Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-11-13Minutes for November 13 2013 ado ted May 28 2014 CONSERVATION COMMISSION 2 Bathing Beach Road Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 www.nantucket-ma.gov 4W Wednesday, November 13, 2013 4:00 p.m. Training 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 4:03 p.m. Stuff in attendance: Jeff Carlson, Natural Resources Coordinator; Terry Norton, Town Minutes Taker Attending Members: Steinauer, Oktay, Karberg, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki Absent Members: Johnson Agenda adopted by unanimous consent *Matter has not been heard c — 1. PUBLIC MEETING .— m A. Public Comment -None r= N n Steinauer - Announced that the next regularly scheduled meeting is December 4. m II. PUBLIC HEARING A. Notice of Intent - cD , 1. Rowe -137 Wauwinet Road (11-1 l.l) SE48 -2468 (Coat to 12/4) r o -- 2. Sconset Beach Preservation Fund - Baxter Road Area SE48 -2581 Sitting Steinauer, Okmy, Ka berg, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. PowerPoint® presentation. Representatives Steven Cohen, Reade, Gullicksen, Hanley, Gifford & Cohen LLP - Requested a continuance. Discussion None at this time. Public None Staff None Motion Continued without objection to December 18. Vote N/A 3. Farrell, Trustee - 77 Eel Point Road (32 -14) SE48 -2608 Sitting Steinauer, Oktay, Karberg, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative Arthur D. Gasbarro, Blackwell and Associates Inc. - Second hearing for a zigzag sand-drift fencing with 3 rows of sand - filledjute tubes and 500 yards of sacrificial nourishment and beach grass planting. Reviewed age of the structure. Sand samples were taken to establish the grain size. Explained how the tubes will be anchored in the event of deflation. Calculated the average rate of erasion at 267 cubic yards (CY) a year; rounded that up to 300 CY but the applicant is committed to 500 CY Per year contribution should it be needed. Explained the reasoning for determining the structure is in imminent danger. Reviewed how the project meets the state and local performance standards for all pertinent resource areas. Moving the structure is still being considered but that will not happen this winter. Addressed Nantucket Land Counsel concerns as expressed by Ms MacKinnon. The order of conditions could contain an on -going condition requiring long -term maintenance. As for the waiver request, the sediment contribution is not necessarily an adverse impact; stated he does not see the need for a waiver from that performance standard. Asked the commissioners whether or not they want him to request the waiver before the hearing closes. Requested a continuance. Page 1 of 8 Minutes for November 13, 2013, adopted Mav 28.2014 Discussion (4:06) Oktay — A concern is the exposure of the tubes from a sperm. Asked how quickly can they be recovered to mitigate down -drift damage. Gasbarro — Stated that setting up mobilization ahead of a storm allows for response within a couple of days following a storm. Reviewed the delivery of sand to the beach. Explained how the fencing and tubes will allow the plants to take hold and stabilize the bank. Steinauer — Asked how well the beach is holding up in front of similar projects along Eel Point Road. Gasbarro — Stated that the beaches are holding up well and there has not been any end scour; when the contractor was mobilized, sand was added to the ends. The bottom tube did deflate; report was provided. The material is bio- degradable so it can be left in place and a new tube added on top. Discussion about whether or not this application should have a waiver. Consensus is that there should be a waiver for no adverse impact due to a change in the function of the bank. Bennett — Asked if there could be a time frame on the structure. Discussion about whether or not there should be a requirement for removal of the fencing and tubes once the pre-1978 structure is moved to safety. Public Emily MacKinnon, Nantucket Land Council — The question is, if before the end of the permit the applicant can relocate the house and it is out of danger, should the commission allow the structure to continue to be maintained in the long term. Under coastal bank performance standard number 3, states all projects should restricted in activity to have no adverse impact; suggests it would be more appropriate to require a waiver saying there is no adverse impact. Dirk Roggeveen — Speaking as the former Conservation Commission Administrator, the activity is the on -going mitigation; that is why a waiver would be issued for no adverse impact. Staff One performance standard does not exempt the applicant from other performance standards; they all must be met. If the commission feels that the project does not meet a performance standard, it can require a waiver. Part of the monitoring requirement is if there is an adverse impact, the applicant has to come before the commission to discuss action to be taken to alleviate the problem; that is a condition. Motion Continued without objection to December 4. Vote N/A 4. Shimmo Hills, LLC — 10 North Road (43 -81) SE48 -2609 Sitting Steinauer, Oktay, Karberg, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative Arthur D. Gasbarro, Blackwell and Associates Inc. Arthur Reade, Reade, Gullicksen, Hanley, Gifford & Cohen LLP Discussion (4:51) None Public None Staff Massachusetts Natural Heritage determination is of No Take/No Adverse Impact. Have everything needed to close. Motion Motion to Close. (made by: Bennett) (seconded by: Karberg) Vote Carried unanimously 5. •23 Lincoln Ave. N.T. —23 Lincoln Avenue (30 -42) SE48- Sitting Steinauer, Oktay, Karberg, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative Arthur D. Gasbarro, Blackwell and Associates Inc. — NOI to raise a shed 3 feet within the coastal done resource area. Reviewed the situation leading to this application. All work is to be done by hand, no machinery and access is from the upland carried down the stairs. Footing will be 6X6 timber support. Requested a continuance. Discussion (4:52) None Public None Staff Have everything needed to close except the file number. Will draft a positive order. Motion Continued without objection to December 4. Vote N/A Page 2 of 8 Minutes for November 13 2013, adopted Mav 28. 2014 6. -Schmid Realty Trust— 9 E Street (60.2.1 -6) SE48- Sitting Steinaueq Oktay, Karberg, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative Arthur D. Gasbarro, Blackwell and Associates Inc. — Requested continuance without opening the application. Discussion (4:59) None at this time. Public None Staff None Motion Continued without objection to December 4. Vote N/A 7. 'Sanford — 15 Meader Street (42.2.345) SE48- Sitting Steinauer, Okay, Karberg, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative Don Bracken, Bracken Engineering — There are some pending architectural changes. Raise existing structures to meet I00 -flood requirements is 10.2 feet. Two of the 5 existing structures will be removed from the property and new structure built with a small increase in the building area. There is paved parking; a new shell parking area is being proposed. Existing grade to remain the same. All construction material will be removed. Roof run -off details are indicated on the plans. Requested continuance. Discussion (4:59) Golding — Asked about underground utilities in the flood plain. Bracken — Presently there is over head wine; there would be de- watering associated with the installation of underground utilities. Public None Staff Do not have a file number. Motion Continued without objection to December 4. Vote N/A 8. Town of Nantucket/SBPF — 85 -91 & 99 -107A Baxter Road SE48- Sitting Sminaueq Oktay, Karberg, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. PowerPoint® presentation. Representatives Kara Bunnoski, Director Department of Public Works ( DPW) — Reviewed supplemental information (5:03) including a memo from Town Counsel. Reviewed Town Counsel's opinions addressed in the memo: limited project provision in state regulations, emergency provisions, deposited funds, local bylaw exemption for public infrastructure. There is a request for a waiver from Coastal Bank Performance Standard No 3. Have increased mitigation from 17 CY per linen foot to 20 CY. Nicole Burnham, Engineer, Milone & MacBromn Coastal Engineering — Have found and retained a contractor who would use salt water for the slurry. At the last hearing, there was a question why the road isn't being relocated; the road is being relocated, ergo the reason this is a temporary structure. Reviewed a recently submitted letter: it addresses the variability of mitigation volume that has been presented from the various consultants. Have defined monitoring and replenishment protocols; added monthly inspections of the geo -tubes to be done by the Town Emergency Management Official. Added transects and tried to address comments and concerns expressed by Jim O'Connell, Coastal Geologist, Coastal Advisory Services. Detailed what the analysis will be in reviewing transects, calculation accretion and erosion at the transects, comparing at the top of the bank, calculating bank volume loss and submitting the data to ConCom so that it will become public information. Suggested some modified timing in nourishment protowls. There is no answer to how to evaluate the impact on down drift; it is very hard to do. Suggested a condition that establishes a panel of experts to assess that for independent verification. Addressed the issue of beach and dune sand mitigation. Page 3 of 8 Minutes for November 13,2 13, adopted Mav 28. 2014 Discussion Steinauer — Placed a time limit of an hour for this hearing. Golding — Stated his inclination is to err on the side of caution; therefore, he would go with the larger mitigation number 24 CY or 25 CY per CZM data. Burnham — Stated the problem is that data is not specific to this project reach. Oktay — Her concern is the affect the and nourishment would have on the cobblestone habitat off shore that it will go straight off shore and bury that. The discussions on littoral cells suggest that most sand will go north or south. Another concern is that the sand is on top of the bags up higher than the 2 or 10 year storm so will not feed into the system naturally. Timing of the nourishment is vital to make it available for storms. Steinauer— Based upon comments by Mr. O'Connell, he has a concern about end scow; having extra nourishment might help that. Asked how significant end scow would be mitigated. Previous experience with these types of bags resulted in massive end scour in one storm around the structure; it is too late after the sand is gone. It would be the applicant's advantage to come in with a plan now. Burnham — One project goal she feels strongly about is not excavating into the bank. At the end, the bags will taper vertically and horizontally to get as close to the bank as possible. Also don't want to hard armor the ends. End scow is a concern but there is no easy answer. Golding— Expressed the opinion that this is a revetment by another name to the extent that it reflects wave energy providing it stays intact. Has a concern, as with others, that this is part of a permanent solution. Discussion about the permanency of this project. Golding — Citing wave analysis data, expressed concern that the structure could not withstand the wave pressure exerted by a 100 -year storm. Oktay — Looked at areas around the country where the geo- textile tubes were used, found that the tubes are not designed to operate if they we not covered. Her concern is keeping the sand cover on the tubes, which could end up being a weekly task and how would the sand be delivered if the beach were covered. Burnham — The contractor has to time the work to occur at low tide; that is a practicality of working in that environment. Oktay — There has been a lot back and forth about which erosion rate is used: shoreline versus top of bank. Mr. Arthur D. Gasbarro, Blackwell and Associates Inc. looks at the mitigation volume half way up the bank to the toe retreat. None of the groups has ever compared the rate based on that. Burnham — Stated she will get that data and look at it. Golding — Stated they have not addressed Town Counsel's point about the cost and that an estimate of the removal and restoration will be necessary. There are questions that still need answers before this is closed. Burnham — Asked what the commission would want to see in regards to removal of the structure. May — Has a question for legal counsel: if something drastic were to happen to 107, 109 & 113 Baxter Road as a result of end scow, who is responsibility for the liability. Buzanoski — Town Counsel has drafted a licensing agreement that the BOS will discuss at the November 20 meeting. Liability is covered in that. Golding — Read into the record Town Counsel's opinion on the deposited fund in the letter dated November 13, 2013, Item III, pp 4 &5. Steinauer— About sand volume, there is social science research that suggests the average values tend to be fairly accurate, when there is a range of numbers. Said Trey Ruthven, Applied Coastal Research and Engineering, came up with a number around 22 by looking at the range of values. Rulhven — Explained how he came up with an average volume of 22 CY. Oktay — Asked staff about the Department Environmental Protection (DEP) comments. Extensive discussion about End Effect and what happens to the data from the transects. Oktay — Stated that there is a USGS website is excellent with a lot of questions and answers for lay people about revetments and geo -mbes. The Woods Hole Group established that 75 percent of the littoral drift off the `Scone[ Bluffs moves north; that is based on thew transect data. Another source is the "Tiffany Paper" dated 1975 that talks about off -shore littoral drift. Presently, DEP and CZM we collaborating on a modeling map of how much sand moves up and down beaches. Page 4 of 8 Minutes for November 13, 2013, adopted Mav 28. 2014 Public Bob Decosta, Board of Selectmen — Referred to comments by Mr. O'Connell, questions that the sand from the bluff ends up QuidneNSquam. From his observation as a commercial fisherman and years looking at the bluff; most erosion occurs during Nor'casters and the wave action. Expressed the opinion that there is no way that sand ends up two miles down the beach. It piles up at the toe and moves after the storm. In the days after a stoma event, the water column is so thick the fish can't breathe. That sand then settles to the ocean floor. Suggested that the sand volume can be adjusted but that this has to go forward and urged another meeting before December 4. Emily MacKinnon, Nantucket Land Council (NLC) — Looked at the increased mitigation proposal and still have technical concerns. A concern that Town Counsel addressed is the cost of removal and the ability of the commission to require the establishment of a fund to pay for that. In response to a question from Mr. Glowacki, stated that the Nantucket Land Counsel technical consultants met with the Town's technical consultants and the Town's consultants brought the results of that discussion back to the design team. Trey Ruthven, for NLC — Stated he has talked to the Town's consultants twice. Stated he is glad to see the nourishment numbers coming up; it is important for mitigation and monitoring the success. Said it is hard to use the erosion rate from the middle of a bank because it is hard to pick out in photographs; shorelines change over a long period of time and old dam is from maps showing only a line of the shoreline. Still concerned that there is no update as to where the sand volumes are; some sand is at plus 28, there is a need to cover the geo -tubes from UV damage, but need to make sure the mitigation volume is within the littoral system or available m it. Have not addressed End Effect, and there is still concern for the properties to the north and south. Currently asking that an annual report be delivered in April/May; but if those properties are seeing severe erosion, April/May would be too late. End Effect scour has to be addressed proactively; it is critical because the structure focus the wave energy at the ends. In regards to adjusting the mitigation volume, three to five years is not sufficient time to determine whether or not the mitigation should be reduced. If the 17CY per linear foot is doubled and affects are still apparent, it needs to be determined why 34CY has been lost and is that a criterion for failure. When asked if he could suggest a volume of sand for mitigation at the ends, stated that the raw data has not been made available for him to make that calculation. In regards to the proposed sand delivery method, stated that the bank is under stress, but the Town's technical consultants have looked at that carefully and he trusts their assessment. Dirk Roggeveen, Quidnet/Squam Association (QSA) — Explained the reason he and Mr. O'Connell decided Mr. O'Connell should not speak with the representatives of Milone and MacBroom. Pointed out that all scientific evidence addresses where the sand from the bluff ends up and how it moves. Addressed a comment that the properties beyond the project reach area cannot be protected without permits; under that logic, the end properties can't be protected without permits. If a seawall is maintenance of a roadway, then a project like this is allowed to go forward it eviscerates 10.30. Refers to 10.30 and what circumstances prohibit projects to protect/maintain public infrastructure. Referred to the "Guide to Coastal Regulations" specifically addressing coastal banks and when a seawall or revetment is not permitted. Stated that the talk seems to be is as if this is an isolated project and that this project is over - engineered. Earlier in this meeting, the'Sconset Beach Preservation Fond (SBPF) revetment project was continued. Expressed a concern that the revetment project, which protects the houses between this the areas of this project, will morph into a geo -tube structure that conveniently ties into this project. The problem for this commission that if the project is permitted for the town, but not permitted for SBPF, it could be accused of being arbitrary and capricious. Urged the commission to look at where this could lead. Steven Cohen, Reade, Gullicksen, Hanley, Gifford & Cohen LLP, for SBPF — Suggested a lot of mud- slinging is taking place. Reminded the commission that SBPF is pay for the construction of this project. Made the point that the Limited Project is an exemption to the regulations cited by Mr. Roggeveen and referred to Town Counsel's opinion. Rebutted the accusation that SBPF would try to force its application through based upon a positive decision on this project. Asked the commission to act in a way that would protect the road before the coming storm season. Reminded the commission that it has the ability to condition the project to their satisfaction. Pete Kaizer, commercial fisherman — After last week's meeting, he looked into littoral drift and learned it is a wind and wave driven process. Stated, from his observations, he believes that in the winter littoral drift is toward the south. In regards to the geo- tubes, expressed his continued concern that they will break loose and become a navigation hazard. Supports the idea that rocks should be scattered along the beach and in the ocean. Believes the ends should be protected with racks and the sacrificial sand mixed in. Pointed out that the beach sometimes builds up from a storm and sometimes erodes away. Alix Frick, 58 Squam Road — Stated that the QSA residents have an equal apprehension; they aren't against the project and do expect some adverse impact. Asked the commission to take their interests, which are as legitimate as, into account. Page 5 of 8 Minutes for November 13, 2013, adopted Mav 28. 2014 Discussion Bumnoski — Have to ask for a continuance. Will provide confirmation of the restoration costs and a 1. 'J.R. Steele, LLC -201 & 205 Eel Point Road (38- 32 &31) volume for nourishing the ends. Expect one number for goo -tubes and another for the ends. Do not want Steinauer, Oktay, Karberg, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki to use rocks. Has a submittal with the waiver request to be in by Friday. Asked if DEP gets the number None before the next meeting, could a special meeting be scheduled. Supporting documents and plans. Steinauer— Asked if the Town would voluntarily taking on protection of areas outside the project reach. Arthur D. Gasbarro, Blackwell and Associates Inc. — No work proposed. Seeking confirmation of Discussion about how the Town would have to do to mitigate damage on other areas that might be the delineated area, a coastal dune boundary and land subject to coastal Flowage. affected by the project. Staff What is normally required for removal and restoration is to restore the form and function either as it None existed or exists to adjacent properties; cited 87, 93 and 99 Eel Point Road wall removal as a good Recommend approval as a Positive 2A example. This is part of the applicant's burden. Motion to Approve Still waiting for a DEP file number and their comments. Have made attempts to contact them to expedite Vote the information. Their posted receipt date is November I, and they have 30 days to compile comments and issue a number. —12 Midland Ave. (59.3 -105) Must continue to a certain date due to the Open Meeting Law. Suggested picking a date and hoping the Steinauer, Oktay, Karberg, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki DEP number is in; they have to provide a number by November 30. Next hearing Discussion about scheduling a special meetng and Dr. Oktay calling in or reading in after the fact. Motion Continued to November 20 without objection. Vote N/A HE PUBLIC MEETING A. Request for Determination of Applicability 1. 'J.R. Steele, LLC -201 & 205 Eel Point Road (38- 32 &31) Sitting Steinauer, Oktay, Karberg, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative Arthur D. Gasbarro, Blackwell and Associates Inc. — No work proposed. Seeking confirmation of the delineated area, a coastal dune boundary and land subject to coastal Flowage. Discussion (6:53) None Public None Staff Recommend approval as a Positive 2A Motion Motion to Approve as Positive 2A. (made by: Glowacki) (seconded by: Oktay) Vote Carried unanimously 2. -Sheppard —12 Midland Ave. (59.3 -105) Sitting Steinauer, Oktay, Karberg, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki Recused Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative Paul Santos, Nantucket Surveyors — To confirm bordering vegetated wetlands delineation. No work proposed. Discussion (6:56) None Public None Staff Recommend approval as a Positive 2A Motion Motion to Approve as Positive 2A. (made by: Glowacki) (seconded by: Bennett) Vote Carried unanimously 3. 'MacFarlane — 15 Lyford Road (92.4 -86) Sitting Steinauer, Oktay, Bennetl, Golding, Glowacki Recused Karberg Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative Paul Santos, Nantucket Surveyors— Work to install open -loop geo- thermal wells system and to construct a cellar access. All work is within existing lawn area. One well is within the 25 -foot setback and the other is between 25- and 50 -foot setback. It is a non - moving coastal bank area. Discussion (6:57) Discussion about the open -loop wells design criteria. Public None Staff Recommend approval as Negative 3 work in buffer zone Motion Motion to Approve as Negative 3. (made by: Glowacki) (seconded by: Bennett) Vote Carried Unanimously B. Minor Modifications 1. 93 Squam Road Nominee Trust — 93 Squam Road (13 -1) SE48 -2565 (Cont to 12/4) Page 6 of 8 Minutes for November 13, 2013, adopted May 28, 2014 C. Certificates of Compliance 1. - Everets -28 Willard Street (29- 112.2) SE48 -2420 (Cont to 12/4) 2. - F.I.N.T. LLP — 47 Easton Street (42.4.1 -59) SE48 -1955 Sitting Steinauer, Okmy, Karberg, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative None Discussion (7:01) None Public None Staff Built in compliance with the order. Recommend issue Motion Motion to Issue. (made by: Glowacki) (seconded by: Oktay) Vote Carried unanimously 3. -Gallaher —2 Horn Beam Road (21- 118.5) SE48 -2326 Sitting Steinauer, Okmy, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki Recused Karberg Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative None Discussion (7:03) None Public None Staff Built in compliance with the order. Recommend issue Motion Motion to Issue. (made by: Bennett) (seconded by: Oktay) Vote Carried unanimously 4. -Michelson — 31 Dukes Road (42.2.3 -45) SE48 -1411 Sitting Steinauer, Gluey, Karberg, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative None Discussion (7:04) None Public None Staff Reviewed the history of this project which included an enforcement action. Testing has been done on the pressure pump. Recommend issue Motion Motion to Issue. (made by: Bennett) (seconded by: Okmy) Vote Carried unanimously 5. • Esther's Island Retreat— Esther's Island (61.1.1 -36) SE48 -2483 Sitting Okmy (acting chair), Karberg, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki Recused Steinauer Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative None Discussion (7:00 None Public None Staff Work done in compliance with the order. Recommend issue. Motion Motion to Issue. (made by: Karberg) (seconded by: Golding) Vote Carried unanimously D. Orders of Conditions (If the public hearing is closed — for discussion and/or issuance) 1. Shimmo Hills, LLC —10 North Road (43 -81) SE48 -2609 Sitting Steinauer, Okmy, Karberg, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative None Discussion (9:09) None Public None Staff No waivers required. Only additional condition was that pool is to be discharged to an area outside commission jurisdiction. Motion Motion to Approve. (made by: Bennett) (seconded by: Okay) Vote Carried unanimously Page 7 of 8 Minutes for November 13.2013_ adopted Mav 28.2014 2. •23 Lincoln Ave. N.T. —23 Lincoln Ave (30 -42) SE48 -_ Sitting Swimmer, Oktay, Karberg, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative None Discussion Straight forward, no concems for additional conditions. Public None Staff Will draft a positive order. Motion Continued without objection to December 4. Vote N/A 3. 'Schmid Realty Trust — 9 E Street (60.2.1-6) SE48- (Cont to 12/4) 4. *Sanford — 15 Meader Street (42.2.3 -65) SE48 - Sitting Swimmer, Oktay, Karberg, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative None Discussion None Public None Staff Will draft a positive order. Motion Continued without objection to December 4. Vole N/A 5. Discussion of other closed notice of intent public hearings E. Other Business 1. Reports: a. CPC, Golding— Have culled out projects that will not receive grants. b. NP &EDC, Bennett — Nothing to report c. Mosquito Control Committee, Oktay— Nothing to report d. Coastal Management Plan, Oktay — Meeting scheduled for November 19. e. Airport long -term planning, Steinauer — The airport has begun work on a long -term planning document required by the FAA. Stated he and Ms Johnson are on that committee. 2. Adoption of Minutes: None 3. Commissioners Comment: a. Oktay — Had a question as to why it was okay to hear the 'Sconset Beach Preservation Fond project, which is private, before the Coastal Management Plan was completed. Staff — The moratorium doesn't prevent the applicant from attempting to gain a permit; only prohibits construction. 4. Administrator /Staff Reports Motion to Adjourn at 7:22 p.m. Submitted by: Terry L. Norton Page 8 of 8