HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-1-21Minutes for ) anuary21, 2015, adopted Feb. 4
pNTUC/r`` CONSERVATION COMMISSION
2 Bathing Beach Road
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
www.nantucket- ma.gov
Wednesday, January 21, 2015 4:00 p.m.
AlE0 Training Room, 4 Fairgrounds Road
Commissioners: Ernie Steinauer (Chair), Sarah Oktay (Vice- chair), Andrew Bennett,
Michael Glowacki, Bam Lafarge, Ashley Erisman, David LaFleur
Called to order at 4:00 p.m. j
Staff in attendance: Jeff Carlson, Natural Resources Coordinator; Terry Norton, Town Minutes Taker
Attending Members: Steinauer, Oktay, Bennett, Glowacki, Lafarge, Erisman, LaFleur
Absent Members None 1
Late Arrival: LaFleur 4:09 p.m.
Agenda adopted by unanimous consent
c {.
*Matter has not been heard
I. PUBLIC MEETING
A. Public Comment —
Steven Cohen, Cohen & Cohen Law PC, for'Sconset Beach Preservation Fund — Asked if the commission is
taking any action on the DEP order; he understood it would be on the agenda. Executive Session scheduled for
Friday, January 23 at 4 p.m.
Steven Cohen, Cohen & Cohen Law PC — Asked if a person missed a first meeting, can they read in. Staff —
they are eligible to read in under the Mullen Rule. He will look into the last meeting.
Irene Schreiber, 22 Sheep Pond Road — Asked if the commissioners have been out to view 21 Sheep Pond
Road. Staff — It is at the commissioners discretion whether or not they want to view.
II. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Notice of Intent
1. Town & County of Nantucket — Baxter Rd btw 87 & 106 Baxter Rd (Baxter Rd Layout) SE48 -2733
Sitting Steinauer, Oktay, Bennett, Glowacki, Lafarge, Erisman, LaFleur
Recused None
Documentation Supporting documents and plans.
Representative Arthur D. Gasbarro, Blackwell and Associates Inc. — Submitted a letter addressing comments made at
the last hearing. The site before them tonight is based upon an update survey showing the coastal bank
and shows the 25 -foot setback as well as the exact measurements of each well. Southerly most drainage
system was changed based upon previous comments: added a 4" over flow pipe up to divert water into a
catch basin. Added elevations along the profiles of both the proposed systems and the strata. The
infiltration system is above the static groundwater elevation. Reviewed the net benefits of the systems. In
regards to the vegetated wetlands, he looked at the data from old watering wells; but they don't address
the wetlands. Would need an expert in the area to look at the wetlands for changes in vegetation and
hydrology. There has been a request to look at the overall contributing watershed; treating the water and
putting it into the ground should have a minimal affect on the wetlands.
Kara Buzanoski, Director department of Public Works
Public Cormac Collier, Executive Director Nantucket Land Council
D Anne Atherton
Discussion Oktay — Concerned about a hole being punched into the clay layer and flowing out of the perched
wetland.
Glowacki — Asked if there was anything in the original plan that does not comply with the
performance standard.
Oktay — They have taken actions to show that the wetlands won't be drained, which is not in
compliance.
Discussion about whether or not there is a need for a test well.
Oktay — Can condition this to have a 6" PVP pipe in the wetland to measure the water level.
Lafarge — Asked if the wetlands have all been flagged.
Gasbarro — Yes.
Lafarge — Asked if this had been applied for as an emergency road repair; said some had.
Collier —The soil boring in relation to actual infiltration is almost 200 feet from one transect unit and
500 from another so it is not an accurate reflection of infiltration. Located the existing water wells, the
readings from which are 6 to 7 feet not 9 feet. Need soil boring information from exactly where the
infiltration unit will go. The actual work within the 100 -foot buffer is not fully indicated to include a
Page 1 of 8
Minutes for f anuary 21, 2015, adopted Feb. 4
soil berm. In terms of the wetland itself, on the northerly wetland it is within 5 feet of the road layout;
the plan shows 15 feet. Around the utility pole, there are sensitive plants. He would ask the Town to
redo the delineations to what they actually are. In terms of the exemption, normally applications with
storm water within 100 feet of a wetlands, they have to adhere to the storm -water management policy.
He contends this is new construction, not an emergency repair.
Gasbarro — He will double check to ensure it meets all the storm water management requisites; he
believes it does. Doesn't see a lot of other options for moving and treating run off that is causing
damage to the road, private property, and the bluff. Feels this is the storm -water management plan and
that the system meets the standards. This is clearly and emergency situation; there is damage happening
from run -off from a public road onto private property using best management practices. The earth
berm will be just tall enough to keep water from going off the road; sees no sense in micro- measuring
the height of the berm will be. Asked the board to close the hearing.
Atherton — has a comment and question about the context of this application. The BOS has asked the
parties to come together in settlement talks having to do with emergency installation of the geo- tubes.
This application for the drainage system involves the same parry, the same property, and the same
issue. Given that, she wonders if it would come within the discussion about the geo -tube construction.
Oktay — Normally when they are installing storm water treatment for impervious surface, typically they
apply for a storm water permit.
Staff — The storm water permits are different. This is a question of applying towards the DEP storm
water policy; there are certain exemptions that don't require those and DEP provides comments for
where they request information. The storm water policy addresses correct size, removal of solids, and
separation. They are still required to meet all the performance standards.
Oktay — She feels that this is an emergency road repair. She also wants the wetlands properly
delineated.
Glowacki — Asked if there are any places this does not meet the standards.
Oktay — Work within 25 feet of a wetland requires a waiver.
Cohen — There is an approved and binding Request for Determination of Applicability delineating the
wetlands; the board can precondition the certification of those wetlands. Nothing in that data will
change this application.
Collier — If this goes forward without adequately determining the location of the clay layer, the
wetlands will be impacted.
Glowacki — If nothing is done and erosion continues, the wetland will not exist. Thinks the discussion
is drifting from that linear thinking.
Steinauer — There are questions about this and they might not affect the approval of this project. This
infiltration is a proposal to do something this board has never seen before.
Glowacki — That can be easily conditioned and move on.
Oktay — Doesn't think it will change the design; but she can't think of another application where the
whole plan depends on the location of the wetlands. We have never permitted with delineation to be
done after the approval. The delay is to have a plan that accurately depicts what is on the ground.
Gasbarro — Asked for a continuation to get the requested information.
Steinauer — Asked for a sense of the commission on the type of Order of Conditions staff should
prepare.
Gasbarro — Would not be able to come back in 2 weeks with a deep soil boring; might be able to do a
shallow.
Collier — Suggested a strong condition that during the pre- construction analysis that then they do an
analysis of the stratification of the soil and the conditions state that if the clay layer is being punched,
work stops. Staff could ask if this is emergency road repair and determine whether or not this does in
fact falls under storm water management.
Gasbarro — Pointed out that water from the east side going over the bank will be redirected into the
wetland.
Consensus — Majority of the board will not deny the plan.
Staff Staff - This is a separate application. Reminded the board that the representative asked for a continuance
and the board was going to consider possible action. The board is now spinning its wheels.
Motion Motion to Close. (made by: Glowacki) (seconded by: LaFleur)
Vote Carried 4- 3 / /Steinauer, Oktay, and Erisman opposed
Page 2of8
Minutes for January 21, 2015, adopted Feb. 4
2. Merson — 71 Baxter Road (49 -26.1) SE48 -2721
Sitting Steinauer, Oktay, Bennett, Glowacki, Lafarge, Erisman, LaFleur
Recused None
Documentation Supporting documents and plans
Representative None
Public None
Discussion (5:06) None
Staff Mr. Merson is not in attendence.
Motion Continued to 2/4/2015 without objection.
Vote N/A
3. Duke 57, LLC — 55 Duke Rd Lot 16 (56- 185.1) SE48 -2730 (Cont 02/04/15)
4. Mscisz — 51 Crooked Ln (41 -531) SE48 -2737
Sitting Steinauer, Oktay, Bennett, Glowacki, Lafarge, Erisman, LaFleur
Recused None
Documentation Supporting documents and plans.
Representative David M. Haines, Haines Hydrogeologic Consulting — For a swimming pool and cabana; the wetland
boundary has been flagged, reviewed, and readjusted. The plans reflect that change; still meets the 50 -foot
setback. Would like to maintain the retaining wall with the split -rail fence on top for use as the pool fence.
The house was approved in 2000 with a septic system within 100 feet of the wetlands; instead of putting
in the septic, they connected to Town sewer. There is a second retaining wall that was not approved; it has
been added to the plan and is slightly within the 50 -foot buffer. There are invasive species; explained the
removal process. There is a sump pump creating standing water; that water will be redirected to a leech
facility outside the 25 -foot buffer. Asking for a waiver for the 2 -foot separation. Asking for temporary
dewatering; explained where that water will be directed; will need a waiver. Asking for a waiver for net
benefit due to being on sewer and removal of invasive species.
Public Bruce Perry, Laurentide Environmental, LLC
Discussion (5:07) Bennett — Asked if the basement entrance was part of the original plan.
Haines — he doesn't know.
Discussion about what might be the best way to remove the invasive species.
Staff This can be conditioned as to best practice for removal. Have everything needed to close.
Motion Motion to Close. (made by: Glowacki) (seconded by: Lafarge)
Vote Carried unanimously
5. Frazza — 21 Sheep Pond Rd (63 -19) SE48 -2748 (Cont 02/04/15)
6. APG /DRS Realty Trust — 80 & 84 Wauwinet Rd (11 -89.2, 28) SE48 -2749
Sitting Steinauer, Oktay, Bennett, Glowacki, Lafarge, Erisman, LaFleur
Recused None
Documentation Supporting documents and plans.
Representative Arthur D. Gasbarro, Blackwell and Associates Inc. — Requested a continuance.
Public None
Discussion (5:22) None
Staff None
Motion Continued to 2/4/2015 without objection
Vote N/A
7. Nantucket Land Bank —17 & 19 Liberty St; 8 Wesco Place (42.4.3 - 1,48,47) SE48 -2742 (Cont 2/18/2015)
8. Nantucket Land Bank — 72 Washington St (42.2.3 -17) SE48 -2741
Sitting Steinauer, Oktay, Bennett, Glowacki, Lafarge, Erisman, LaFleur
Recused None
Documentation Supporting documents and plans.
Representative Rachael Freeman, Nantucket Islands Land Bank — Property contains a coastal beach and the entire
property is with land subject to coastal storm flowage. The proposal is to remove a single family dwelling
and revegetate with coastal beach grass. On the beach, proposing two posts to tie up boats and split -rail
fence along the south property line. Will use no more than 55 cubic yards of compatible fill. The beach
grass will be planted in staggered rows 18 inches off center to match the existing vegetation. No fertilizer
will be used. During the 151 season of growth, a silt fence will be used. Presently there is no plan to irrigate.
Explained that two hand -dug posts would be placed to keep boats off the grassy area.
Public None
Discussion (5:23) None
Staff Have everything needed to close.
Motion Motion to Close. (made by: Bennett) (seconded by: LaFleur)
Vote Carried unanimously
Page 3 of 8
Minutes for January 21, 2015, adopted reb. 4
9. *Goldberg—
156 & 158 Orange St (55- 61,61.1) SE48 -2739
Sitting
Steinauer, Oktay, Bennett, Glowacki, Lafarge, Erisman, LaFleur
Recused
None
Documentation
Supporting documents and plans.
Representative
Mark Rits, Site Design Engineering —There is an existing set of stone steps, walkway and wooden pier
straddling the property line; those are to be moved onto the Land Bank portion abutting 158 Orange
Street. Resource areas are a salt marsh and coastal bank.
Public
Eric Sevetsky, Nantucket Islands Land Bank, abutter
Paul Santos, Nantucket Surveyors, for Nantucket Islands Land Bank
Discussion (5:28)
Steinauer — Where the walkway meets the pier is mostly dirt and should be cordoned off to allow it to
revegetate.
Rits — When there is a storm, junk comes in and buries that area.
Erisman — Asked if there are any soil tests. It has been apparent to her that fertilizer has been used.
Rits — No testing has been done; the land has been developed for a number of years. If there is
noticeable evidence of fertilizer, he can inform the owner that it is not appropriate in this area.
Sevetsky — The walkway to the dock and the dock have joint use between both properties. When the
Land Bank purchased the property, there are easement issues on the dock. This is an effort to separate
the situation. This is planned to be a park to be enjoyed in a non - boating manner so hardscaping will
be to that end.
Santos — There would be an elevated walk way.
Rits — His clients work is in -kind replacement and shifting away from Land Bank property; it is a good
will act to remove the other portion on Land Bank property; his client will replant that area per the
wishes of the Land Bank.
Steinauer — That could be approved through staff.
Rits — Haven't heard from Massachusetts Natural Heritage; their area of jurisdiction runs through the
dock.
Bennett — Asked about the posts.
Rits — They would be hand dug; might need to use a small sled skier outside the 25 -foot buffer and the
rest hand addressed. Asked for a continuance to hear from Massachusetts Natural Heritage and work
out a planting protocol.
Staff
There is an existing Chapter 91 license for the pier; that will have to be amended when it moves. If a
public access component is added, they can come back and amend at that time. The Land Bank's
intention is to provide a way for people to walk around their property. The direct impact to Chapter 91 is
the relocation of the pier 4 feet.
Motion
Continued to 2/4/2015 without objection
Vote
N/A
10. *Baxter Road Property Owners - 85,87,91,93,97,99,101 & 105 Baxter Rd ( 49 ,48- 35,8;22,21,19,18,17,15)SE48 -2733
Sitting
Steinauer, Oktay, Bennett, Glowacki, Lafarge, Erisman, LaFleur
Recused
None
Documentation Supporting documents and plans.
Representative Arthur D. Gasbarro, Blackwell and Associates Inc. — Application to vegetate the face of the coastal bank
along Baxter Road with American Beach Grass. Reviewed the plan details. Will use jute netting on the
slope and coir logs running parallel along the bank to stabilize the bank. Submitted photos at the table
showing similar projects. Have requested a waiver for work in the resource area; believe it will be a net
benefit and meets performance standards. Read the appropriate performance standards. Proposing a
temporary irrigation system for use while plants grow. That would provide only enough water for the
plants and not aggravate erosion.
Public None
Discussion (5:58) Lafarge — Asked what makes the sand compatible.
Gasbarro — Explained how the soil would be tested and matched. There is a wide range of variability in
sand /soil along the bank. Explained how the sand would be delivered along the bank to create a uniform
surface upon which to work.
Oktay — Would like to see a calculation on the amount of sand fill to be used. The fiber logs concern is the
handout says the logs should not be used on steep slopes or where slides are possible. The jute netting, sand
and plants will work. She fears the logs will roll off.
Gasbarro — It needs to be done in areas above the geo- tubes. The handout says 4:1 and the sand fill will
create a more gentle slope. All that will help stabilize the entire bank.
Discussion about other options to stabilize the bank and clarification of this proposal and the logs.
Glowacki — Cautioned against substituting "our" engineering for the applicants engineer.
Erisman — She also has trouble on understanding how the logs will stay in place, would like a schematic.
She is concerned with the statement that there will be no adverse impact. There will be impact by putting
pit sand, basically a dead sand, onto a bluff that has microbes that feed the food chain.
Steinauer —Have to keep in mind the ConCom areas of interest.
Page 4of8
Minutes for f anuary21, 2015, adopted Feb. 4
Oktay — Asked how they will irrigate without causing the same problem they are having with run off.
Gasbarro — Very limited water would be sprinkled from a hose head. A spray head off a surface hose
would be attached to a post about '/2 way down the bank.
Erisman — Asked about how many sprinklers would be needed over the face of the bluff.
Gasbarro — He does not have that number. Added there is no way to hand water.
Steinauer — It would be to their benefit to apply the least amount of water as possible.
Gasbarro — The watering is to help the plants get established. The plants are delicate.
Oktay — Asked about access.
Gasbarro — Explained that the people doing the planting would use a measured rebar to poke a hole for the
plug and the spacing between plants would be the length of the rebar.
Bennett — Asked how far out toward the base the planting would go.
Gasbarro — Not beyond the geotubes up to the flat toe at the top of the tube bank. He will add where the
toe will be to the plans.
Oktay — Would like to see a profile of the slope.
Gasbarro — Further explained the extent of the planting toward the geotubes. Does not propose planting
or fill on Town property.
Glowacki —There are points where private property overlaps the top of the geotubes.
Erisman — Pointed out that in a previous discussion, 8 feet of the bluff was supposed to remain natural for
the nesting birds.
Gasbarro — He did not specifically lay that out in this application; he will show that.
Oktay — Asked about the length of the stakes and the angle to the slope
Gasbarro — The stakes are 4 feet with the holes placed 90% to the angle to the slope. He will add a profile
to the plan. Asked for a continuance.
Staff None
Motion Continued to 2/4/2015 without objection
Vote N/A
11. *Hunter T.R — 47 & 47B Cliff Rd (29- 43,43.1) SE48- (Cont 02/04/15)
12. *Bewkes III — 73 Squam Rd (13 -11) SE48 -
Sitting Steinauer, Oktay, Bennett, Glowacki, Lafarge, Erisman, LaFleur
Recused None
Documentation
Representative
Public
Discussion (6:16)
Staff
Motion
Vote
13.
Sitting
Recusec
Supporting documents and plans.
Arthur D. Gasbarro, Blackwell and Associates Inc. — Asked of a continuance.
None
None
None
Continued to 2/4/2015 without objection
N/A
*Tambourine Properties, LLC 2 South Beach St (42.4.2 -60) SE48 -2752
Steinauer, Oktay, Bennett, Glowacki, Lafarge, Erisman, LaFleur
Documentation
Representative
Public
None
Supporting documents and plans.
Don Bracken, Bracken Engineering, Inc. — Resource area is land subject to coastal storm flowage.
Propose addition to the structure and handicapped ramp, a shed to hold a cooling unit. Needs to comply
with storm water management act; did the certification for that. There is no net increase in flow, that
complies. Addition to be constructed in conformance with FEMA requirements.
Steven Cohen, Cohen & Cohen Law PC
None
Discussion (6:16) None
Staff This is subject to the storm water policy because it is a commercial structure. Have everything needed to
close.
Motion Motion to Close. (made by: LaFleur) (seconded by: Glowacki)
Vote Carried unanimously
Page 5 of 8
Minutes for January 21, 2015, adopted Feb. 4
III. PUBLIC MEETING
A. Request for Determination
1. Ford III
— 29 Woodbury Ln (41 -543)
Sitting
Steinauer, Oktay, Bennett, Glowacki, Lafarge, Erisman, LaFleur
Recused
None
Documentation
Supporting documents and plans.
Representative
Paul Santos, Nantucket Surveyors — This is an RDA for infill of an existing structure within the
Discussion
developed portion of the lot. The resource area is a bordering vegetated wetlands on abutting Nantucket
Motion
Islands Land Bank property. All work will be outside the 50 -foot buffer.
Public
None
Discussion (6:20)
None
Staff
Recommend approval as a Negative 3 for work within the buffer that doesn't require a Notice of Intent
Staff
and Positive 2B that doesn't confirm the boundary as shown.
Motion
Motion to Issue as recommended. (made by: Glowacki) (seconded by: Bennett)
Vote
Carried unanimously
B. Minor Modifications
1. Glenhurst
Realty Trust —11 Chase Links Circle/ 137 Cliff Rd (30 -610, 615) SE48 -2384
Sitting
Steinauer, Oktay, Bennett, Glowacki, Lafarge, Erisman, LaFleur
Recused
None
Documentation
Supporting documents and plans.
Representative
Arthur D. Gasbarro, Blackwell and Associates Inc. — The modification is to refine the layout and
For relocation of the dwelling. Recommend issue. No on -going conditions
architecture within the approved limits of work. There are no new structures; a pool was moved south.
Oktay — There is no date for the survey of the bank.
This property is subject to Massachusetts Natural Heritage so the limits of work haven't changed.
Public
None
Discussion (6:22) None
Staff
Recommend issue as minor modification.
Motion
Motion to Approve. (made by: Bennett) (seconded by: Erisman)
Vote
Carried unanimously
C. Certificates of Compliance (6:25)
1. 13 Monomoy LLC -Lot 1 John Adams Ln (30- 170.1) NAN -111
Sitting
Steinauer, Oktay, Bennett, Glowacki, Lafarge, Erisman, LaFleur
Staff
For development of the site: pool, shed, pool house. It is in accordance; recommend issue
Discussion
None
Motion
Motion to Issue. (made by: Oktay) (seconded by: Bennett)
Vote
Carried unanimously
2. Houghton
—15 N Liberty St (42.3.4 -2) SE48 -2493
Sitting
Steinauer, Oktay, Bennett, Glowacki, Lafarge, Erisman, LaFleur
Staff
The issue with an un- permitted drain discharging over land into the wetlands has been addressed; it has
been rectified through a permit to infiltrate into the ground. Everything is in compliance.
Discussion
Glowacki — It has come to his attention that the drainage was installed without permit by the prior owner
Nantucket Islands Land Bank.
Motion
Motion to Issue. (made by: Lafarge) (seconded by: Oktay)
Vote
Carried unanimously
3. Weymar —
79 Baxter Rd (49 -32) SE48 -2596
Sitting
Steinauer, Oktay, Bennett, Glowacki, Lafarge, Erisman, LaFleur
Staff
For relocation of the dwelling. Recommend issue. No on -going conditions
Discussion
Oktay — There is no date for the survey of the bank.
Arthur D. Gasbarro, Blackwell and Associates Inc. — The top of bank is based upon the permit plan. All
structures were updated within the last month but didn't resurvey the bank.
Motion
Motion to Issue. (made by: Lafarge) (seconded by: LaFleur)
Vote
Carried unanimously
4. Madaket Marine — 20 N Cambridge St (38 -14) SE48 -2071 Reissue
Sitting
Steinauer, Oktay, Bennett, Glowacki, Lafarge, Erisman, LaFleur
Staff
This is on the agenda for commissioners to sign a clean copy
Discussion
None
Motion
Motion to Re- Issue. (made by: Glowacki) (seconded by: Oktay)
Vote
Carried unanimously
Page 6of8
Minutes for January 21, 2015, adopted 1�eb. 4
5. Hale - 117 Madaket Road (40- 60.3/40 -56) SE48 -1970
Sitting Steinauer, Oktay, Bennett, Glowacki, Lafarge, Erisman, LaFleur
Staff For construction of a garage, cottage, drinking water well, and retaining wall.
Discussion None
Motion Motion to Issue. (made by: Bennett) (seconded by: Lafarge)
Vote Carried unanimously
6. Traynor —13B Willard Rd (42.4.1 -15) SE48 -2578
Sitting Steinauer, Oktay, Bennett, Glowacki, Lafarge, Erisman, LaFleur
Staff For construction of a dwelling on '/2 of the lot. It is in compliance with the permitted plan. No ongoing
conditions.
Discussion None
Motion Motion to Issue. (made by: Bennett) (seconded by: Lafarge)
Vote Carried unanimously
D Orders of Conditions (634)
1. Duke 55, LLC — 55 Dukes Rd Lot 17 (56- 185.1) SE48 -2729
Sitting Steinauer, Oktay, Bennett, Lafarge, Erisman, LaFleur
Recused Glowacki
Staff Comments had included monitoring and Condition 22 for the final planting list to be approved by staff;
will add Condition 23 about installation of a 6" berm at the base of the grading. Waivers are for no
adverse impact /no reasonable alternative except to the restoration area within the 25 -foot buffer; that is
called out as a net benefit.
Discussion Bennett — There was discussion about a 6" berm.
Motion Motion to Issue as amended. (made by: Bennett) (seconded by: LaFleur)
Vote Carried 6 -0
2. Mscisz — 51 Crooked Ln (41 -531) SE48 -2737
Sitting Steinauer, Oktay, Bennett, Glowacki, Lafarge, Erisman, LaFleur
Staff Added Condition 22 about the percentage of herbicide and timing on use of those cleared through staff.
The only other question was about the sump pump discharge; will add Condition 23 about the sump to be
infiltrated into the ground. Will add Condition 24 that all debris is to be removed from the buffer zone.
Discussion Bennett — There was discussion about the sump discharging into the ground. There is debris in the
drainage ditch.
Motion Motion to Issue as amended. (made by: Bennett) (seconded by: Oktay)
Vote Carried unanimously
3. Ferguson — 50 Hulbert Ave (29 -62) SE48 -2750
Sitting Steinauer, Oktay, Bennett, Glowacki, Lafarge, Erisman, LaFleur
Staff Tear down of existing and reconstruct in compliance with zoning; grading is to be done in compliance
with the plan of record. No other conditions.
Discussion None
Motion Motion to Issue as drafted. (made by: Oktay) (seconded by: Erisman)
Vote Carried unanimously
4. Nantucket Land Bank — 72 Washington St (42.2.3 -17) SE48 -2741
Sitting Steinauer, Oktay, Bennett, Glowacki, Lafarge, Erisman, LaFleur
Staff For removal of a house and planting grass; only have monitoring conditions. The waiver is net benefit for
the removal of the structure. Very straightforward. No use of arsenic is built into the order of conditions.
Discussion None
Motion Motion to Issue as drafted. (made by: Oktay) (seconded by: Lafarge)
Vote Carried unanimously
5. Tambourine Properties, LLC — 2 South Beach St (42.4.2 -60) SE48 -2752
Sitting Steinauer, Oktay, Bennett, Glowacki, Lafarge, Erisman, LaFleur
Staff No waivers. It is flood zone only.
Discussion None
Motion Motion to Issue as drafted. (made by: Oktay) (seconded by: Lafarge)
Vote Carried unanimously
Page 7 of 8
Minutes for January 21, 2015, adopted Feb. 4
E. Extension Request
1. Nantucket Conservation Foundation —299 Milestone Rd (72 -8) SE48 -2118
Sitting Steinauer, Oktay, Bennett, Glowacki, Lafarge, Erisman, LaFleur
Staff The site is the'Sconset dump site; they've been doing the work and monitoring. There are still areas being
identified for work. They are removing of woody shrub species encroaching into an anthropogenically
treated successional acidic shrub fen containing multiple state -listed plant species. This project has also
benefited from the permit extension act.
Discussion (6:46) None
Motion Motion to Approve the extension. (made by: Glowacki) (seconded by: Bennett)
Vote Carried unanimously
F. Other Business (6:48)
1. Monitoring Reports: none
2. Approval of Minutes: none
3. Reports:
a) CPC, Lafarge
b) NP&EDC, Bennett
c) Mosquito Control Committee, Oktay
d) Other
4. Commissioners Comment:
a) Glowacki — Asked about the contract being issued to Laurentide.
Staff — The new contract was issued August; they were the only applicant who applied; it is a 3 -year contract.
Glowacki — He had previously asked permission to review that contract. He requests that the next time this
contract comes up, this commission take a look at specifically Laurentide's recommendation of SE48 -2737 at
51 Crooked Lane approved at this meeting and the history of SE48 -2349 at 15 North Liberty Street. He feels
there are things there worthy of discussion before a contract with Laurentide is entered into again in the future.
5. Administrator /Staff Reports —Executive session will be scheduled Friday January 23 at 4 p.m.
Motion to Adjourn at 6:53 p.m.
Submitted by:
Terry L. Norton
Pale 8 of 8