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