HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-12-18r� CONSERVATION COMMISSION
2 Bathing Beach Road
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
�. ,� www nantu � ^k¢tyua vo
�aqp ��`O Wednesday, December I8, 2013 4:00 p.m.
9UBA1E 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 4:00 p.m.
Staff in attendance: Jeff Carlson, Natural Resources Coordinator; Terry Norton, Town Minutes Taker
Attending Members : Steinauer, Oktay, Karberg, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki, Johnson
Absent Members: None
Agenda adopted by unanimous consent —
v
'Matter has not been heard s
L PUBLIC MEETING
A. Public Comment —None �� z
>. m
11. PUBLIC HEARING r"
A. Notice of Intent --a m_
1. Farrell, Trustee — 77 Eel Point Road (32 -14) SE48 -2608 (cont to 1/8/2014) o �''
2. Sanford — 15 Meader Street (42.2.345) SE48 -2612 - ::3 O
Sitting Steinauer, Oktay, Karberg, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki, Johnson
Recused None _t
Documentation Supporting documents and plans. 'v
Representative Don Bracken, Bracken Engineering — Consists of raising 2 buildings and relocating buildings and
construction of 2 new buildings. Reviewed changes made since last hearing. Zoning Board has asked
for 2 more puking space; all parking is pervious. Installing dry well systems for roof ran off. No grade
changes on the property. Have had soil test borings done: 21/2 feet fill, 21/2 to 6 feet is a peat layer, 6
feet on sand. Temporary dewatering is required. The resource area is land subject to coastal flowage.
Discussion None
Public None
Staff Have everything needed to close.
Motion Motion to Close. (made by: Bennett) (seconded by: Oktay)
Vote Carried unanimously
3. sWesquo Property A, LLC -5 North Liberty Street (42.3.1 -114) SE48 -2620
Sitting Steinauer, Oktay, Karberg, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki, Johnson
Recused None
Documentation Supporting documents and plans.
Representative Don Bracken, Bracken Engineering — The major work on the structure is mostly outside the bordering
vegetated wetlands rebuilding. Inside the bordering vegetated wetlands is reconfiguring the lawn:
reducing the lawn area and providing a 10 foot buffer of native species around the bordering vegetated
wetlands. Applying for a waiver to do work within 25 feet of the buffer area. Outside the 50 foot
buffer but within the 100 -foot buffer is a stone and wood retaining wall terrace system; each terrace
will be filled with plantings. Reviewed native species to be planted in the buffer. Material will be
stared on site. The parking area is pervious material; some of the driveway might be paved.
Discussion Oktay — The lawn area will not have a grade change.
Bennett — Asked if the lawn would be irrigated. (Yes)
Glowacki — Asked if the current practice was to mow to the edge. (Yes)
Golding — The area near the public right of way is pretty soggy.
Steinauer — The commission can ask that the irrigation be outside the 25 -foot zone and would
probably want a sensor that irrigates only when it is dry down to the root depth. There will be the
DMP fertilizer restriction.
Public None
Staff Have everything needed to close.
Motion Motion to Close. (made by: Bennett) (seconded by: Okay)
Vote Carried unanimously
4. Benedict — l0E Crow's Nest Way (12 -44.2) SE48 -2615 (coat to 1/812014)
Paoe I
5. Bartlett — 1 Mothball Way (83 -42.4) SE48 -2619
Sitting Steinauer, Okmy, Karberg, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki, Johnson
Recused None
Documentation Supporting documents and plans.
Representative Paul Santos, Nantucket Surveyors — Adjacent to Hammock Pond with 2 resource areas: a coastal
bank and bordering vegetated wetlands connected to Hummock Pond. All the work is outside the 50-
foot setback; but within the 100 -foot buffer. Massachusetts Natural Heritage ruled no adverse affect
under the Wetlands Act and a no prohibited take on the Massachusetts Invasive Species Act. Asked
for an invasive species removal of a small area of phragmhes. There will no septic system upgrade.
Discussion None
Public None
Staff Have everything needed to close.
Motion Motion to Close. (made by: Bennett) (seconded by: Oktay)
Vote Carried unanimously
6. Nantucket Islands Land Bank — 4 Codfish Park Road (73.2.412) SE48 -2614 (cont to 1/8/2014)
7. -Goldberg— 156 Orange Street (55 -61) SE48 -2623
Sitting Steinauer, Oktay, Karberg, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki, Johnson
Recused None
Documentation Supporting documents and plans.
Representative Mark Pits, Site Design Engineering— First part is to do work on the southern side of property; there
is one lined pond and one unlined pond, both have associated bordering vegetated wetlands. Work is
proposed within the 100 -foot buffer of the unlined pond bordering vegetated wetlands. Removing the
granite steps and part of the retaining wall and construct a ramp. There will be no new disturbance
closer to the bordering vegetated wetlands. On the creek side bordering vegetated wetlands and
sale marsh, no coastal bank was delineated at the time. Since then have done a survey and identified a
coastal bank on the property. Portions of the existing house and landscaping and hardscaping are
within the 50 -foot buffer of that bank. The applicant would like to construct a porch of an existing set
of basement steps and a hedge located within the 50 -foot buffer. Asking for a waiver for work in that
previously disturbed areas.
Discussion Discussion about the type of vegetation in the area of the saltmarsh.
Bennett — Asked if the deck is going to be raised. (Yes, to allow flowage underneath.)
Oktay — Asked if this property is in the FEMA flood zone. (No)
Public None
Staff Have everything needed to close.
Motion Motion to Close. (made by: Bennett) (seconded by: Oktay)
Vote Carried unanimously
8. - Seasaw, LLC — 51 & 53 Hulbert Ave. (29 -13) SE48 -2624
Sitting Steinauer, Oktay, Karberg, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki, Johnson
Recused None
Documentation Supporting documents and plans.
Representative Mark Rits, Site Design Engineering — Replace an existing groin and bulkhead. This is in -kind. Groin
is licensed and bulkhead is outside Chapter 90. Site can be accessed from the land side. Disturbed
landscape will be restored. Requested a continuance for January 8, 2014
Discussion None
Public None
Staff Waiting for Massachusetts Natural Heritage for the beach portion. Will draft an order.
Motion Continued to 1/8Y2014 without objection
Vote N/A
9. -Jackson -47 Walsh Street (29 -64) SE48 -2622
Sitting Steinauer, Oktay, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki, Johnson
Recused Karberg
Documentation Supporting documents and plans.
Representative Mark Rits, Site Design Engineering — Request to approve construction of a single - family house on a
lot that is in previously altered flood zone; property does contain a garage. No grading is proposed.
Discussion None
Public None
Staff Have everything needed to close.
Motion Motion to Close. (made by: Bennett) (seconded by: Oktay)
Vote Carried unanimously
Page 2 of 10
10. "Coffey
-24 Long Pond Drive (59 -17) SE48-
Sitting
Stemauer, Oktay, Karberg, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki, Johnson
Recused
None
Documentation
Supporting documents and plans.
Representative
None
Discussion
Johnson— Would like it condition that when the pool is drained, the water is carted away.
Public
None
Staff
There is no file number and Mr. Coffey called to say he could not attend the meeting. Asks to present
the project for any possible questions. That way at the next meeting, there will be answered.
Installation of a pool and pool fence outside the 50 -foot setback from the vegetated wetland around
Long Pond. No waivers are required. Have verified there will be 2 -foot separation.
Motion
Continued to January 8, 2014 without objection.
Vote
N/A
11. SBPF — Baxter Road Area (Multiple) SE48 -2581 (cont to 1/22/2014 without objection)
12. Town ofNanmcket/SBPF — 85 -107A Baxter Road SE48 -2610
Sitting
Steinaueq Oktay, Karberg, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki, Johnson
Recused
None
Documentation
Supporting documents and plans.
Representative
Kan Bunnoski, Director of Department of Public Works (DPW) — This is the NOI for the previous
emergency certification to install jute bags.
Discussion
None
Public
Tracking with the emergency certification.
Staff
Asked that the emergency cert be done first. They can be opened together. Explained that this is the
NOI for the emergency certification which ConCom denied but the Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP) overruled and permitted.
Motion
None
Vote
N/A
B. Emergency Certification
I. Town ofNantucket/SBPF 91 -105 Baxter Road
Sitting
Steinauey Oktay, Karberg, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki, Johnson
Recused
None
Documentation
Supporting documents and plans.
Representative
Kara Bunnoski, Director of Department of Public Works (DPW) —DPW has approved this. This is a
joint application under the local wetlands by -law for the 4 geo -rube option. The NOI would be filed
within 30 days.
Discussion
Golding — There are the dynamics that'Sconset Beach Preservation Fund (SBPF) wants permanent
projection and the Town wants temporary protection. Asked where the Town stands.
Buzanoski — The Town is asking for temporary protection. If SBPF wants to come back with a NOI for
permanent status, that is up to them. The temporary would be until Baxter Road is moved; that time
frame is two to three years. SBPF would be paying for the me stabilization and the Town would pay for
moving the road; according the license entered into with the town, the design of the road would be paid
for by SBPF.
Oktay — Asked who would hold the escrow for removal.
Bunnoski — The Board of Selectmen (BOS).
Golding — Had asked about the material for the geo -mbe membrane and the porosity because that
clearly affects the durability of the material.
Bunnoski — It is the same material proposed previously; it will have to be kept covered because it is
vulnerable to UVA rays.
Oktay — Once that sand is not in front of the geo - textile tubes in a storm, they start breaking down and
getting brittle. This new emergency certification requesting the four geo -tubes change is because of the
delivery time for the jute fabric.
Bunnoski —It is a combination of the jute not being m protective and the jute could not be delivered in
the time frame of the emergency need.
Oktay — Asked if the Town asked the DEP for a 30 -day extension. Suggested an option was to install
two geo -tubes at the toe and install thejute when it arrived.
Buranoski — The BOS and DPW did discuss that but the jute won't be available for months. According
to DEP the 4 geo-tube option is appropriate.
Golding — With respect, he finds it hard to believe that the jute is not available globally or even
nationally. A group
that doesn't want to install it is being asked to find it.
Bunnoski — Jute
is available only from India and the delivery time is eight weeks. There is no
stockpile in the US.
Steimmer — Asked about coin or hemp or some other natural material.
Page 3 of 10
Discussion Steven Cohen, Reads, Gullicksen, Hanley, Gifford & Cohen LLP— Looked for any domestic
continued supply and determined there was none in sufficient volume or strength and that the only
domestically stocked material is a type of burlap used for landscaping which was put through a
lab test that failed to get the material to work adequately in a marine environment. Also asked the
jute mills in India what had to be done to speed up delivery; we were told that would not happen.
Mr. Jamie Feeley, Cottage and Castle Construction, has a copy of that letter.
Bob DeCosts, BOS — One of the DEP findings was that the extra sand needed for 22 yards would
replicate what thejute would give to the littoral drift. They determined that would be the amount of sand
thejute bags would give up to the system.
Oktay — A problem with the geo -tubes throughout the year is when that sand is not available on top of
the tubes; withjute, it breaks down in storms. As a coastal geologist and a chemical oceanographer,
stated her viewpoint is that end scour will be worse with all geo- textile tubes.
Buzanoski— DEP did suggest that the ends be fully mitigated at all times; it is up to SBPF to ensure
that is done.
Further discussion about keeping the geo -tubes covered with sand and the success of geo -tubes during
Hurricane Sandy.
Buzanoski — The DEP did not feel that the four geo -tubes were more than necessary to stabilize the
slope. In the Emergency Project Certification (EPC), there is no reference to this being a temporary
project.
Steinauer — The DEP was not talking about a temporary structure, which changes it very much.
Golding— It refers only to the system being removable, not temporary.
Glowacki — It has been characterized at this table that the DEP confirmed the 22 yards. If their role is to
deny or confirm these things, it should be noted that they confirmed that four goo-tubes is not more than
necessary to abate the emergency.
Steinauer— We do not have to agree with them.
Glowacki — Also the local by -law can be different than state law and if it attaches additional interests
and resource areas, that is a legal question left hanging.
Steinauer — Asked for the diameter of the filled geo -tube. The first tube is excavated all the way into
the beach, each is eight feet in diameter.
Karberg — As there is already something approved for the emergency, asked if there was a sense from
the engineers about placing the two geo -mbes with sand coverage while waiting two months for the
jute.
Buzanoski — Did talk to them about that The concern is that the two geo -mbes are not sufficient for the
wave tun up. A minimum of three or four would be needed to protect from a 100 -year storm.
Johnson —Asked what the estimated installment time of two geo -tubes would be.
Feeley — The bottom two bags take the longest time, two to three weeks.
Golding — Asked if the surveyor stakes marked the limit of the proposed excavation.
Feeley — Stated that they measured off the seaward most undulating points out the dimensions of the
tubes; this was done to ensue there would be no excavation of the bluff at all.
Carlson — There is also a set of stakes that are farther out and off set from the seaward toe. That is quite
a ways from the toe. The actual edge is 25 feet inside of that.
Steinauer — Stated he is confused as to what is an emergency and what is chronic. The regulations seem
to be written to indicate an emergency is a high - intensity, short-term phenomenon. Said he can sort of
see it from the Town's point of view. However, he can't see how SBPF will abate the emergency; it is
chronic. In three years when the structure comes down, the bank will start eroding again. It is never not
going to be an emergency, forever.
Buzanoski — That is something to get into in the NOI process. For this situation, it is just the 30 days:
stabilization of the bank from a possible winter storm.
Carlson — Looking at sub - section F of the chapter for local emergency projects, it says that within 21
days of commencement of an emergency project and NOI or request for determination of applicability
shall be filed. "In the event that such a filling is not timely received by the Conservation Commission or
is incomplete or such filing is denied for any reason, the Commission may revoke or modify its EPC
and/or order appropriate restomtion/mitigation measures."
Okay — Is concerned with what would happen if when it comes time to remove the geo -tubes, it
becomes apparent that can't be done.
Golding — Expressed concern that the applicant would say no to removal.
Carlson — By the EPC, it enters into an enforcement issue wherein the commission can order the
structure removed.
Buzanoskt — The licensing agreement with the BOS requires a full Performance Bond for the full cost
of the installation. The projected cost of removal of four geo -tubes is around $300,000.
Cohen — The license provides for the Town to use the removal escrow for removal of the project.
Johnson — Stated that she can't see the applicant spending $300,000 to remove the few geo -tubes in
three year. At that time, there will be solid evidence of the adverse impact down drift.
Page 4 of 10
Discussion Oktay — Stated that the CZM staff has presented case studies to the Coastal Management Plan where
continued geo -tubes are not something they would recommend. At Town meeting, they have presented
everything else: coir, jute, plantings. That information is available on the Town website.
Glowacki — Pointed out that several meetings ago, there was a discussion about whether or not there
were any reasonable alternatives; the upshot of that discussion was that there are reasonable alternatives.
That is when the engineers came back with the alternative; but stated the opinion that it wouldn't work.
Now it is back to four tubes and DEP has confirmed it is not more than what is necessary to abate the
emergency. Through reason and logic this commission needs to come up with something the courts will
stand behind.
Steinauer — This is a Town sponsored project that not only protects town infra - structure but also private
property. However, this commission has to look at the impact on both the immediately adjacent projects
and down -drift beaches. Asked if there is damage to properties on the down -drift beaches, is the Town
willing protect all the citizens or are they going to take on the burden of proof that the damage was not
caused by the impact of this structure.
Buzanoski — The Town is willing to stand behind the transect evaluations to determine whether or not
that is happening. The next step would be getting permission from the homeowners.
Carlson — The EPC is not conditioned like NOIs. That is what the follow -up NOI application is for.
Steinauer — Wants a commitment from the Town to make everyone whole, that they are not picking
winners and losers as a result of this project.
Oktay — The Town can make all the promises it wants but this board can't require them to make it
happen.
Cohen — SBPF has taken on the liability for that and is carrying a $ I OM insurance policy in cover that
issue. Stated that in the NOI there could be failure criteria that would require removal in the event of
adverse impact.
Karberg — This board approved something two weeks ago that could have been started to be
implemented but wasn't and now the emergency is two weeks behind. Instead of coming together to
figure out how to mitigate getting that in place, there is a request before this commission that was
denied once and is being told it has to approve it because it is the only option. They could have opted
for three geo -robes with the third being removed when the jute arrived; but that discussion never took
piece.
Steinauer — Stated he had the same thought Said he is hearing a lot about trying something to see if it
works. In that case, try something less intense.
Golding — Stated he conflicted because the road is very close to the edge and would like to find a way
that doesn't interfere with work going forward.
Carlson — The economic version does not fall within ConCom's purview.
Oktay — Stated her opinion that ConCom can stand behind its own ruling; she does not see a change in
adverse impact or availability.
Golding — As the previous application was appealed, a negative vote from ConCom affects SBPF's
long -term goals so the decision would again be appealed. That affects the adverse impact aspect of this
project.
Steinauer — Suggested giving an approval for four geo -tubes on the condition that when the jute
become available, the top geo -tubes come off and the jute goes on. That provides the opportunity to
study any adverse impacts.
Cohen — Stated that idea is worth considering but feels it is more appropriate for that to be considered
during the hearing for the NOL That is something that can't be accomplished within the 30 days of the
emergency certification. Stated that the DEP letter makes the point the down -drift impact by the geo -
tubes versus the jute is a mitigation issue. Reiterated that the DEP findings assert that the four geo-tubes
an appropriate level of protection.
Feeley — Stated that in many of the cases cited by CZM during the Coastal Management group
presentations, nourishment was not addressed at all.
Glowacki — Wanted it noted in the minutes that he objects to allowing characterizations of discussions
from outside this application to be referred to during this deliberation.
Public D. Anne Atherton, 48 Squam Road —Asked Ms Buzanoski to explain further that in terms of the
Town's desire to preserve temporary protection for the road and this is an emergency situation and
what is the best alternative to abate that emergency situation. Cited a letter dated September 25, 2013
from The town engineering consultant in which concern was expressed about the ability to stabilize
Baxter Road for any specific length of time and that no plan can be guaranteed to work for any length
of time. Cited the Town's response which indicates a reasonable alternative in which the road and
utilities can be moved within the layout. This is an adopted emergency plan that could be implemented
within two weeks.
Buzanoski — Confirmed the letter. The Town thought about sheeting which would sheer off the
stabilization of the slope. There are states marking the 25 feet; moving the road is an interim step, not a
permanent solution. Explained further why the Town decided not to take that interim step.
Paee 9 of 70
Public continued Carlson — Another issue was that there are three vegetated wetlands within five feet of the road.
Moving the road would involve filling in those wetlands. That permitting would be equally as
difficult.
Josh Posner, 77 Baxter Road, Chairman SBPF — Addressed three points: thejule hybrid idea, the
question of is this temporary, and the impact. The DEP required 22 cubic yards of mitigation. Realizes
that the DEP could demand the structure come out in three years. Stated that SBPF does not believe
there will be any adverse down-drift impact, that the sand mitigation will alleviate that. If this project
harms others, he assured that it will be removed.
Tobias Glidden —The role of the ConCom is to deny or approve a project and attach conditions. His
understanding is that their fading on geo- textile is damaging. If a mitigation project is proposed and an
adverse impact is environmental, that is something the ConCom needs to be cognitive of As for the
emergency, history shows that there is an emergency but it might not be necessary to "bum down the
church"
Posner — His main last point is impact and removal; SBPF recognizes that and is willing to sign an
agreement that if there is harm caused to others, that harm will be fixed or the structure removed.
John Merson, 71 Baxter Road — On behalf of homeowners up and down the beach who stand to suffer
significant damage as a result of this structure, as the project has narrowed in scope, the number of
people who stand to suffer has increased. Also, once a beach has been damaged that damage can't be
undone; it is clear the amount of construction will damage the beach. In the time this project has been
under discussion, three more homes have been moved. The number of homes that need the road is
declining. Finally, the Town of Scituate has tried every method that has been discussed here; a member
of their Board of Selectmen who happens to be a coastal geologist has offered his advice that these
things don't work and do more harm than good and Scituate has a lower wave environment that
`Sconset.
Emily MacKinnon, Nantucket land Council — In regards to the emergency permit, it seems that as far
as local regulations go the commission is left to deliberate whether or not the project proposed is more
than the emergency requires. Three weeks ago the commission decided that it was. DEP then came back
with their ruling on the original project; stated that she had attended that hearing and reviewed the
discussion in regards to the engineering sense of two tubes versus four tubes. Coming back to the
standard as to whether or not it is more extensive than is necessary to abate the emergency, the Town's
engineers are concerned about what goes on top of the initial two robes because of the potential for
wave run up. The four-tube system has been developed for a 100 -year storm; a question arrives is, are
we at risk of a 100 -year storn in the 30 -days covered by the emergency permit.
Dirk Roggeveen, Quidnet/Squam Association (QSA) —The DEP order notes that the applicant must get
a permit from the local ConCom. Also ConCom might have the legal right to order something to be
done but might not be able to get that accomplished; there might be numerous impediments to that end.
When SBPF promises they will take care of any damage, the problem becomes proving in court where
that damage is coming from. There is an amendment to the by -law, made in the early 2000s, that allows
ConCOm to prohibit a project if it will cause a foreseeable risk to human public health and safety;
pursuant to that law, Mr. Dave Fronzuto, the Harbor Master at the time, wrote a letter to the ConCom,
which should be in the file, stating that the use of geo - textile fabric in coastal engineering structures
poses a reasonable threat to human health and safety, that was based on the fact there had been two
recent incidents involving boat propellers being seized up by geo - textile fabrics in the water. Contended
that waves hitting the shore during winter storms have never been 16 feet high and that the structure is
more than is needed.
Discussion about what the final height of the structure would be.
Cohen — Made the legal point that DEP has determined that it is not more than is necessary to abate the
emergency. Asked ConCom to look at the additional DEP information, its own determination, and that
the jute is not available and right now ConCom should focus solely on the questions in the emergency
standards.
Buzanoski — Reiterated that this is a 30 -day Emergency Certification request. This 4- geo -tube option is
a reasonable option. Asked ConCom to look at this strictly as a 30-day emergency issue and that an NOi
is pending for further discussion. Also asked the ConCom to include the mitigation at 22 CY and the
validation of the transects.
rage b or 1 U
Continued
Oktay — This sand is provided as mitigation down drift; if there increased scow up the bluff with
Commissioner
increased erosion north or south of the bluff, all the sand in the world will not fill that. Questions
Discussion
whether or not the $ I OM would cover an emergency move of the Sankaty Lighthouse, which would be
threatened by increased erosion. Another concern is using too much sand that would bury the
cobblestone habitat off shore. Asked how long it might take to remove the structure.
Feeley — About half the installation time, 2 weeks.
Posner — Stated that in speaking with abutters to the project, the general belief is that the dive
consequences are unlikely. Cited letters of support in the file submitted by abutters to the project.
Glowacki — Feels that for ConCom to hinge its decision on fear of the unknown is not applying the best
reason.
Oktay — At 180 Polpis Road, end scow is clearly visible from the bulkhead and rip -mp fences that are
the tapered ends of a coastal engineering structure.
Golding — Revisiting the fact that the structure is fow geo -rubes and 100 -foot storm water level is
shown at 10 feet; that provides roughly 16 feet above the 100 -foot storm level.
Bennett — If there are two, what is the difference by adding two more? The height mitigates wave not
up as opposed to end scow.
Carlson — In the DEP discussion, they explain very clearly what they believe is abating the emergency.
ConCom can do that as well for what is an emergency, abates the emergency and what happens in 30
days. The NOI does not allow the emergency permit to go beyond 30 days; all it does is open the
subject for continued discussion. The end date will be on the Emergency Certification Permit when it is
issued. If construction takes more than 30 days, the applicant must come back to ConCom for written
approval to continue construction.
Golding — Proposed that the commission permit three geo - tubes; that will get them within 6 feet of the
100 -year storm still level mark. That allows for the longer -term proposal for fowjute bags, when they
become available, to be put in place of the third geo -mbe.
Bam Lafarge — Asked if on the 29* day there is a storm while attempting to cover the tubes, would the
applicant get an automatic extension.
Carlson — No. Pointed out that in the 30 -days, ConCom holds one or two regular meetings during
which the applicant can request an extension.
Roggeveen — stated that another option is a Friendly Enforcement Order, which allows the applicant to
take the work beyond 30 days in a situation such as described by Mr. Lafage.
General consensus is that this is a very large project that will be hard to complete in 30 days. Further
discussion about extending the emergency permit should the NOI not be approved within that time and
how much conditioning can be attached to the emergency permit versus the NOI.
Buzanoski — Expressed concern about a three - geo-tube project being inadequate and asked for
permission to use four geo -tubes the top two of which would be replaced by fowjute bags when it is
available.
Carlson — The only question ConCom has to look at is whether or not the proposed structure is
adequate to abate the emergency and/or if it has be to altered to abate the emergency.
Johnson — Expressed her disagreement with permitting an installation of the top two geo-tubes being
allowed then replaced at a later date.
Golding — In regards to the motion; when the NOI comes in, the commission can discuss the use of jute
when that becomes available.
Staff
Monitoring and failure criteria fall into the NOI conditions. The commission may specify what work is
allowed by the permit. Explained that the State DEP and local by -laws can be different and how.
Motion
Motion to Authorize a three - geo-tube construction in the next 30 days. (made by: Golding)
(seconded by: Bennett)
Vote
Carried 5 -2
Motion
Motion to Add the same conditions which are in the DEP decision. (made by: Glowacki)
(seconded by: Bennett)
Vote
Carried unanimously
Pane 7
w. PUBLICMEETING (0310:04)
A. Request for Determination of Applicability
1. *Krauter— 191 Eel Point Road (33-19.1)
Sitting Steinauer, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki
Recused Oktay, Karberg
Documentation Supporting documents and plans.
Representative Don Bracken, Bracken Engineering— Verification of resource area.
Discussion None
Public None
Staff Recommend as Positive 2 to cenfum areas as delineated
Motion Motion to Approve as a Positive 2. (made by: Glowacki) (seconded by: Bennett)
Vote Carried unanimously
B. Minor Modifications
1. *Sunset House, LLC —15 Hallowell Lane (30 -10) SE48 -2508
Sitting Steinauer, Oktay, Karberg, Bennett, Glowacki
Recused None
Documentation Supporting documents and plans.
Representative None
Discussion None
Public None
Staff Have permitted wells and drainage structures; proposed changes is to install two geo- thermal wells.
Motion Motion to Approve. (made by: Glowacki) (seconded by: Oktay)
Vote Carried unanimously
C. Certificates of Compliance
I. -Riggs — 54 and 56 Meadowview Drive (56- 166,174 &175) SE48 -1604 (cunt to 1/8/2014)
2. -Riggs — 54 and 56 Meadowview Drive (56- 166,174& 175) SE48 -1742 (cont to 1/82014)
D. Orders of Conditions (If the public hearing is closed — for discussion and/or issuance)
I. ' Rowe — 137 Wauwinet Road (I I - 11. 1) SE48-2468
Sitting Steinauer, Oktay, Karberg, Bennett, Golding
Recused Glowacki, Johnson
Documentation Supporting documents and plans.
Representative None
Discussion None
Public None
Staff Have done 1'/2 year of ground water study. Have standard Septi -tec conditions.
Motion Motion to Issue as drafted. (made by: Oktay) (seconded by: Karberg)
Vote Carried unanimously
2. *Schmid Realty Trust-9 E Street (60.2.1 -6) SE48 -2611
Sitting Steinauer, Oktay, Karberg, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki
Recused Johnson
Documentation Supporting documents and plans.
Representative None
Discussion Golding — Recalled that there was a discussion about monitoring for two years.
Public None
Staff Relocation of 2 structures into one; revegetation of buffer; abandon garden; remove deck; abandon
grass path and walkway. Condition 21 should include a statement that the monitoring will be
reevaluated every growing season and add the applicant shall demonstrate a 90° /a success rate.
Motion Motion to Issue as amended. (made by: Glowacki) (seconded by: Bennett)
Vote Carried unanimously
3. - Calvillo -37 Quaise Road (26-4) SE48 -2621
Sitting Steinauer, Oktay, Karberg, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki, Johnson
Recused Karberg
Documentation Supporting documents and plans.
Representative None
Discussion None
Public None
Staff Abandon existing septic and removal of a tight tank.
Motion Motion to Issue. (made by: Glowacki) (seconded by: Bennett)
Vote Carried Unanimously
4. -Benedict— JOE Crow's Nest Way (1244.2) SE48 -2615 (cont to 1/82014)
rage 8 or r U
5. . Bartlett
— I Mothball Way (83 -42.4) SE48 -2619
Sitting
Sminauer, Oktay, Karberg, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki, Johnson
Recused
None
Documentation
Supporting documents and plans.
Representative
None
Discussion
None
Public
None
Staff
Renovation and reconstruction of addition and removal of phragmites. Standard conditions for
removal ofphragmites. Condition 19 should permit no greater than 20 %tryclopere.
Motion
Motion to tssue as amended. (made by: Glowacki) (seconded by: Oktay)
Vote
Carried unanimously
6. •Squinto
Family Partnership — 10 Long Pond Drive (59 -24) SE48 -2617
Sitting
Steinaueq Oktay, Karberg Bennett, Golding, Glowacki, Johnson
Recused
None
Documentation
Supporting documents and plans.
Representative
None
Discussion
None
Public
None
Staff
Abandonment of existing septic install new outside 100 -Foot buffer.
Motion
Motion to Issue as drafted. (made by: Oktay) (seconded by: Bennett)
Vote
Carried unanimously
7. - MacFarlane —15 Lyford Road (92.4 -86) SE48 -2616
Sitting
Steinauey Cluny, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki, Johnson
Recused
Karberg
Documentation
Supporting documents and plans.
Representative
None
Discussion
None
Public
None
Staff
Requires waivers as portions of decks are in 50 -foot setback but there is no adverse impact.
Motion
Motion to Issue. (made by: Glowacki) (seconded by: Bennett)
Vote
Carried unanimously
8. *Goldberg— 156 Orange Street (55 -61) SE48 -2623
Sitting
Stomata", Oktay, Karberg Bennett, Golding, Glowacki, Johnson
Recused
None
Documentation
Supporting documents and plans.
Representative
None
Discussion
None
Public
None
Staff
Could not come up with any special conditions.
Motion
None
Vote
N/A
9. - Scasaw, LLC — 51 & 53 Hulbert Ave. (29 -13) SE48 -2624 (Continued)
10. * Jackson
— 47 Walsh Street (29-64) SE48-2622
Sitting
Steinauer, Oktay, Karberg, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki, Johnson
Recused
None
Documentation
Supporting documents and plans.
Representative
None
Discussion
None
Public
None
Staff
Simple.
Motion
None
Vote
N/A
11. *Coffey—
24 Long Pond Drive (59 -17) SE48- (Continued)
Pan, q
12. Discussion of other closed notice of intent public hearings:
Sanford
-15 Meader Street (42.2.345) SE48 -2612
Sitting
Steinauer, Oktay, Karberg, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki, Johnson
Recused
None
Documentation
Supporting documents and plans.
Representative
None
Discussion
None
Public
None
Staff
Simple.
Motion
None
Vote
N/A
Wesquo Property A, LLC — 5 North Liberty Street
Sitting
Steinauer, Oktay, Karberg, Bennett, Golding, Glowacki, Johnson
Recused
None
Documentation
Supporting documents and plans.
Representative
None
Discussion
Discussion about removal of the lawn; irrigation will be removed.
Public
None
Staff
To condition for no fertilizer use
Motion
None
Vote
N/A
E. Other Business
1. Reports:
a. CPC
b.NP &EDC
c. Mosquito Control Committee
d. Coastal Management Plan
e. Other
2. Commissioners Comment
3. Administrator/ Staff Reports
Motion to Adjourn at 7:43 p.m
Submitted by:
Terry L. Norton
Page 10 of 10