevated walkway protects the very sensitive marsh grasses and soils. The trail area presently is on higher ground and the soils look well developed. Karberg — The soils of a salt marsh are so sensitive a path is created even if crossed just once; it is visible from aerials. Steimmer — There are other regulatory differences between a walkway and a dock or pier that have to do with how it relates to the mean high water. Discussion about environmental construction techniques and commission checks to ensure work is done correctly Karberg — Stated that there are two other paths across the salt marsh and asked about them. (Answer: Those were survey trails and will not be maintained.) Bennett — Suggested a spiral screw. Johnson — Would like to have the rail removed. Discussion on the first motion: Karberg — Said there are performance standards that apply even for a water - dependent use. Public Emily MacKinnon, Nantucket Land Council — Asked if a waiver request had been submitted. (Answer: it is water dependent.) There are performance standards that still apply through the bordering vegetated wetlands; also the performance standards for salt marsh says no proposed structure will destroy any portion the salt marsh. Staff Have previously conditioned walkways to retreat as the water rises. Have everything needed to close. Massachusetts Natural Heritage said no adverse impact. Salt marsh Performance Standards 3 and 7 apply as well as Performance Standards for buffer zones. Path impacts the resource areas and the level of the impact should be discussed. Motion Motion to Close. (made by: Bennett) (seconded by: none) Not carried Continued to October 16 without abjection. Page 3 of 5 Minutes for October 2, 2013, adopted Oct. 16 III. PUBLIC MEETING A. Request for Determination of Applicability 1. 25 Lincoln Ave. N.T. — 25 Lincoln Ave. (30 -41) Sitting Steinauer, Karberg, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki, Johnson Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative Paul Santos, Nantucket Surveyors — Three Orders of Conditions exist for the property, which have all been issued certificates of compliance. The area of jurisdiction is the top of a coastal bank north of the existing structure. The 25 -foot no- disturb buffer and 50 -foot setback have been maintained. This is proposing landscaping between the 50 -foot and 100 -foot buffers. Read a report from Laurenfide Environmental, LLC. Sarah Alger, Sarah F. Alger P.C., trustee Discussion (5:35) None Public None Staff Recommend issue as Negative 3. Motion Motion to Issue. (made by: Bennett) (seconded by: Karberg) Vote Carried unanimously B. Certificates of Compliance 1. 'Young —28 Easy Street (42.4.2 -67) SF48 -2455 Sitting Karberg, Bennett (acting), Golding, Glowacki, Johnson Recused Steinauer Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative None Discussion (5:40) None Public None Staff Reconstruction of building within 100 -foot buffer. Built in substantial compliance recommend issue. Motion Motion to Issue. (made by: Glowacki) (seconded by: Karberg) Vote Carried unanimously C. Orders of Conditions (If the public hearing is closed — for discussion and/or issuance) 1. *Thompson —14 Fargo Way (14 -17) SE48 -2574 Sitting Steinauer, Karberg, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki, Johnson Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative None Discussion (5:41) None Public None Staff Stated he drafted a Denial due to the applicant's failure to meet burden of proof and failure to meet waiver requirements. Reviewed findings recapping the regulation and demonstrating their failure to meet the burden of proof. Read summary paragraph, and reviewed a correction that needs to be made. Motion Motion to Approve as amended. (made by: Golding) (seconded by: Karberg) Vote Carried unanimously 2. *7 Huckleberry Lane, LLC — 7 Huckleberry Lane (32 -60) SE48 -2598 Sitting Stemmer, Karberg, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki, Johnson Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative None Discussion (5:47) None Public None Staff Positive order for split -rail fence and planting American beach grass. This will provide a net benefit to the dune. Motion Motion to Approve as drafted. (made by: Glowacki) (seconded by: Kmberg) Vote Carried unanimously Page 4 of 5 Minutes for October 2, 2013, adopted Oct. 16 3. •23 Commercial Wharf JA -23 Commercial Wharf (42.2.4-5) SE48 -2604 Sitting Stemmer, Karberg, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki, Johnson Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative None Discussion (5:48) None Public None Staff Will draft a positive order with conditions and testing to ensure there are no shell fish where the pilings will go. Does not believe there are any there due to the depth and pollution; if there are, the float can be removed from the proposal. Stops will keep the float about 6 inches off the bottom. Explained what would happen if the project were found to be in violation of its waterway license. Motion N/A Vote N/A 4. -Desert Island LLC — 64 Cliff Road (30 -66, Lot 2 &3) SE48 -2600 (Cont. 10116) 5.. Desert Island LLC — 64 Cliff Road (30 -66, Lot 4) SE48 -2601 (Cont. 10/16) 6.. Desert Island LLC — 64 Cliff Road (30 -66, Lot 5) SE48 -2602 (Cont. 10/16) 7. • Desert Island LLC — 64 Cliff Road (30 -66, Lot 6) SFAS -2603 (Cant. 10/16) 8. Discussion of other closed notice of intent public hearings: a. Benedict — I OD Crow's Nest Way: Staff will draft a positive order. b.7 /1lNominee Trust — 7 & 11 Squam Road: Staff stated that they had requested a waiver under net benefit; asked if commissioners were comfortable with that or thought another would be more appropriate. D. Other Business 1. Reports: a. CPC — Golding, first round of applicants. b.NP &EDC— Bennett, no meeting. c. Mosquito Control Committee - none d. Coastal Management Plan — next meeting on Monday e. Other 2. Adoption of Minutes — March 6 through Jane 30 adopted by unanimous consent. 3. Commissioners Comment: Steinauer— Finished the herbicide treatment on the purple loosestrif, at Sesachacha Pond. 4. Administrator/ Staff Reports a. 32 Tennessee Avenue violation — Spoke to the property owner; read email into the record; stated she assures the posts will be removed as quickly as possible. As there seems to be cooperation, no enforcement order will be issued. Phragmites removal can continue. Further discussion about the situation and bow to resolve the issues of removing the cement pilings so that the area is returned to its natural state. Staff will set up a time to talk to the owner about removing the pilings. b. ConCom has been asked by Jeff Blackwell in regards to work on Still Dock that requires a Chapter 91 license to send a letter to waterways that no work is permitted and no work is being done and it is compliance with the wetlands protection act. Motion to Authorize the staff to write that letter. (made by: Bennett) (seconded by: Karberg) Carried unanimously Motion to Adjourn at 6:16 p.m. Submitted by: Terry L. Norton Page 5 of 5