Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 8 Ames Avenue Madaket Variances topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves variances for 8 Ames Avenue septic upgrade in Madaket after debate over tight‑tank option
Summary
The board approved dimensional and setback variances for a one‑bedroom septic repair at 8 Ames Avenue in Madaket, granting relief from property‑line and wetland setbacks and waiving a reserve area requirement. The vote was 4–1 after discussion about tight‑tank alternatives and conservation conditions.
The Nantucket Board of Health voted 4–1 to approve a set of variances for a septic‑system upgrade at 8 Ames Avenue in the Madaket area, allowing dimensional relief so a one‑bedroom IA system could be installed on a constrained lot.
Dan Malloy (designer) told the board the property is encumbered by wetlands and proximity to Nantucket Harbor; the project replaces an existing system and proposes an IA treatment system for a one‑bedroom repair. The applicant requested relief from Title 5 and local Madaket dimensional setbacks: a reduced property‑line setback for tanks and leach field (6 feet instead of 10 feet), a 100‑foot wetland setback reduction to approximately 67 feet, and relief from showing a reserve area because the project is a repair for a one‑bedroom property.
Board members debated whether a tight tank (no discharge to the ground) would be preferable given the proximity to Madaket Harbor. Staff and the applicant said tight tanks are a last‑resort option under Title 5 if there are no feasible alternatives, and that the proposed IA system offers improved treatment compared with the existing failing system. Dan Malloy said Conservation Commission review was pending and expected that commission approval could include a seasonal installation restriction tied to bird nesting seasons.
After discussion about environmental tradeoffs and regulatory constraints, a motion to approve the variances carried by a 4–1 vote; dissenting board member expressed reservations about permitting systems close to the harbor where a tight tank might be preferable. The board’s approval was conditioned on the usual permitting steps and noted the Conservation Commission was expected to act separately on wetland permitting.
Staff described the approval as an improvement over the existing failing system and said the applicant must comply with any ConCom timing restrictions or conditions attached to that permit before installation.
