REQUESTS FOR DETERMINATION Greenberg/Morachnick 17 Pocomo Road

Laurentide Environmental, LLC 14 South Shore Road Nantucket, MA 02554

e-mail: [email protected] (508) – 332 – 9722

Field Inspection Report

Date: September 1, 2015

Applicant / Owner: Mark Greenberg & Tami Morachnick

Location: 17 Pocomo Road

Agent: Blackwell & Associates - Art Gasbarro

Comments: Developed lot off Pocomo Road.

Due to time constraints, I was unable to visit the property on 9/1. Will be able to inspect on 9/16.

The project narrative has the limit of work at the 25-foot buffer and the proposed garage no closer than 50 feet to the wetland boundary. These setbacks have usually required the filing of a NOI.

However, the submitted plans show the limit of work in excess of 50-feet to the wetland boundary and the proposed garage partially outside the 100-foot buffer.

Questions and Recommendations:

Clarify the wetland setbacks for the project.

Wait for the results of the wetland boundary review on 9/16.

Inspector: B. Perry CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE Otto 4 Brant Point Road SE48-2712

Draft Minutes Proposed Minutes for September 2, 2015

CONSERVATION COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING 2 Bathing Beach Road Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 www.nantucket-ma.gov Wednesday, September 2, 2015 4:00 P.M.

4 Fairgrounds Road, Training Room Commissioners: Ernie Steinauer (Chair), Andrew Bennett (Vice Chair), Ashley Erisman, David LaFleur, Ben Champoux, Ian Golding, Joe Topham Called to order at 4:00 p.m.

Staff in attendance: Jeff Carlson, Natural Resources Coordinator Attending Members: Steinauer, Bennett, Erisman, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham Absent Members: None Late Arrivals: None Earlier Departure: None

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. SE48-2608 APG/ DRS Realty Trust – 80 & 84 Wauwinet Road (11-89.2, 28) SE48-2749 (Cont 09/16/2015) 2. Four Saratoga LLC – 14 Tennessee Avenue (60.1.2-6) SE48-2773 (Cont 09/16/2015) 3. Goose Cove, LLC – 6 Goose Cove Way (59.4-366) SE48-2816 Sitting Steinauer, Bennett, Erisman, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding Recused Topham Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative Don Bracken, Bracken Engineering, Inc. – Reviewed background information and plans from prior Orders of Conditions. The silt fence will be repaired and final grading to be done both within two weeks. It has been determined that the coastal bank follows the flood zone line. Public None Discussion (4:02) None Staff All previously permitted work, with the exception of a small section of silt fence that needs repair, is in compliance. No waivers are requested. Have everything needed to close. Motion Motion to Close. (made by: Champoux) (seconded by: Bennett) Vote Carried 6-0 4. Goose Cove, LLC - 4 Goose Cove Way (59.4-30) SE48-2817 Sitting Steinauer, Bennett, Erisman, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative Don Bracken, Bracken Engineering, Inc. – Similar to SE48-2816. He has the proposed buffer plant plan for within the 100-foot buffer; about 75 feet is already naturally vegetated. The tallest plants will be red cedar with the intent of being a screen; the 2013 planting plan is what is being proposed. Public Jay Bowditch, 11 South Cambridge Street – He had been led to believe that the new plantings would be over the entire length of the buffer area; the plants that are there are scrub growth and afford no privacy. There is a lot of scrub vegetation on Madaket Conservation Land. Noted a 2013 planting plan. Discussion (4:08) Champoux – Screen planting isn’t within ConCom jurisdiction, only the buffer plantings. Clarification of where the vegetation is being planted and its type. Staff There is a diverse mix which is very dense. Have everything needed to close. Motion Motion to Close. (made by: LaFleur) (seconded by: Bennett) Vote Carried unanimously

Page 1 of 10

Proposed Minutes for September 2, 2015

5. Peacock – 46 West Miacomet Ave (86-6) SE48-2814 Sitting Steinauer, Bennett, Erisman, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Joe Topham Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative Don Bracken, Bracken Engineering, Inc. Public None Discussion (4:16) None Staff This had been continued for Massachusetts Natural Heritage determination; they have one condition that would establish a silt fence marking the limit of work along Miacomet Road. Have everything needed to close. Motion Motion to Close. (made by: Champoux) (seconded by: LaFleur) Vote Carried unanimously 6. *Cronin – 22 Willard Street (29-79) SE48-2818 Sitting Steinauer, Bennett, Erisman, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative Arthur D. Gasbarro, Blackwell and Associates Inc. – The property is entirely within land subject to coastal storm flowage. The proposal is to lift the house to comply with flood zone requirements and build additional steps; the north elevation is to have an expanded deck. Any dewatering would be temporary and through the Town system pending permission to do so. Public None Discussion (4:17) None Staff Have everything needed to close. Motion Motion to Close. (made by: Topham) (seconded by: Bennett) Vote Carried unanimously 7. *Francis M. King Trust – 26 Codfish Park Road (73.1.3-65) SE48-2820 Sitting Steinauer, Bennett, Erisman, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative Mark Rits, Site Design Engineering – This is to replace the existing septic within 100-foot buffer of a coastal dune with an I/A system and construct a 192 square foot (SF) shed and build small deck addition on north side of house over impervious drive; drive to be relocated. Waivers required are under no adverse impact/no reasonable alternative for the septic and deck. There are intermittent jersey barriers on the east side of the road, and there is no evidence of sand inundation into the lawns; most of the dune is higher than the barriers. No change in footprint and minimal grade change are proposed. Public None Discussion (4:19) Golding – There is some sand intrusion into the road in the winter. Staff Have everything needed to close. Motion Motion to Close. (made by: LaFleur) (seconded by: Bennett) Vote Carried unanimously 8. *Bayliss – 52 Eel Point Road Lot 1 (35-25) SE48-2821 Sitting Steinauer, Bennett, Erisman, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative Mark Rits, Site Design Engineering – Resource areas: large wetland, land subject to flooding, isolated vegetated wetland, bordering vegetated wetlands, and smaller wetland. The proposal is to remove the existing house and redevelop the property. A pervious driveway is planned and comes just inside the 50- foot buffer; all structures are outside the 50-foot buffer, and the septic is outside the 100-foot buffer. A portion of the pool is inside the 100-foot buffer. There will have to be a fence around the pool but it will be outside the 50-foot buffer; we will come back for a minor modification for the pool fence. There is an existing, 14-foot high timber retaining wall. Requested continuance. Public None Discussion (4:24) None Staff Waiting for Massachusetts Natural Heritage determination. Motion Continued to 9/16 without objection Vote N/A

Page 2 of 10

Proposed Minutes for September 2, 2015

9. *Bayliss – 52 Eel Point Road Lot 2 (35-25) NAN-122 Sitting Steinauer, Bennett, Erisman, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative Mark Rits, Site Design Engineering – Resource areas: large wetland, land subject to flooding, isolated vegetated wetland, bordering vegetated wetlands, and smaller wetland. A small portion is within 100-foot buffer of the larger wetland. The only work proposed inside the 100-foot buffer is a small portion of the pervious driveway and the secondary structure. No waivers are required. Public None Discussion (4:30) Erisman – Doesn’t like driveways being placed close to wetlands due to vehicle leakage. Staff Have everything needed to close. Motion Motion to Close. (made by: LaFleur) (seconded by: Champoux) Vote Carried unanimously 10. *Sunset Realty Trust – 201 Eel Point Road (38-32) SE48-2823 Sitting Steinauer, Bennett, Erisman, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative Arthur D. Gasbarro, Blackwell and Associates Inc. – This is within the buffer to a coastal dune along Madaket Harbor. Work is installation of a swimming pool, deck, small structure, grading, retaining wall, and pool surround; all is outside the 50-foot buffer. Within the 50-foot is removal of a step pool. A new septic is to be outside the 100-foot buffer. An existing timber plank walkway through the dune will be replaced with an elevated walkway with 1X4 mahogany decking; installation will be by hand. Proposed plantings between the 25 & 50. The silt fence needs to be revised to accommodate that. No waivers are being requested. Requested continuance. Public None Discussion (4:33) Golding – Asked if there would be any plantings under the walkway. (Only naturally growing beach grass.) He would like to see this be as unobtrusive as possible. Steinauer – This doesn't have the same sensitivity of vegetation as for a wetland, but a Fibergrate® decking might provide more light penetration and improve the chances of vegetation growing under the walkway. Erisman – Asked for clarification of where new plantings would be in regards to the proposed of the silt fence. Staff Waiting for Massachusetts Natural Heritage review. Motion Continued to 9/16 without objection Vote N/A 11. *Hoffman – 15 Sherburne Turnpike (30-34) SE48-2819 Sitting Steinauer, Bennett, Erisman, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative David M. Haines, Haines Hydrogeologic Consulting – This is for invasive species removal and replacement of a stone patio with a raised wooden deck. Resource area is a coastal bank. Between 0-25 is natural growth but has invasive species. The removal process will be to cut shrubs and vines then treat the stubs with glyphosate and shred debris and put in the digester; they would also like permission to treat the poison ivy. The deck will be about 65 SF smaller than the patio. The existing stone steps will be replaced with a raised wooden boardwalk that can be removed seasonally. The percentage of invasive species is 15- 20%. No heavy machinery will be brought in, work will be by hand. The bank tops at elevation 50 then drops to 20 where it extends out toward the water before dropping to the beach. Jeff Nicholson, Landscape Architect – The new plantings will match what is there in height. There is existing irrigation outside the 50-foot buffer. Public None Discussion (4:41) Golding – There is an email for Cesar Wenden about the cryptomeria japonica; apparently it grows to 40 or 50 feet. (Those are in the 75 to 100 foot.) Erisman – Poison ivy isn't something we usually treat; on the path it should be removed by hand. Asked the percentage of invasive to native species. Steinauer – He doesn’t think bittersweet and nightshade are on the invasive list. Erisman – Would like more information on the location of existing and proposed irrigation. Concerned about seepage. Wants to also know about any composting. Staff Irrigation and composting can be conditioned. Have everything needed to close. Motion Motion to Close. (made by: Golding) (seconded by: LaFleur) Vote Carried unanimously

Page 3 of 10

Proposed Minutes for September 2, 2015

12. *Woodstock Beach Property LLC – 101 Cliff Road (30-626) NAN-121 Sitting Steinauer, Bennett, Erisman, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative Don Bracken, Bracken Engineering, Inc. – The resource area is a vegetated wetland; a driveway has been permitted within the 100-foot buffer; this proposal is for a secondary drive loop with parking. No waivers needed. Public None Discussion (4:56) None Staff Have everything needed to close. Motion Motion to Close. (made by: Champoux) (seconded by: LaFleur) Vote Carried unanimously 13. *Gibbs – 4 Galen Avenue (42.3.2-28) SE48-2822 Sitting Steinauer, Bennett, Erisman, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative Don Bracken, Bracken Engineering, Inc. – This is close to the flood zone at elevation 3. The proposal is to raise the structure onto a concrete pile foundation above the flood zone with the addition of a deck and steps. No grade change. Public None Discussion (4:59) None Staff Have everything needed to close. Motion Motion to Close. (made by: LaFleur) (seconded by: Bennett) Vote Carried unanimously 14. *SBPF – 87-105 Baxter Road (48-21,22,19,18,17; 49-8) SE48-2824 Sitting Steinauer, Bennett, Erisman, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative Steven Cohen, Reade, Gullicksen, Hanley, Gifford & Cohen LLP Maria Hartnett, Geologist Epsilon Associates Inc Josh Posner, 77 Baxter Road, Chairman 'Sconset Beach Preservation Fund Public John Merson, 71 Baxter Road Sharon Van Lieu, Kendrick Street Dirk Roggeveen, Quidnet-Squam Association and Robert Greenhill, 8/16 Hoicks Hollow Road Emily MacKinnon, Nantucket Land Council Rick Atherton, Workgroup Participant Mary Wawro, 3 Eat Fire Springs Road D. Ann Atherton, 48 Squam Road Town Counsel George Pucci, Kopelman & Paige Discussion (5:01) Cohen – Reviewed the history of events related to this application. The local permit appeal is still at Superior Court; the DEP superseding order of conditions was appealed and ruled upon allowing the three tiers to remain, placement of a fourth geo-tube in front of 3 pre-1978 homes, and retaining the drainage pipe. Reviewed the settlement criteria for a 3-year temporary permit. The bluff is now stabilized and not eroding at the rate it was; this creates the ability for revegetation, development of a wildlife habitat, and safety for pedestrians on the beach. One concern previous expressed was the precedent that would be set: in practical terms no other island area has all the factors that qualify this area for this type of structure; in this location there are empty lots that have to be protected in order to protect the historic/pre-1978 structures. Steinauer – Discussions didn’t include the returns and it is in everyone’s best interest to have those. Hartnett – Reviewed PowerPoint® presentation of the 950-foot-long, 3-tier, geo-tube project: maintenance of what is there; addition of 522-foot-long fourth tier; why coir or jute bags are ineffective for this area; the DEP approved the design of the returns to prevent end scour; revegetation of the area above the returns; addition of a catch basin for stormwater runoff and installation of the drainage pipe; the monitoring: profiles, annual bathymetry, benthic habitat, post-storm reports, and annual assessment; mitigation; failure criteria; creation of the escrow account for removal; and construction method. Golding – Asked Ms Hartnett for a description of the composition of the bluff for a lay person. Hartnett – They went through a detailed analysis of what is compatible looking at grain size to ensure there isn’t too high a ratio of fines; the bank is mostly sand about 13% fine and the pit sand less than 5% fine. It has been ruled as stable and compatible. Erisman – The pit sand is not the same material that the bluff would feed into the habitats. Cohen – The sand being supplied is the same as for all other erosion control projects. To the extent the commission wants the impact of the cobble monitored, they will do that; if there is a change in the benthic habitat, they could drop in rocks.

Page 4 of 10

Proposed Minutes for September 2, 2015

Steinauer – The cobble that is out there is there because the bank used to be out there and dropped the cobble then retreated. If we start adding cobble, it will be dropped on the beach and the bank isn’t moving leaving a big pile of cobble on the beach. Hartnett – There is the ability to monitor the benthic habitat. Steinauer – This is changing the erosion rate of the bank and changing the sand deposition rate; the benthic monitoring will look at the impact and provide that deposition information. Golding – Addressed Mr. Cohen in regards to the three lots DEP ruled as eligible to protection with pre- 1978 structures. He argues that only one has any part of a sizeable pre-1978 structure. The structure at 99 Baxter Road used to be his family house and was moved in April 1988 into the corner, where there is currently a shed; Nantucket building permit 518\10 issued June 22, 2010, allowing its removal from the adjacent lot, describes it as a 400 SF storage shed and specifically states there is no plumbing; he contends, therefore, that the structure at 99 Baxter Road isn’t entitled to protection. On page 7 of the MOU, 97 Baxter Road is described as being vacant land. He contends, based on those documents, that there is only one lot entitled to pre-1978 protection. Submitted into the record Building Permit 518\10 and a photo, Exhibit A, from 1988 showing the 97 Baxter Road structure being moved off. Cohen – The original filing for this, which was adopted by request in the NOI, has a substantial assessment of the building history to include: relocation, construction, etc. DEP has ruled that those three structures qualify under the statute for protection. Golding – Contends the DEP ruling is based on an error; if we are talking about a compromise it should be based on fact. 99 Baxter Road is a shed moved there four years ago. He would like Town Counsel’s ruling on that. Bennett – Looking at the cross section of the fourth tier, asked what the percentage of mitigation will be above that tier. Hartnett – It shows 13 to 14 cubic yards of nourishment. There is actually more than that. They are required to determine how much mitigation sand is lost in each storm event. So far it has contributed more. Steinauer – Many projects are requiring sand mitigation; asked what happens if the local pits run out of sand. Hartnett – For long term planning, they would barge in sand. Erisman – Asked about why jute can't be use as the top tier; she doesn’t see us getting two 100-year storms reaching that top tube within six to eight weeks of each other. Hartnett – If we get the big storm and everything is uncovered, the jute portion would be depleted. That leaves three geo-tubes sitting out there with no sand. The jute bag would have to be rebuilt before they could start to recover the lower portion. Also, because they can't have the equipment on the geo-tubes, they have to have the sand cover there. Erisman – Sand has to be put over the bluff anyway. Asked where it is dropped from now. Hartnett – They will deliver the sand from 78 and 91 Baxter Road, which are not vegetated. They set the wheels back and have a conveyor reach out over the edge. Once a suitable amount of sand to protect the geo-tubes has been dropped, they will spread it out with heavy equipment. In 2013 there were successive storms that depleted all the sand and the coir bags couldn’t be replenished fast enough. Steinauer – There was a previous application for drainage pipes for Baxter Road and the impact on the wetlands had been studied; now another drainage pipe is being added that would further change that. Cohen – This would be instead of that past project; they can terminate that permit. Steinauer – We will need to monitor the wetland; the conditions form that prior permit should be carried over. Erisman – In regards to the new gully, asked what is being done to prevent it from moving down the beach. Also asked how another gully that was previously filled in and planted is doing. Hartnett – Explained what caused the gully and why it won’t move. That repaired gully is now flat. Posner – There were a couple of gullies in the area which have since been filled and vegetated; those have held well. A berm was put along Baxter Road stopping any run off. This gully being discussed formed before the berm went in; he believes that when it is filled and vegetated it will do well. Steinauer – This gully appeared after storms at the end of the project and might have been caused by end scour. Bennett – Asked how much area of the road is being served by the drains. It seems the 4-inch pipe and 2- foot drain might be inadequate. Hartnett – It was design to drain water from 85 to 105 Baxter Road. Reviewed the drainage plan. Further discussion about the drainage design. Merson – He feels this board was the right to deny this project; building a hard-armor bank is high risk and introducing foreign sand is dangerous. This is not a solution; it is the avoidance of a solution. This commission should be looking for a long-term solution. Also, the Bluff Walk has been closed off by houses around him; provisions were originally made for the walk to be maintained by moving it back with the erosion of the bluff. This commission should ask anyone doing a project like this to make room for the Bluff Walk to cross their property; it should be possible to extend it all the way up to the lighthouse.

Page 5 of 10

Proposed Minutes for September 2, 2015

Van Lieu – It has been said that the bluff has been stabilized; she has photos which show a great deal more erosion on the bluff. This structure didn't stop the erosion on the bluff; it changed how the bluff looks; she questions how long the grass would last with bad storms. In regards to how the bluff looks, the bluff is always a construction zone and is ugly. This is a wetland scenic view and should be maintained. The DEP says that heavy equipment contributes to erosion and they are putting in more heavy equipment on the bluff to add the fourth tube. We don’t see water come up over the three tubes; questions the need for a fourth. Roggeveen – Asked about the new DEP number and if this is a new application or what. Cohen – There is no intent to change the superseding order; approval of this would result in a ‘rider’ to that. Roggeveen –There is a reference where the applicant thought to incorporate information from the prior NOI into this file; he would like to see that happen. Reviewed the Quidnet-Squam Association’s involvement in every aspect of this process; the superseding order said no to much that is being asked for. Read what the superseding order does permit: the three buildings to be protected, they gave only 3 years for the emergency permit for the roadway at the end of which another three years is to be applied for showing good cause in relocation of the road; also nothing in the DEP orders indicates this project can go on forever. Submitted into the record a letter from Mr. Greenhill and reviewed the concerns he expressed; Mr. Greenhill asked how mitigation will be paid for in the future. Requested that the applicant submit a detailed history of building permits for the three structures being protected under the pre-1978 statute. He has asked for and never seen is waiver request; this project clearly requires waivers. The sand on the upper level is just going to sit there and not contribute; the question is will the sand at the base slowly be used up and starve the littoral drift; therefore the board should require clarity as to what portion of the sand is going into the system. MacKinnon – Submitted a letter of comments into the record. Would also like the information from previous permits be brought into this file. There are few new components under this application; this is largely similar to previous proposals. This commission should review all the findings voted on for the denial so that if this is permitted the commission can account for how the findings changed. Reviewed the NCL consultant put together a memo of technical comments. The new flood insurance map shows the still-water elevation for the 'Sconset shoreline is 2 feet lower than previously indicated; that needs to be taken into account. The consultant created a list of specific items that they believe would bring in as thorough and consistent as possible data collection of what goes on around these structures. One of NCL's concern is the long-term monitoring reports; the baseline data has never been made available; that raw data should be made available to the commission. In regards to the mini-returns proposed for the fourth geo-tube, the superseding order of conditions specifies that the fourth geo-tube is for protection of 91-99 Baxter Road; NCL feels it would be appropriate for that top tube to be designed so that the returns terminate at the edge of those property lines. In the superseding order, Special Condition 15D says one failure criteria will be excessive loss of up-drift and down-drift beach cross section; "excessive loss" is vague and should be defined. The superseding order included a requirement for regular updates about finding alternative access, which this commission should also require. In addition to quarterly and annual reports, the applicant should appear annually before the board to discuss the reports. Cohen – This is in the end a regulatory and legal choice, not an emotional one; it is up to the commission to determine whether or not the criteria is being met. This permit is limited in time and scope and provides as much data as possible. The conditions applied should be vigorous; but cautions the board from being too specific stating that vagueness could be an advantage to the board. They are asking for a test project with data collection. The Workgroup is asking that the hearing be closed today and a decision be issued within 21 days. He is asking to close the hearing. R. Atherton – He doesn’t recall the Work group coming to any conclusion about when the hearing should be closed. Wawro – Procedurally, this NOI requires an application and that the owners of the property sign off on it. The signature sign off for the NOI is simply a note that states that permission is granted per a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated June or July 2013. That MOU was superseded by an amendment. She’s not aware of any provision in either MOU which directs that the Town accepts this application. She believes that the procedure for the Town to indicate it is granting permission is for the BOS in public to vote to direct someone to sign it. That isn't the case. Mr. Cohen advised it is prudent to have some findings be “vague”; cited a previous incident where language was vague and the problems it caused. Addressed the make-up of the Workgroup and expressed concern that their meetings were not duly noticed or open to the public. Suggested another reason for not closing the hearing is that Mr. Pucci has not been heard from. Pucci – Stated he has nothing to add; Mr. Cohen’s presentation of the history leading to the settlement is accurate. In terms of the working group, he recommends against getting legal opinions in response to questions from the public in a public hearing; his office can provide a legal opinion requested through Town Administration. Town Counsel reviewed the procedings of the Workgroup and there were no violations to the Open Meeting Law. Noted that no member of the Board of Selectmen (BOS) was

Page 6 of 10

Proposed Minutes for September 2, 2015

appointed to the Workgroup. The BOS and ConCom met in executive session to discuss pending litigation; the settlement negotiations are closed to the public. The result of the Workgroup has been published and is available to the public through the Town. The settlement doesn’t bind ConCom to grant a permit. It is totally within the ConCom discretion whether or not to close the hearing tonight; there is no requirement under the settlement to close tonight but there is a timeline agreed to: 'Sconset Beach Preservation Fund needs a permit early enough to commence construction before the winter. Stated there clearly is a need for waivers with this permit, but ConCom doesn’t have to keep the hearing open for that. Steinauer – There have been a couple of submissions the board hasn’t had a chance to review as well as information submitted with prior NOIs. D. Atherton – There is nothing in the public statement that the settlement has a timeline. Asked where it is. Pucci – The settlement does not call for that; but there is an obligation because if the hearing is extended out long enough it vacates the three-year permit term called for. D. Atherton – It says in the public statement that all parties involved in the settlement discussion recognize the Conservation Commission as the regulatory body responsible for making decisions in this matter; it is not subject to any pre-conditions or understandings. Pucci – Correct. Steinauer – The commission might want to discuss technical material presented at previous hearings. Erisman – She feels rushed trying to digest this information in one hearing and rendering a decision. Bennett – He would like to see photos from the beach nourishment project to compare to the present conditions. Material has been going over that bank for three years. Cohen – He believes that what’s in front of this board represents 100s of hours of work by experts and engineers. Reiterated his request for the issuance of a permit with heavy monitoring; no amount of hearings will change the information which has been submitted. Steinauer – We have the option to have monitoring and track this project. This project will be there three years whether or not this commission approves it. He’d like to get the data out of this; however, we have to put monitoring in place that is adequate and he’s not sure he has that information. Thinks one more hearing a week from today would allow for review of material. Erisman – Would like the plan to reflect where the 25-foot line from the road is. Cohen – Explained where that line is. He encourages people to weigh in on issues. Expressed his hope that there would be only one more hearing with all comments and questions submitted. Golding – Suggested leaving this open and calling a meeting next week. Staff This was filed under the state and local bylaw and is separate from the superseding order. The only deadline on the Conservation Commission is that an order must be issued within 21 days of closing the hearing. It is within this commission ability to request further information on issues and questions were raised: the pre-1978 status, upon which performance standards are waivers being requested, information from previous hearings, clarity. Motion Continued to 9/10/2015 at 5 p.m. without objection Vote N/A B. Amended Orders of Conditions 1. None III. PUBLIC MEETING A. Request for Determination of Applicability 1. *Ray – 89R Vestal Street (56-251) Sitting Steinauer, Bennett, Erisman, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative Don Bracken, Bracken Engineering, Inc. – This is across the street from an identified wetland system; some work is between the 25- 50-foot buffers of the wetland on the opposite side of the road Discussion (7:35) None Staff Recommend this be issued as a Negative 3 allowing work. Motion Motion to Issue as a Negative 3. (made by: Bennett) (seconded by: LaFleur) Vote Carried unanimously B. Minor Modifications 1. *Nantucket Land Bank – 80 Miacomet Avenue (66-126) SE48-2394 (Cont 09/16/2015)

Page 7 of 10

Proposed Minutes for September 2, 2015

2. *Jelleme – 29 Quaise Road (26-8) SE48-2381 Sitting Steinauer, Bennett, Erisman, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative Arthur D. Gasbarro, Blackwell and Associates Inc. – This is for an 8X10 addition on an existing shed to be used to store pool equipment. It is located between the 25- 50-foot buffer; a waiver has been granted for work within the 50. This addition is less intrusive than the previously permitted full foundation under the shed. Discussion (7:36) None Staff The impact is less with this proposal in regards to the number of waivers needed. Recommends approval as a minor modification. Motion Motion to Approve. (made by: LaFleur) (seconded by: Champoux) Vote Carried unanimously 3. *Grove Lane Realty Trust – 24 Grove Lane (41-439) SE48-2781 Sitting Steinauer, Bennett, Erisman, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative Don Bracken, Bracken Engineering, Inc. – This proposal is for 10 closed-system wells within existing lawn area. Discussion (7:41) Discussion about how closed-system wells work. Staff Recommends approval as a minor modification. Motion Motion to Approve. (made by: Golding) (seconded by: LaFleur) Vote Carried unanimously 4. *Sixty-Two Hulbert Ave – 62 Hulbert Avenue (29-164 & 57) SE48-2732 Sitting Steinauer, Bennett, Erisman, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham Recused None Documentation Supporting documents and plans. Representative None Discussion (7:44) None Staff For the representative, they are adding a small addition on the side and relocating the air-conditioning unit and the driveway will be modified to accommodate the addition; all work is within land subject to coastal storm flowage. Recommends approval as a minor modification. Motion Motion to Approve. (made by: LaFleur) (seconded by: Bennett) Vote Carried unanimously C. Certificates of Compliance (7:46) 1. *Allison – 7 Pond Road (56-153) SE48-2155 Sitting Steinauer, Bennett, Erisman, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham Staff This is actually because an Invalidation of an Order of Conditions needs to be signed. Discussion None Motion N/A Vote N/A 2. *Zuckerman – 60 Crooked Lane (41-198) SE48-1305 Sitting Steinauer, Bennett, Erisman, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham Staff This was for construction of an addition on a single family dwelling; there were no conditions and it was built in compliance. He recommends it be issued. Discussion None Motion Motion to Issue. (made by: Champoux) (seconded by: LaFleur) Vote Carried unanimously 3. *Rediker – 14 Almanack Pond Road (25-12) SE48-2591 Sitting Steinauer, Bennett, Erisman, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham Staff This started as enforcement action for illegal cutting. They replanted everything satisfactorily but some grassland species are coming slower than expected. He recommends this be issue with on-going Condition 22 requiring annual mowing and reporting be carried forward through next year. Discussion None Motion Motion to Issue as recommended. (made by: LaFleur) (seconded by: Champoux) Vote Carried unanimously

Page 8 of 10

Proposed Minutes for September 2, 2015

4. *Roblin – 7 Alliance Lane (39-24.2) SE48-2717 Sitting Steinauer, Bennett, Erisman, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham Staff This was for construction of an addition with patio, removal of a fence, restoration of the buffer, and general landscaping. He recommends this be issued with on-going Condition 19 requiring three full years of monitoring through 2017 Discussion None Motion Motion to Issue as recommended. (made by: Erisman) (seconded by: Bennett) Vote Carried unanimously 5. *Griener – 1 Galen Avenue (29-83) SE48-1949 Sitting Steinauer, Bennett, Erisman, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham Staff For elevation of a single-family dwelling; it is in compliance with no on-going conditions. Discussion None Motion Motion to Issue. (made by: Topham) (seconded by: Bennett) Vote Carried unanimously D. Orders of Condition (7:54) 1. Watts – 6 Goose Cove Way (59.4-366) SE48-2816 Sitting Steinauer, Bennett, Erisman, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding Recused Joe Topham Staff There is on condition which involves the pool. Discussion None Motion Motion to Issue as drafted. (made by: Champoux) (seconded by: LaFleur) Vote Carried 6-0 2. Goose Cove, LLC – 4 Goose Cove Way (59.4-30) SE48-2817 Sitting Steinauer, Bennett, Erisman, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham Staff Same as SE48-2816. He can add Condition 20 that a final landscape plan be submitted prior to construction. Discussion Erisman – There was neighbor questions about the native plantings not being disturbed. Champoux – They were looking for screening. Motion Motion to Issue as amended. (made by: Erisman) (seconded by: Golding) Vote Carried unanimously 3. Peacock – 46 West Miacomet Avenue (86-6) SE48-2814 Sitting Steinauer, Bennett, Erisman, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham Staff Condition 19 is written specifically to match language in the Massachusetts Natural Heritage letter. Discussion None Motion Motion to Issue as drafted. (made by: Erisman) (seconded by: Bennett) Vote Carried unanimously 4. *Cronin – 22 Willard Street (29-79) SE48-2818 Sitting Steinauer, Bennett, Erisman, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham Staff There is a condition that no fill be added which substantially changes the grade. Discussion None Motion Motion to Issue as drafted. (made by: LaFleur) (seconded by: Erisman) Vote Carried unanimously 5. *Francis M. King Trust – 26 Codfish Park Road (73.1.3-65) SE48-2820 Sitting Steinauer, Bennett, Erisman, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham Staff They are asking for a number of waivers: deck requires a waiver from the setback from coastal dune and B7 states no activity shall be permitted other than maintenance and repair of the structure existing on the effective date, and B5 is for the leach field within 100-foot buffer. The structural elements are separated from the resource area by the paved road and the septic system is going to an I/A which is a net benefit. Monitoring and testing are conditioned and there is a condition requiring the submittal of the Operation and Maintenance Agreement. Discussion None Motion Motion to Issue as drafted. (made by: Topham) (seconded by: Golding) Vote Carried unanimously

Page 9 of 10

Proposed Minutes for September 2, 2015

6. *Woodstock Beach Property LLC – 101 Cliff Road (30-626) NAN-121 Sitting Steinauer, Bennett, Erisman, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham Staff No conditions, it is straight forward. Discussion None Motion Motion to Issue as drafted. (made by: Bennett) (seconded by: LaFleur) Vote Carried unanimously 7. *Gibbs – 4 Galen Avenue (42.3.2-28) SE48-2822 Sitting Steinauer, Bennett, Erisman, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham Staff Same as the last flood zone order; same conditions about the fill. Discussion None Motion Motion to Issue as drafted. (made by: Bennett) (seconded by: LaFleur) Vote Carried unanimously 8. *Bayliss – 52 Eel Point Road Lot 2 (35-25) SE48-NAN-122 Sitting Steinauer, Bennett, Erisman, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham Staff Will add a condition about fertilizer use. Discussion 9. *Hoffman – 15 Sherburne Turnpike (30-34) SE48-2819 Sitting Steinauer, Bennett, Erisman, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham Staff Will add a condition about fertilizer use, compost, moisture sensors. Discussion E. Extension of Orders of Conditions 1. *Squam Partners- 89 Squam Rd (13-3) SE48-2530 Sitting Steinauer, Bennett, Erisman, LaFleur, Champoux, Golding, Topham Representative Arthur D. Gasbarro, Blackwell and Associates Inc. – His client is just finishing up with HDC and finalizing construction documents. He is asking for 3 years. This is for the cottage by the road. Staff They are in compliance with eligibility. Discussion (7:52) None Motion Motion to Issue one 3-year extension. (made by: Golding) (seconded by: Bennett) Vote Carried unanimously F. Other Business 1. Approval of Minutes: approved by unanimous consent 2. Reports: a. CPC, Golding - nothing b. NP&EDC, Bennett - nothing c. Mosquito Control Committee, Erisman - nothing 3. Commissioners Comment - None 4. Administrator/Staff Reports

Motion to Adjourn: 8:06 p.m.

Submitted by: Terry L. Norton

Page 10 of 10