HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-5-27Minutes for May 27 2015 adopted June 17
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
PUBLIC MEETING
2 Bathing Beach Road
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
ww-w.nantucket- ma.gov
Wednesday, May 27, 2015 4:00 P.M.
4 Fairgrounds Road, Training Room
Commissioners: Ernie Steinauer (Chair), Sarah Oktay (Vice - chair), Andrew Bennett,
Michael Glowacki, Ashley Erisman, David LaFleur, Ben Champoux
Called to order at 4:01 p.m.
Staff in attendance: Jeff Carlson, Natural Resources Coordinator
Attending Members: Steinauer, Oktay, Bennett, Glowacki, Erisman, LaFleur, Champoux
Absent Members: None
Late Arrivals: None
Earlier Departure: None
Town Counsel: George Pucci, Kopelman and Paige PC
Agenda adopted by unanimous consent
*Matter has not been heard
I. PUBLIC MEETING _
A. Public Comment — None
II. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Notice of Intent
1. SBPF — Baxter Road Area (Multiple) SE48 -2581 (Revetment project) (Cont 06/10/2015)
2. Duke 57, LLC — 55 Duke Road Lot 16 (56- 185.1) SE48 -2730 (Cont 06/10/2015)
3. APG/ DRS Realty Trust — 80 & 84 Wauwinet Road (11 -89.2, 28) SE48 -2749 (Cont 06/10/2015)
4. Four Saratoga, LLC —14 Tennessee Avenue (60.1.2 -6) SE48 -2773 (Cont 06/10/2015)
5. Polpis Harbor, LLC — 250 Polpis Rd (26 -27) SE48 -2779
Sitting Steinauer, Oktay, Bennett, Glowacki, Erisman, LaFleur, Champoux
Recused
Documentation
Representative
Public
Discussion (4:04)
Staff This had been held for the elevation view of the proposed. Have everything needed to close.
Motion Motion to Close. (made by: Champoux) (seconded by: LaFleur)
Vote Carried unanimously
6. Nantucket Land Bank —158 Orange Street (55 -61.1) SE48- (Cont 06/10/2015)
7. Michael Ryan — 16 East Lincoln Avenue (42.4.1 -45) SE48 -2787
Sitting Steinauer, Oktay, Bennett, Glowacki, Erisman, LaFleur, Champoux
Recused None
Documentation Supporting documents and plans.
Representative Patrick Taaffe — Explained they are building off the existing with one tiny addition. The porch will be on
footings. Asked this be closed.
Public None
None
Supporting documents and plans.
Mark Rits, Site Design Engineering — He has provided photos and the HDC elevation plans as requested.
He believes all other concerns have been addressed. Asked this be closed.
None
None
Discussion (4:06) None
Staff This was held for the Department of Environmental Protection number. This is a straight up with no
grade changes. Have everything needed to close.
Motion Motion to Close. (made by: LaFleur) (seconded by: Oktay)
Vote Carried unanimously
Page 1 of 8
Minutes for May 27, 2015, adopted June 17
8. *Hemenway & Barnes LLP — 181 Eel Point Rd (33 -21) SE48 -2788
Sitting Steinauer, Oktay, Bennett, Glowacki, Erisman, LaFleur, Champoux
Recused None
Documentation Supporting documents and plans.
Representative Brian Madden, Laurentide Environmental Consultants, Inc. — This is for a new residential development.
The resource areas are: a vegetative wetland north of the property, a trough between the property and the
road, the flood plain, and coastal bank. One portion of the dwelling is within the 50 -foot buffer and the
fence runs into the 25 -foot buffer. Proposing to plant bayberry and arrowroot. The proposal is to raise the
structure and move outside the 50 -foot buffer. The septic is outside the 100 -foot buffer. There will be a
new pervious driveway; the old drive will be loamed and planted with arrowroot and bayberry. The
northeast portion was cut by others and contains Japanese black pine and deadfall, which is to be removed
by hand. Asked for a continuance.
Public None
Discussion (4:08) Oktay — Asked how the fence will be removed
Page 2of8
Madden — By hand.
Oktay — Agrees with the Laurentide report recommendations in regards to protecting the wildlife habitat.
Champoux —The Order of Conditions should reflect that all deadfall be removed by hand.
Oktay — Suggested a condition for photo monitoring of the revegetated areas to ensure it is coming back.
Staff
Waiting to hear from Massachusetts Natural Heritage. He will draft a positive order.
Motion
Continued without objection to June 10.
Vote
N/A
9. Squam Partners
LLC — 89 Squam Rd (13 -3) SE48 -2785
Sitting
Steinauer, Oktay, Bennett, Glowacki, Erisman, LaFleur, Champoux
Recused
None
Documentation
Supporting documents and plans.
Representative
Arthur D. Gasbarro, Blackwell and Associates Inc. — (4:05) request this be held until attorney for the
owner arrives.
Barry Fogel, Keegan Werlin LLP
Mike Howard, Epsilon Associates Wetland expert
Arthur Reade, Reade, Gulhcksen, Hanley, & Gifford LLP
Public
Bruce Perry, Laurentide Environmental Consultants, Inc.
Emily MacKinnon, Nantucket Land Council (NLC)
Discussion (4:36)
Gasbarro — This is for an elevated walkway between two uplands to be Fibergrate® about 140 feet long.
135 traverses the bordering vegetated wetland. Reviewed construction and materials. All material to cut
outside the buffer and hand carried and hand installed. Propose a wetland replication area 3 -times the size
of the walkway square footage. Hydraulic augers operated by two men will be used to install the helical
anchors; repeated there would be no machinery in the buffer zone. Siltation fencing would be a staked
filtration sock installed around the replication area.
Fogel — There is a waiver request submitted based upon regulation that states no structures in the wetland
or buffer zones. Provided an extensive report from Mr. Howard substantiating through analysis that there
would be no adverse impact from construction or existence of the walkway. Presented an analysis based on
the reading of the regulation that the proposed project can't be performed in a method that would have less
adverse impact on resources. Stated there is no less impactful alternative to building this walkway. There is a
right of way adjoining the property that allows passage to the ocean side of the lot but there is a question of
safety using the driveway with vehicles and children. Having safe access is a clear concern of the owner. The
objective of the Bylaw 136 -2 is to control the amount of impact. The walkway won't have an adverse impact
because of control through design. Stated he read the third -party report and comments from the Nantucket
Land Council; he feels neither presents creditable evidence there would be no adverse impact. They have
not made a water - dependent claim with their waiver. There is an opinion piece, which was printed in the
New York Times, feels it contains conclusory and excitable language and references "most popular
recreational areas in America." This property does not fall in that category and contains no evidence that
should be used in this hearing. Asked the board to grant the waiver and approve the project at this time.
Steinauer — It was an opinion piece but based upon research that was cited.
Champoux — Asked if there is any standing water.
Howard — There was about 6 inches when he walked the property in the winter. He has included photos in
his report.
Champoux — Pointed out there was a little water last week.
Howard — It has pit -mound topography and will hold water during certain times of the year.
Oktay — Asked if there is anything quantifiable in regards to wildlife and invertebrates in the water.
Howard — They assessed the wildlife habitat and its potential to support those species. As for an inventory,
no and that is stated in the report.
Steinauer — Referred to an article in the New York Times the pointed out how little human use is necessary
to impact wildlife habitat and that dogs have an even greater impact than humans. It strikes him odd that
Page 2of8
Minutes for Mav 27, 2015, adopted Tune 17
they need this path for humans but the applicant is saying there will be very little human use. He thinks the
road is a much more reasonable alternative; the distance on Squam Road is very short and it is not a heavily
traveled road.
Glowacld — This comes down to impact on interests that have been enumerated. It seems the question
before the board is are the impacts significant.
Oktay — The regulations say a project "will not adversely impact." She believes that installing this metal
walkway bisecting 200 square feet of habitat will have more than a "negligible" impact and that the impact
in fact will be significant, more than a small amount. The replication area, though significant doesn't make
up for the fact that this bisects a large, undisturbed wetland.
Erisman — She is concerned for the species which use this prime habitat. The adverse impact for her is
undeniable. This cuts down and goes through the habitat.
Oktay — Agrees with the points made by the Nantucket Land Council and the ConCom third -party
consultant. There is clearly an alternative access.
Steinauer — Agreed that this project is designed to minimize impact. This proposal, however, isn't about
accessing a property; it is about building a walkway through the wetland.
Glowacld — Read the definition of "adverse impact."
Champoux — He feels there is potentially significant impact and there is a reasonable alternative.
Fogel — Under the State Wetlands Act CMR 310 10.53CJ, it allows for bridging a vegetated wetland. The
way the local regulation is written, this project can be done. The regulations is written so the ConCom
doesn't have to render an opinion on the purpose, only the design. The board in their decision needs to
show evidence that this will have an adverse impact. There is no such evidence in the record of more than
negligible impact. Conversely Mr. Howards evidence indicates this will have a minimal impact on the
habitat.
Steinauer — Feels Mr. Fogel is suggesting the commission to assess nesting now and allow the walkway but
if that changes, the ConCom is to allow them to remove it.
Oktay — There are scientific studies that show walkways like this do have a lessening of usage of the area by
birds. Stated she feels Mr. Fogel's comments are demeaning to ConCom's ability to evaluate their own
regulations. Our interest is to protect the wetland as it is.
Fogel — No one disputes the impact; the question is whether or not it is an adverse impact. Compared this
similar to a request for a tennis court, ConCom Can ask them to put it someplace else.
Steinauer — There have been times this board has denied a house. There is a no -build alternative.
Fogel — For the record, their point is the difference between putting it through and having evidence to
show it will have more than a negligible impact according to local regulations.
Perry — Based on the threshold of whether or not this project can be approved, no project can be denied as
long as it can be proved that the best way to do it will have the least impact. Some projects will have an
adverse impact and the commission would have to decide it shouldn't be done. The changes that will occur
by putting the walkway through the habitat will be significant. Also the driveway goes through the same
wetland; the walkway would be the second time the wetland is traversed for this lot. The replication area
would also be bisected by the path and walkway. It was decided years ago that there is no deminimus
alteration to a wetland; any change or alteration to a wetland is permanent.
Howard — Feels that in his 25 years of experience, he has demonstrated to many conservation commissions
that these can be built without adversely impacting the wetland. The purpose of his report is to show how
he came to the conclusion this walkway and path would have minimal impact. Cited his own notes. The
walkway bisects the wetland but takes issue with fragmentation of the habitat. Animals would go around,
under, and over the walkway. Birds will continue to nest in the existing brush. His report documents the
components of the micro -level species that are common to this wetland and surrounding landscape; based
on his report a very large area of the habitat for these micro - species will remain as opposed to the small area
that will be disturbed. Reviewed how those impacts would be minimized.
MacKinnon — Reviewed a letter she submitted for the files the gist of which has already been discussed.
NLC believes there will be more than a negligible impact with the movement of people through the wetland
and placement of the walkway. This property is adjacent to 87 Squam Road where the access is located and
this commission within the last two years issued an enforcement order because of a path cut through the
wetlands. The letter expresses NLC concerns for approval of this project setting a precedent. As for a
reasonable alternative, she has submitted a copy of the easement for the record.
Glowacld — What he has heard from people is a strong belief there will be an adverse impact. He has not
heard any evidence and what those impacts will be.
Erisman — State she is willing to submit her wetland ecology text for everyone; a project like this certainly
has an impact: between the removal of shrubs, affect on wildlife, and change in hydrology.
Gasbarro — Reminded the commission that this walkway is Fibergrate® and wood not metal.
Oktay — Some commissioners feel this project can't proceed as proposed and that we can't redesign it in
such a way that doesn't cause more than a negligible impact on the wetlands. Also, there is a pre- established
access available as a reasonable alternative.
Gasbarro — Asked to close. Added that Massachusetts Natural Heritage has signed off on this.
Page 3 of 8
Minutes for May 27, 2015, adopted June 17
Discussion about whether or not the opinion piece was submitted as part of the record; it was circulated
internally only this day.
Staff Sent an email to the commissioners containing the opinion piece published in the New York Times.
The correct language that ConCom is reviewing that has to be covered in our analysis: we can put impacts
or understand that impacts are going to be there to have a complete analysis for both a positive or denial
order. In the waiver, have to address that the proposed project will not adversely impact the interests
identified in the bylaw and that there are no reasonable "conditions" for alternatives that would allow the
project to proceed in compliance with the regulations. In the analysis, commissioners should keep their
comments to addressing the waiver request. The analysis needs to be able to stand through a court appeal.
It is not the role of the commission to redesign but to impose conditions that keeps the impact no more
than negligible.
Unless there are any other outstanding issues or questions, we have everything needed to close.
Motion Motion to Close. (made by: Oktay) (seconded by: ( Glowacki don't need one) )
Vote Carried unanimously
B. Amended Orders of Conditions
1. * Mackenzie & Hughes - Philips — 4 Swain St (42.4.1 -82.3) SE48 -2658
Sitting Steinauer, Oktay, Bennett, Glowacki, Erisman, LaFleur, Champoux
Recused None
Documentation Supporting documents and plans.
Representative Paul Santos, Nantucket Surveyors — The entire property is with land subject to coastal storm flowage.
There is a pocket vegetated wetland at the back of the property. Everything is outside the 50 -foot buffer
but all within the 100 -foot buffer for the wetland. The entire property is within land subject to coastal
storm flowage. The structure is to be raised above the flood level. Looking to infill the first floor and
place a propane tank.
Public None
Discussion (4:15) None
Staff
Recommends this can be closed and issued as an amended order.
Motion
Motion to Close and Issue. (made by: Oktay) (seconded by: Champoux)
Vote
Carried unanimously
2. * MRKR
Nantucket Realty Trust — 66 Monomoy Rd (43- 109.2) SE48 -2550
Sitting
Steinauer, Oktay, Bennett, Glowacki, Erisman, LaFleur, Champoux
Recused
None
Documentation Supporting documents and plans.
Representative Brian Madden, Laurentide Environmental Consultants, Inc. — The original Order of Conditions is for
Page 4of8
removal of Japanese knotweed within 100 feet of a coastal dune. This is to reconfigure the management
and planting footprint within the 25 -foot buffer of the coastal dune. The plan is to hand pull the new
plants; the original order approve herbicide. Proposing to replant with sweet pepperbush and bayberry.
Public
Bruce Perry, Third -party consultant
Discussion (4:17)
Champoux — Asked Mr. Perry's recommendation on the use of Rodeo(g) for Japanese knotweed as
opposed to pulling the plants.
Perry — He uses Renovate 39 in the spring and in the fall clip and drip with Rodeo®. Suggested the just
pulling will just break the plant leaving residue that would regrow. Spraying with Renovate(R) or an
herbicide is the better way to go.
Steinauer — If there isn't a whole lot, they can clip and drip.
Staff
In the current order of conditions they are permitted to treat with herbicide; this is a request to include a
new area for treatment. Recommends this can be closed and issued as an amended order.
Motion
Motion to Close and Issue. (made by: Bennett) (seconded by: Oktay)
Vote
Carried unanimously
Page 4of8
Minutes for May 27, 2015, adopted June 17
3. *Shimmo Hills LLC — 5 North Rd formerly 10 North Rd (43 -312 formerly 81) SE48 -2609
Sitting
Steinauer, Oktay, Bennett, Glowacki, Erisman, LaFleur, Champoux
Recused
None
Documentation
Supporting documents and plans.
Representative
Arthur D. Gasbarro, Blackwell and Associates Inc. — This is for work within the buffer to a coastal bank.
A new architect has modified the plans for a residential redevelopment; the scope of work is still within
the original parameters. There is now a pool, which is outside the 50 -foot buffer. Pointed out that the site
falls away from the resource area and that the coastal bank is armored with an existing wooden bulkhead
for 3/4 of the property. The silt fence in the original order is in the same location with this.
Public
None
Discussion (4:22)
Erisman — Asked if the meadow that is now part of the pool area was originally to be undisturbed.
Gasbarro — It was just grasses, which they called a meadow and was within the area approved for clearing;
its use is cleared by Massachusetts Natural Heritage.
Staff
Recommends this can be closed and issued as an amended order.
Motion
Motion to Close and Issue. (made by: Oktay) (seconded by: Bennett)
Vote
Carried unanimously
4. Thompson-
14 Fargo Way (14 -17) SE48 -2645
Sitting
Steinauer, Oktay, Bennett, Glowacki, Erisman, LaFleur, Champoux
Recused
None
Documentation
Supporting documents and plans.
Representative
Stan Humphries, Laurentide Environmental Consultants, Inc. — This is coming to the commission
through an enforcement order. There is a meeting between the agent and Mr. Thompson scheduled to
look at the alleged violations: unpermitted fence with adverse affect of the adjacent property, installation
of coir logs and tubes, and unpermitted discharge pipe. A section at the top of the plan shows movement
of the coastal bank over the past two years. The water discharge pipe has been removed. The fence was a
judgment made by the owner in reference to a previous plan; he believes, due to what has been done on
neighboring properties to the west and south, that the fence in front of the existing envelopes would not
harm the environment but be a protective measure against floating debris; the adverse affect would be at
the stairway on the far east end at the proprietor's way. Reviewed erosion to the coastal bank caused by
runoff through the wetlands and letter detailing his rationale of erosion being due to severe winter storms.
His opinion is that the retreat is passive and not related to installation of the tubes. Perhaps protection of
the stairways could benefit by the extension of one or two tubes. The amendment is to keep the fence and
they have addressed the other violations.
Public
Arthur D. Gasbarro, Blackwell and Associates Inc., for 10 Fargo Way
Sarah Alger, Sarah F. Alger P.C., for 10 Fargo Way
Discussion
Oktay — To comply with the original order, the fence and rocks would have to be removed and the
(5:25)
adverse impact that might or might not be occurring at the end of the path.
Humphries — In regards to the date of the house, there was a lot of deliberation as to whether or not to
treat it as pre -1978. Suggested amending the amendment to keep the fence in front of the pre -1978 house as
a coastal engineering structure to protect that structure and remove the fence in front of the new house.
Oktay — Softer structure better absorb energy differently and there are advantages to slowing erosion.
Erisman — Asked if this fence where cut -offs of wood are between the slats.
Humphries — This is 2X4 spaced 6 inches apart and no other pieces of wood to make it solid. There are
two salt marshes and monitoring is to be done.
Champoux — He is concerned about extending the fence pass the stairs; there are wetland draining over the
bank would take it away or the fence would cause scouring into the wetland. Also, don't want too much
sand covering up.
Oktay — It would be easiest to put it back in compliance.
Steinauer — He doesn't think ConCom would have permitted that fence.
Oktay — Agrees. Reiterated the benefits of a softer structure. It might help to go look at it.
Erisman — the fence is messy along with the rocks.
Steinauer — Would like to see it.
Gasbarro — This project had a host of issues to begin with and now they are asking to extend this. Two
issues: the drain pipe was removed but the discharge is continuing in the ConCom areas of jurisdiction so
his client is asking for additional information in that regard; ConCom still does not have an as -built of what
is there, the existing fence and sand fill are not located on the plan. Contends they are not in compliance
with at least six conditions of the original order: Nr. 19, no as -built filed; Nr. 20, no survey submitted in the
spring or following the winter storm events; Nr. 21, so reports filed showing amount of sand delivered; Nr.
22, no quarterly photographs filed; Nr. 25, nothing in the files shows an escrow account was established
prior to start of work; Nr. 28, the sand doesn't look to meet the composition the commission required. The
photos show the posts are 4X6 and the size of the gap is 20% to 30 %; all other fences require a 50% open
area. The tube is square and could be layered and what is it filled with.
(At 5:48, llr. Glowacki stepped out for another commitment, he will return.)
Page 5 of 8
Minutes for May 27, 2015, adopted Tune 17
Oktay — Reiterated her inclination to bring this back into compliance.
Steinauer & Erisman — Agree with NIs Oktay.
Champoux — Forcing the owner to bring this back into compliance would also serve a warning not to
ignore orders of conditions.
Alger — Expressed her client's frustration over this project and the time and money spent during the
original hearings only to have what was built not be in compliance. The enforcement order has been in
place since February with no movement toward making the project compliant. Now they are in with an
amended order asking for more. She believes it was a mistake in the last order not to call this a coastal
engineering structure and feels that should be revisited. There has been damage to the resource areas and
her client's property due to unpermitted pumps moving water. risked the commission to order this be
removed and the property restored to its prior condition under Condition 24.
Oktay — Believes this is one of the times which warrants the board to consider the $300 a day fine.
Removing and starting from scratch is not a bad idea.
Steinauer — Asked if the commissioners want to visit the site. Also need to ask to have the soil analyzed.
Oktay — Asked if there is damage to the neighbor that it can't wait two or three weeks to be repaired
because this has been improperly built.
Staff — There has been erosion, there has been damage to the property as a result of the structure.
Humphries — Asked this to be continued to allow the board a site visit; he will submit additional materials
as requested by the board.
Staff The original configuration of the tubes with the fill, there was a specific finding in the order that the
project as proposed was not a coastal engineering structure. The importance of that is it exempts us away
from the first performance standard of a pre - 1978 /post -1978 home and reasonable alternatives including
retreat for that issue of the project. In the case of Eel Point Road, the commission has found the
combination of fence and tubes to be a coastal engineering structure. The commission will have to
provide the findings or analysis for that. He has no recommendation at this time due to the amount of
analysis and comments from abutters. Other issues connected to the violation and not seen here include:
as -built plan of the structure, reconcile rocks piled in front of the fence, why it moved, looking for sand
delivery report.
Need to review what they are looking to do, reconcile it to the original order as part of the amended
order, and take steps or action appropriate to deal with this proposal. The original enforcement order
asked them to remove the fence; they have come back with the amendment asking to keep the fence.
Another concern is whether or not the remainder of the structure is in compliance with order. Part of the
commission's analysis is to determine whether or not the structure that has been violation has been
causing adverse impact to the beach east and west and the best ways to mitigate or repair impacts if they
exist.
The commission has never looked at failure to construct correctly as a failure criteria. The board could
consider the structure to be failed as not having been constructed as conditioned.
This is a situation that would not only bring it back into compliance but not reward someone for
disregarding the conditions of their permit.
The conditions of the original order need to be satisfied really quickly for the board to have something to
look at and know exactly what is there.
Motion Continued to June 10 without objection.
Vote N/A
III. PUBLIC MEETING
A. Request for Determination of Applicability
1. Wright- 40 Pocomo Rd & Medouie Creek Rd (14,19- 37,01) (cont to 6/10/2015)
Discussion on Glowaeki - Objects to the continuance of this application; the law asks a decision be rendered within a
continuance specific amount of time.
Staff — In this case, the representative is asking this be held to allow time for the parties to settle matters
privately.
2. *Anathan Family Ltd Partnership — 68 & 72 Monomoy Rd (43 -115)
Sitting Steinauer, Oktay, Bennett, Glowacki, Erisman, LaFleur, Champoux
Recused None
Documentation Supporting documents and plans.
Representative Arthur D. Gasbarro, Blackwell and Associates Inc. — This is for confirmation of the resource area
boundaries: coastal beach, coastal bank, coastal dune, and land subject to coastal storm flowage. Stated
that he received the report from the ConCom technical consultant agreeing with the boundaries.
Arthur Reade, Reade, Gullicksen, Hanley, & Gifford LLP
Public None
Discussion (429) None
Staff Recommend this be issued as a Positive 2A confirming the resource area as shown on the plan.
Motion Motion to Issue. (made by: Bennett) (seconded by: LaFleur)
Vote Carried unanimously
Page 6 of 8
Minutes for May 27 2015 adopted June 17
B. Minor Modifications
1. *Glenhurst
West R.T — 137 Cliff Rd (30 -610) SE48 -2384
Sitting
Steinauer, Oktay, Bennett, Glowacki, Erisman, LaFleur, Champoux
Recused
None
Documentation
Supporting documents and plans.
Representative
Arthur D. Gasbarro, Blackwell and Associates Inc. — They want a system for collecting water from the
gutters and downspouts as well as from the footage drain. All the work is outside the 50 -foot buffer; there
will be no pumps; it is subsurface piping gravity system. There will be riprap and headwall on the settling
basin before flowing to a heavily vegetated area. Anticipates returning with a minor modification for
landscaping. Pointed out two outfalls. Explained how the gutters, downspouts and system will direct
runoff away from the structure.
Public
None
Discussion (431) Erisman — Would like to know how many inches per hour the pipes can handle.
Gasbarro — he didn't get into those but is proposing a 6 -inch pipe.
Staff Recommend this be issued as a minor modification.
Motion Motion to Issue. (made by: Glowacki) (seconded by: Champoux)
Vote Carried unanimously
C. Certificates of Compliance
1. * Briggs —17 Walsh St (42.4.1 -13) SE48 -1695
Sitting Steinauer, Oktay, Bennett, Erisman, LaFleur, Champoux
Staff Raise building w /in the flood zone; it was built in compliance. Recommend issue.
Discussion (6:00) None
Motion Motion to Issue. (made by: Bennett) (seconded by: Champoux)
Vote Carried unanimously
2. *Atherton — 48 Squam Rd (13 -30) SE48 -1750
Sitting Steinauer, Oktay, Bennett, Erisman, LaFleur, Champoux
Staff Construction of an addition; built in compliance. Recommend issue.
Discussion (6:01) None
Motion Motion to Issue. (made by: LaFleur) (seconded by: Bennett)
Vote Carried unanimously
D. Orders of Condition
1. Polpis Harbor, LLC — 250 Polpis Rd (26 -27) SE48 -2779
Sitting Steinauer, Oktay, Bennett, Erisman, LaFleur, Champoux
Staff Only special conditions were: Condition 21, photo monitoring of areas allowed to revegetate; Condition
20, a permanent marker be installed along the edge of work. He will inform the board of what that marker
is.
Discussion (6:02) None
Motion Motion to Approve as drafted. (made by: Bennett) (seconded by: Champoux)
Vote Carried 5 -1 /Erisman opposed
2. Michael Ryan — 16 E Lincoln Ave (42.4.1 -45) SE48 -2787
Sitting Steinauer, Oktay, Bennett, Erisman, LaFleur, Champoux
Staff No special conditions or waivers.
Discussion (6:03) None
Motion Motion to Approve as drafted. (made by: LaFleur) (seconded by: Champoux)
Vote Carried unanimously
3. Hemenway & Barnes LLP — 181 Eel Point Rd (33 -21) SE48 -2788
Sitting Steinauer, Oktay, Bennett, Erisman, LaFleur, Champoux
Staff Clarified that he has instruction to draft a positive order and asked if there are specific concerns aside
from removing the deadfall.
Discussion (6:04) Steinauer — Monitoring the revegetation.
Oktay — Would like something about use of fertilizers.
4. Squam Partners LLC — 89 Squam Rd (13 -3) SE48 -2785
Sitting Steinauer, Oktay, Bennett, Erisman, LaFleur, Champoux
Staff Asked for guidance in the drafting of this order and the conditions or findings
Discussion (6:05) Oktay — Asked for a vote on whether to draft an approval or denial.
None for a positive order; six for a denial. Mr. Glowacki absent.
Discussion on findings supporting a denial.
Ground water:
Erisman — If the shrubs are cut back so much or removed, the standing water is not going to be absorbed
the same.
Oktay — It changes the ability to retain soil under the foot print of the walkway. There would be more
water under the walkway and more sedimentation. It will change how water flows through there.
Page 7 of 8
Minutes for May 27, 2015, adopted June 17
(Glowacki returned 6:07 p.m. Brought up to speed.)
Wildlife:
Consensus — There would be an impact to habitat and resources.
Discussion on Performance Standards under 3.02 vegetated wetlands.
Staffed reviewed those standards that do not apply: Nr. 4, Nr. 3, Nr. 5, Nr. 7, Nr. 8. Do apply:
Nr. 6, Elevated walkways determined to be water dependent designed not to affect existing vegetation shall
be required for pedestrian passage over vegetated wetlands:
Nr. 1, Proposed projects shall maintain at least a 25 -foot natural undisturbed area adjacent to vegetated
wetlands:
Nr. 2, Proposed projects shall not use procedures that the Commission determines changes the flood
protection function (leveling out of storm surges by storing and slowly releasing water) of vegetated
wetlands by significantly changing the rate of water flow through the wetlands (by channelization or other
means):
Oktay — She is concerned about channelization and more water will flow under the bridge that it would
through vegetation causing increased erosion.
Erisman — During a heavy rainstorm, water would be able to easily get to that area.
Staff — Asked if there is a condition or set of conditions that can be posed to make this a less than
negligible impact.
Champoux — This couldn't be designed better.
Staff — He is confident of drafting a denial based on there being no conditions that can be imposed or
waivers that can be justified under the no adverse impact /no reasonable alternative that would allow the
project to proceed and be in compliance of the standards.
Glowacki — Stated he doesn't think it appropriate for this board to decide what the owner needs or doesn't
need.
Steinauer — All that is being cited is some of the reasons the owner said he needed this for. We are
deciding that this is not approvable.
E. Enforcement Actions — None
F. Other Business
1. Approval of Minutes: Minutes of May 13, 2015 adopted by unanimous consent
2. Reports:
a. CPC, Erisman — She has been assigned the Spruce Street improvement project which is access to The Creeks and the Brant
Point Shellfish Propagation building project.
b. NP &EDC, Bennett — Nothing
c. Mosquito Control Committee, Oktay — Meeting next week.
3. Commissioners Comment
4. Administrator /Staff Reports
a. Application fees: He has not had a chance to put something together. He is in contact with other commissions on their fee
structures. Oktay — One thing that would go with the fee structure is the ability to provide additional help in the office for
follow up on reports and checking up on coastal structures.
b. 25 East Tristram Avenue: There are conditions and they are trying to do maintenance on a bulkhead. They would like to
place the sand and do plantings in compliance with the conditions, but there are restrictions on working between Memorial
Day and Labor Day and work on the beach. Mr. Gasbarro has put together a letter addressing conditions. They have to give
48 -hours notice to the ConCom on the nourishment under Condition 21. Condition 30 requires all work shall be done
between Memorial Day and Labor Day unless the commission authorizes the work. They are looking for auth to do the
nourishment and plant in compliance with order of conditions and doing it from the land side. If they start, they can be
done by June 12. There is no nesting habitat there and it can be done fairly quickly.
Motion to Allow them to proceed. (made by: Oktay) Carried unanimously
G. Executive Session
1. Exemption 3: To Discuss Strategy with Respect to Potential Litigation Concerning the Appeal of Order of Conditions
SE48 -2610 issued to the Sconset Beach Preservation Fund and the Town of Nantucket, where an Open Meeting May have
a Detrimental Effect on the Litigation Position of the Conservation Commission.
Glowacki — In the past there has been decision about the need to go into executive session. He would like to have a consensus
of the commission as to whether there is a need to or if it can be done in open session. He would like to know how the
discussion would be detrimental to the litigation position of the commission.
Steinauer — Executive Session is necessary because there will discussion of legal matters.
Motion to go into Executive Session under Exemption 3. (made by: Oktay)(seconded by: Erisman)
Voice vote: Erisman, aye; Oktay, aye; Steinauer, aye; LaFleur, aye; Champoux, aye; Bennett, aye; Glowacki, nay.
Entered Executive Session at 6:28 p.m.
Exited executive session at 7:09 p.m.
Motion to Adjourn: 7:10 p.m.
Submitted by:
Terry L. Norton
Page 8 of 8