Conservation commission continues 76 Eel Point Road hearing after neighbors, conservation groups press hydrology and construction concerns

The Nantucket Conservation Commission continued the notice of intent for 3 Star Farm LLC’s proposed development at 76 Eel Point Road to its May 8 meeting after public commenters and conservation groups urged more information on hydrology, habitat and construction-phase protections.

Mark Ritz of Site Design, representing the applicant, outlined revisions to the site plan and stormwater approach and said the filing now shows “extensive infiltration for roof and surface runoff” and that infiltrations units would “capture all stormwater, infiltrate it, on the upland side of the proposed retaining wall where it will enter the groundwater and flow downslope to recharge wetlands.” He also told the commission the project remains subject to a separate MISA review that could affect the final outcome.

Neighbors and nearby landowners said the revised plan did not fully answer questions raised at an earlier hearing. John Hamilton, a nearby resident at 9 Alliance Lane, asked whether the revised plans addressed the volume of sand and fill to be trucked in and how much native groundcover and habitat would be disturbed. Hamilton said the project showed “a lot of sand” and that the site’s habitat “would be affected by these additional… structures.”

Sarah Boyce, director of research and education at the Linda Loring Nature Foundation, told the commission the wetland complex near the site feeds the foundation’s freshwater wetlands and Long Pond and said the foundation is “concerned about a lot of the drainage disturbance, materials being brought in that will affect the wetland habitats and ultimately the watershed in that area.” She asked for mitigation and for assurances that construction staging would not lead to disturbance on adjacent properties.

Willa Arsenal, speaking for the Nantucket Land and Water Council, urged the commission to consider the filing against the commission’s performance standards. Arsenal read performance standard language aloud and told the panel that, because the applicant’s stormwater approach would “only be able to manage about 70% of it,” the commission should consider asking for a waiver or additional analysis to ensure the project will not “change[] the rate of water flow through the wetlands.”

Commissioners pressed for more construction-period detail. Will (town staff) and several commissioners said a construction mitigation or staging plan for activities within jurisdictional areas — describing access, equipment storage, sequencing and erosion controls during construction — would be appropriate and within the commission’s authority to request. Ritz said the applicant would provide a construction mitigation plan limited to activities within the commission’s jurisdiction and outlined a likely sequencing: “the walls will be constructed first… and backfilled with excavated material from the site,” and stockpiling would occur only after retaining walls were in place.

Natalie Kaufman, counsel for several abutters, echoed concerns about cumulative impacts, the need for a full hydrologic analysis, and requirements under the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) review. Will clarified the NHESP (state endangered-species) review must be completed before the commission can close the matter and that any conditions arising from that review would be added verbatim to the commission’s permit.

Commissioners concluded there was insufficient information to close the hearing and agreed to continue the matter to May 8 to allow submission of additional technical details, including a construction mitigation plan and any outstanding NHESP findings. The commission did not adopt a final permit at this meeting and left the matter open pending those materials.