[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6347998,"mediaKeyId","2243507-59198ede927c7d1fc776ea7e6b9e3c65","parentId",2243507,"title","Conservation commission splits over whether quarter-roll beach protection is a 'coastal engineering structure'; decision deferred","audioSeconds",950,"startMs",1716000,"endMs",2666000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2243507-59198ede927c7d1fc776ea7e6b9e3c65&start=1716&end=2666","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2243507-59198ede927c7d1fc776ea7e6b9e3c65/thumbnail_1716000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6347998/Nantucket-County/Massachusetts/Conservation-commission-splits-over-whether-quarter-roll-beach-protection-is-a-coastal-engineering-structure-decision-deferred","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6347998-96e080f0888976b92ec46d60442a98b0/orig.mp4?Expires=1771178423&Signature=VWRYACWsFWdN-eE06Ozs7AgNsniO7GP8EsKijlfxYfHKPb2s0A3u3YqL3B4mmKhe7vxx~IGSXs1QgBM691qQJJBKvHD5aVHakqOfstN-Sxi3BslkzMZqXZhgysMRvZOLuot2pY0zWgrltg~-Y1-nobCsj1c4foghSpoc4g7D1VWPlvgoU6RP6Pqdr8dCHzwHh6V1EIXicZ75I85ORkpeRIt2sYmaB~OGdu-HKKR9QudbWb3xYW~AOzf7CvtH18nX0zlVWAa6oYjhumaHJ53LymNV6HAuRj-50wxyHTxbrPZnzEJB5f9UOyO4hk6q3P767e6Mtc1YTPg1deSUrccYWA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Town-County of Nantucket, MA","date","2025-01-02T21:57:42Z","article","The Nantucket Conservation Commission debated on Feb. 6 whether proposed quarter-roll (\"Wilkinson\") beach-protection systems at 72 and 78 Pacoima Road should be treated as coastal engineering structures under the town's local wetlands regulations. Commissioners split on the legal and regulatory question and asked staff to draft permit language for multiple outcomes before the next hearing.

The dispute centered on regulatory definitions and local discretion. Dan Bailey, counsel/consultant for the applicants, said DEP precedent and recent adjudicatory decisions treat quarter-roll systems as soft, bioengineered solutions rather than coastal engineering structures under the state Wetlands Protection Act. \"Under DEP precedent . . . these core roll systems are not coastal engineering structures,\" Bailey told the commission and pointed to prior Nantucket orders that used similar reasoning.

Chair Seth Engelberg agreed that, under the Wetlands Protection Act and DEP precedent, the devices would likely not be classified as coastal engineering structures, but he cautioned that Nantucket's local bylaw uses different language. \"Our Nantucket local bylaw and regulations are slightly different than the WPA,\" Engelberg said, explaining his view that the town's rules can treat the same physical work differently and that the commission must ensure projects are permitted correctly and avoid adverse impacts to resource areas.

Commissioner R.J. Turcotte said the assembly of materials and its purpose—\"to prevent coastal erosion and storm damage\"—fit the local definition of a coastal engineering structure. Other commissioners offered a range of views: some agreed with Bailey and favored treating the proposal under DEP guidance; others said the commission should require a local waiver and apply additional local conditions.

Applicant representative Art Gasparro said the proposed work is effectively identical to nearby, previously permitted projects and noted that the applicant had requested a waiver as part of the filing. He and Bailey also said they were prepared to accept monitoring and reporting conditions similar to earlier approvals.

The commission did not deny the applications. Instead, members closed the hearings for 72 and 78 Pacoima Road (SU 483878 and SU 483879) for the hearing phase and directed staff to prepare three draft orders of conditions for consideration at the next meeting: one treating the work as a non–coastal engineering structure under the local bylaw, one treating it as a coastal engineering structure with a local waiver, and a combined draft that would cover both approaches. Commissioners agreed to revisit the matter at the Feb. 20 meeting so the commission could complete its regulatory review within the statutory window.

Why it matters: The decision will set a local precedent for how Nantucket treats a common shoreline stabilization technique that (applicants say) can protect private upland property while (opponents say) altering littoral processes. The commission signaled it wants clearer local regulatory language and plans a regulatory update discussion in coming months.

Next steps: Staff (Will) and commission counsel will prepare the three draft orders and monitoring conditions referenced by commissioners and return the item for orders of conditions on Feb. 20. The commission also asked that testing specifications for imported sand (grain size and additional screening for biological/chemical constituents) and construction-access plans be added to draft conditions.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Nantucket Conservation Commission - February 6, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Nantucket Conservation Commission debated on Feb. 6 whether proposed quarter-roll beach-protection systems at 72 and 78 Pacoima Road should be classified as coastal engineering structures under local rules, then closed the hearings and directed staff to prepare permit drafts for multiple outcomes.","taxTitle","Nantucket County, Massachusetts","taxId",61456,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6347988,"Votes at a glance: Feb. 6 Nantucket Conservation Commission — continuances, permits and minor actions",3724,200000,3924000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2243507-59198ede927c7d1fc776ea7e6b9e3c65&start=200&end=3924","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2243507-59198ede927c7d1fc776ea7e6b9e3c65/thumbnail_200000.jpg","/articles/6347988/Nantucket-County/Massachusetts/Votes-at-a-glance-Feb-6-Nantucket-Conservation-Commission-continuances-permits-and-minor-actions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6347988-dc7129b2a4d1d206a3c2d18e1531f339/orig.mp4?Expires=1771178423&Signature=gfm~FB~KDD8dbI-aKwqN2l76sexARFU-NUzk97xY5Usdkewxmt6UqcRRRLjxc6tx2I4PVsW7ZEbtjbCDar9tgGrGuTnCV2gfL7WewWpmf8EI5H4jPmpr12Xg36dHvx64wB-7t-aCvBPAva-Ng2J1rIj6lGm~waVIMIV9yqfz48N0dIVlWflKTN1kDLruIcakxHh9ZWRQYZDZNPKNKv2cQeysQ0Cr9~AE8jninKZMyAsz51J44VWyXrzk6y3whPI7F4JqMxPwpp~RDqjGmzv45dnQ3~b5vzilrolBCyarC5uTUDDt~JeWNDqG60e5AJLA2lPxu70FPENjZgZTDw4FUg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Nantucket Conservation Commission completed a number of routine and substantive procedural votes at its Feb. 6 meeting. Below are the formal actions recorded on the meeting record with outcomes as stated during the meeting.

Votes at a glance

- Acceptance of agenda: Passed (roll-call; unanimous).

- Withdrawal accepted: Veil at 21 Field Avenue (SU 483082) — withdrawal accepted by motion and roll-call vote (carried unanimously).

- Continuances to specified dates (all continued as announced): multiple notices of intent and public hearings (Sconsy Beach Preservation Fund at 41–119 Baxter Road; Sconsy Beach Preservation Fund at 59–83 Bexar Road; Minnetucket Realty Trust, 10 and 16 Ocean Avenue; Sigolini Properties LLC, 8 Bassett Road; 14 Tatima Way Realty Trust; West Ashore LLC, 62 Wenoma Way; Powers, 36 Bassett Road; 15 Eat Fire Spring Road LLC; 36 Tennessee LLC; and others) — continued as listed (dates: Feb. 13, Feb. 20, as noted on the record).

- Dyson at 49 Meadowview Drive (SU 483891): Hearing closed by roll-call vote; later the commission issued an order permitting driveway modification and revegetation of buffer zone with standard conditions (no NHESP, conditions 18/19 added; restoration with native species and prohibition on agricultural chemicals). Permit issued (roll-call; unanimous).

- South Slip LLC at 29A Old North Wharf (file number issued during meeting: SU 483892): Applicant requested continuance to Feb. 20 to supply pier history and additional documentation; continued to Feb. 20 (motion accepted).

- 3 Star Farm LLC at 76 Eel Point Road (SU 483884): Applicant requested continuance to Feb. 20; continued to Feb. 20.

- 3 W W Nominee Trust and 3 B Wires Way (SU 483876 & SU 483877): After revisions and responses to prior questions, commissioners closed hearings and later issued orders to relocate/remove existing structures and create new lots; waivers granted for footings within two feet of seasonal high groundwater where requested; permits issued (roll-call; unanimous).

- 72 and 78 Pacoima Road (SU 483878 & SU 483879): Hearing closed for the record and matter continued to orders-of-conditions stage with staff direction to prepare alternative permit drafts (see separate article for full debate). Motion to close hearings carried by roll-call vote.

- Minor modifications approved (roll-call; unanimous): Squam Holdings LLC at 31 Squam Road (SU 483670) — minor mod issued; ARV Way LLC and 42/44 Arbor Way minor mods approved (board vote recorded).

- Certificate of Compliance issued (roll-call; unanimous): Ferguson at 50 Hulbert Avenue (SE 483553) — COC issued; staff noted compliance with issued order and recommended issuance.

Meeting procedure notes

- The commission clarified that the new regulations (effective Jan. 1) apply to Notices of Intent and RDAs filed after that date but do not apply retroactively to minor modifications, certificates of compliance, extension requests, or amended orders of conditions; those older filings are reviewed under the prior regulations.

Why it matters: Several routine and site-specific permits were advanced or issued; the most consequential outcome is the continued deliberation on the Pacoima quarter-roll matter, which could influence how similar shoreline protections are regulated locally.

For a complete record: See the Feb. 6 public meeting minutes and the staff-issued orders referenced by SU/SE numbers for full conditions and monitoring requirements.","A consolidated list of formal actions taken at the Feb. 6 commission meeting: agenda adoption, continuances, permit closures and approvals, minor modifications and a certificate of compliance.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6347993,"Conservation commission ratifies enforcement order after large clearing at 14 Plover Lane; owner ordered to appear March 6",514,6116000,6630000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2243507-59198ede927c7d1fc776ea7e6b9e3c65&start=6116&end=6630","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2243507-59198ede927c7d1fc776ea7e6b9e3c65/thumbnail_6116000.jpg","/articles/6347993/Nantucket-County/Massachusetts/Conservation-commission-ratifies-enforcement-order-after-large-clearing-at-14-Plover-Lane-owner-ordered-to-appear-March-6","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6347993-e3668f86610c648b489734adb3df495f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771178423&Signature=Q7zA9qafQzJV581I--QflNcxhQunNNls0v9iU~YQcOitu2CHRP9mIunBNbDyPy63P91xqyrDLkyO33d8ytQk8gjfA-VDqjmWUvgjV0FEoKgs5qIlu4bkvLCvN0j9ROql7pnIKLCEv2jU7~vb9cUY2A5BwjmzAKzxtWdJIoi~vu~cnuimhJUE2ROV2w-CTcn1D9b1PsVNQZjWJ9SDmD-hTBoTFxzh1Aj~IjJBiLR8a2YOOfM9IMpFkkh821mSNPxkFjTs4PytfilmEfLcJdal5nZ3JHgjnY55ZsNNpikqkiAnmZwRXR9ztkHsVsiQ7e3j-5CDTNd6pfDOePMfd7CuYg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Nantucket Conservation Commission on Feb. 6 ratified an enforcement order for unauthorized clearing and alteration that the commission's staff found on the property at 14 Plover Lane. The order requires the property owner (and any contractors or landscapers who participated) to appear before the commission at its March 6 meeting to explain the work and discuss a remediation plan.

Staff and commissioners reported that a significant area of wetland and buffer had been cut and masticated; photos and a site visit documented removal of understory and scattered evidence of recent cutting. The commission described the alteration as substantial and said the affected area includes state-mapped wetland and associated buffers.

Will (Conservation staff) told the commission an enforcement order was issued after the violation was discovered; the commission voted to amend and ratify the order to require the owner and any responsible contractors to attend the March 6 meeting and to provide details on what work was done and who was involved. Commissioners said they would consider additional remedies, including fines, after the March 6 appearance.

The commission set the appearance date to allow time for staff to complete documentation and to give the owner notice. Commissioners discussed but did not immediately issue civil fines; several members said they preferred to see the owner's explanation and any proposed remediation before deciding on penalties.

Why it matters: The enforcement action responds to a large, unpermitted alteration of a resource area that could affect hydrology and habitat. The commission is using its administrative enforcement procedures to require a public accounting and to preserve options for remediation and fines.

Next steps: Staff will circulate the enforcement order and photographs to the property owner and the commission; the owner and any involved contractors are required to appear at the March 6 commission meeting. The commission said it will evaluate remediation plans and consider fines after hearing the owner's response.","The commission ratified an enforcement order for unauthorized clearing and alteration of mapped wetland and buffer at 14 Plover Lane, requiring the property owner (and any contractors) to appear at the March 6 meeting to explain the work and propose remediation.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Conservation commission splits over whether quarter-roll beach protection is a 'coastal engineering structure'; decision deferred

Votes at a glance: Feb. 6 Nantucket Conservation Commission — continuances, permits and minor actions

Conservation commission ratifies enforcement order after large clearing at 14 Plover Lane; owner ordered to appear March 6