FINAL
Present for the Conservation Commission and attending the meeting were: Sandy Broyard, Chairman, Pam Goff, Chris Murphy, Maureen Eisner, Joan Malkin, Bob Hungerford, Wesley Cottle and Chuck Hodgkinson. Greg Berman, Allison Burger, Julie and Miles Jaffe, Cynthia Oakes, Andra Oakes, Bob Conway and George Brush also attended. Tara Marden arrived at 12:35 PM. Candy Shweder was absent.
The meeting came to order at 11:08 AM. The Commission decided to attend to its administrative agenda while waiting for Ms. Marden to arrive. The Fool’s High Tide hearing was scheduled to re-open at 11:00 AM.
19 POINT INNER WAY; AP 33-100: Chuck H. explained he received an anonymous call about beach sand that was placed on the salt marsh and shore of Quitsa Pond. After meeting with the owner Chuck H. explained he wanted a safer landing and launching area for the Nashaquitsa Rowing Club’s rowing shells. A letter was read from a member of the rowing club. The Commission reviewed photos of the site and agreed the addition of sand is unacceptable. A motion was made to issue an Enforcement Order requiring a Notice of Intent application for installing an elevated walkway that meets the Commission’s specifications for crossing a salt marsh and a plan to remove the sand in a manner that will not harm the salt marsh. The motion was seconded and unanimously approved with seven in
favor.
26 ABEL’S NECK ROAD; AP 31-2: Chuck H. explained the Building Inspector received an anonymous letter regarding some clearing and excavation that was done near the perennial stream and bridge on Abel’s Neck Road. The Commission reviewed photos of the activity while Chuck H. explained the negative Determination of Applicability that was issued for a small addition to the kitchen on this property. Work without a permit was: A temporary roadway was cleared from Abel’s Neck Road to the construction site for excavator access. The roadside brush and grass leading to the site was removed. The activity is within the 100-foot buffer zone of the stream and is beyond the permitted scope of work. After discussion a motion was made to issue an Enforcement Order, with the
applicable fine(s), that requires an immediate restoration of the area. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously with seven in favor.
EMERGENCY CERTIFICATION; VERNON WELCH FISHING SHACK; BOATHOUSE RD.; MENEMSHA: Chuck H. reviewed the proposed plan to repair the stone revetment under the center section of this fishing shack that sits on pilings over Menemsha Creek. The shack is on Chilmark land but, Aquinnah controls the lease and use of the property. Mr. Welsh said it is a safety hazard as he has seen several pedestrians slip in the depression and one vehicle backed into the same area. Mr. Murphy who keeps a skiff on the other side of Boathouse Road confirmed this is a potential hazard. The plan calls for adding similar sized stones as in the rest of the revetment under the shack. The work will be done in two days – two hours each day from 7:00 AM – 9:00 AM. The work will not start until
August 15 or 16. After reviewing the photographs a motion was made to issue the Emergency Certification provided a follow-up Notice of Intent is also filed after the fact. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously with seven in favor.
NOI SE 12 – 702; TARA MARDEN FOR FOOL’S HIGH TIDE, LLC; 25 East Lane; AP 32-68.1: After trying to reach Ms. Marden via cell phone Ms. Broyard decided to re-open the hearing at 11:40 AM without Ms. Marden in attendance. She confirmed all seven eligible voters are present. Several neighbors were in the audience for the first time. The Commission explained this hearing has been open for several meetings and a great deal of information has already been shared for the record and proceeded to summarize the proposal for the benefit of the public. The Commission then reviewed the written responses that were just received via email to additional questions sent to Ms. Marden and the Town’s consultant Mr. Berman. After reading the updated response from the NHESP
dated July 18, 2014 for the record Ms. Broyard accepted questions from the audience. Cynthia Oakes asked if this project will impede upon her deeded access to Stonewall Beach. An overhead google earth visual of the area was reviewed which demonstrated the proposal is east of Stonewall Beach and will not affect beach access. Mr. Jaffe asked why sand is being added as a veneer if Stonewall Beach to the west has no sand. Mr. Berman explained this site is a headland and has different characteristics than the shoreline sections of beach. Ms. Burger asked why doesn’t the Town let nature take its course and start a managed retreat from the eroding coastline rather than risk having unintended consequences that may arise from the project.
Ms. Oakes asked how long it will take to execute the project. The proposal estimates 4-6 weeks pending weather delays. Ms. Oakes thought this was an ambitious prediction as all projects in this neighborhood have taken longer than planned to execute. After much discussion and with no further comment from the public or Commission a motion was made to close the hearing at 12:25 PM. The motion was seconded and unanimously approved. The following motion was made by Mr. Murphy:
“This is a motion to deny the proposal. The applicant has not proved by clear and convincing evidence as required in our Bylaw that the work proposed will not harm the interests protected by the Bylaw. As outlined in Section 2.01 and 2.02 of the Chilmark Conservation Commission Rules and Regulations, promulgated under the Chilmark Wetland Protection Bylaws, there are no conditions under which a Variance may be granted that would prevent the activity from impairing in any way the Land Under Ocean’s and Coastal Beach’s and Tidal Flat’s abilities to perform any of the functions set forth in Section 2.01 (2) and 2.02 (2). If passed the Commission should review the decision for signing at the August 6th meeting”. The motion was seconded by Ms. Malkin for purposes of discussion.
The Commission debated both sides of the motion. Some agreed all interests have been raised, questioned and addressed for the resource areas and therefore disagree with the conclusions in the motion. Ms. Malkin expressed an opinion that it is not the Commission’s charge to vote on what might seem to be the most sensible thing to do. She added many of the adverse impacts had been addressed and risks can be mitigated to a degree. Mr. Murphy pointed out “it’s the applicant’s job to prove the project will not have an adverse impact and I am not satisfied this has been done”. The Town’s Bylaw regulations and requirements for granting a Variance were read aloud. It was discussed that this part of the coastline and the erosion that is taking place is not rare and unusual. The
Vineyard’s, the Cape’s and Nantucket’s south shores and headlands are experiencing the same impacts. Other concerns were voiced about the project’s impact on both sides of the headland and on abutting properties. Damage may happen from this proposal.
Ms. Marden arrived at 12:35 PM and said she thought the hearing was to be re-opened at 12:30. The Commission pointed out it was properly posted in Town Hall and on the Town’s website and everyone was here at 11:00 AM. When the hearing was continued to today as a special date we chose 11:00 and reviewed how the ferry schedules can accommodate it. Ms. Marden agreed. Ms. Broyard said even though the hearing is closed we should give Ms. Marden an opportunity to make a closing statement. It was explained there is a motion to deny that has been seconded.
Ms. Marden summarized how the proposal was changed to reflect comments made by all of the state agencies and the Army Corps of Engineers. She added the cobble is different than sand because the headland is the source of the cobble. This is a cobble berm with cobble nourishment on a cobble beach. The sand veneer was added to satisfy the NHESP concerns with shorebird habitat. The proposal increases the elevation of the beach with material that is intended to match what’s there naturally.
After discussion about all of the interests that are affected by the project and protected by the Act and Town’s Bylaw Ms. Broyard called a vote on the motion to deny. The vote was four in favor to deny (Commissioners Murphy, Malkin, Eisner and Hungerford) and three opposed (Commissioners Broyard, Goff and Cottle).
ADMINISTRATION:
The following document was signed:
Order of Conditions SE 12 – 708; Noe, AP 25-137.
The next meeting will be Wednesday, August 6, 2014 @ 12:30 PM. The Site Visits will take place on August 5 @ 12:30 PM. The Commission agreed to postpone the Squibnocket discussion to the August 6th meeting.
With no further business to conduct the meeting adjourned at 1:06 PM.
Respectfully submitted by Chuck Hodgkinson, C.A.S.
| 
