Nantucket conservation panel debates monitoring, sand mitigation and access rules for Skansie Beach project

The Nantucket Conservation Commission spent its Feb. 13 special meeting focused on revisions to the Skansie Beach Preservation Fund (SPPF) permit application for 41–119 Baxter Road and on whether the applicant must make up sand mitigation tied to a prior order of conditions.

Commission chair Seth Engleberg opened the public hearing and staff reviewed three targeted edits to the draft order: a requirement that the applicant permanently tag and mark man‑made materials used in the project (geotubes, core logs and post anchors); a condition that the applicant either provide an on‑island sand storage location equal to 10% of the initial‑phase construction volume or, if no local site is feasible, a contract with an on‑island sand source for that amount; and a change to the unobstructed‑beach‑access standard, reducing the linear width measurement from 20 feet to 15 feet and clarifying monitoring and failure language.

Why it matters: the changes affect how town staff, the applicant and the public will monitor coastal access, how readily sand can be obtained for construction or remediation, and how the commission would determine whether the project has failed to maintain public access.

What staff proposed and how commissioners reacted

Jeff (conservation staff) explained the three edits and walked the commission through a short change summary. On the tagging requirement, Jeff said the order now “requires to permanently tag and mark all man made materials used in the project, including geotubes, core logs, post anchors, etcetera.” That change was presented as an identification and retrieval aid and met with no substantive objection.

On sand storage, Jeff said the change preserves a condition calling for an on‑island storage location to hold a volume equal to 10% of initial‑phase construction volumes and, if a physical location is not feasible, a contract with an on‑island sand source for that amount. Jeff noted sample back‑of‑the‑envelope numbers: if all five reaches were built simultaneously, the staff estimate would be roughly 10,000 cubic yards of sand; a two‑reach phase would be closer to 4,500 cubic yards.

The most contested edit was condition 70(f) (the unobstructed‑access/failure language). Staff changed the draft to measure unobstructed access as 15 linear feet “between the mean high water and the most seaward edge of any coastal engineering structure,” down from 20 feet. The draft also added a protocol for when a quarterly shoreline survey finds less than that distance: the commission would be informed and could require additional monitoring; if monitoring shows consistent obstruction over time the project could be deemed in failure.

Commissioner Linda Williams raised practical concerns about year‑round enforcement: “The minute it's, like, not 15 feet, some idiot's gonna go out there with a drone and say, ‘oh my god, they're in violation for what? 24 hours?’” She urged clearer timing and thresholds rather than a single‑day enforcement trigger. Commissioner Chip Nylund and others pushed back on limiting protection to summer months, saying the bylaw protects recreational access year‑round and that access can also be necessary for inspection and maintenance.

Monitoring timeline discussion

Commissioners debated how precise the “additional monitoring” requirement should be. Staff suggested the commission could require weekly, biweekly or monthly follow‑up, noting that waiting 90 days (to the next quarterly survey) could be too long to act if access were obstructed.

A compromise approach was proposed by a commissioner: require up to four weekly (approximately) surveys after the initial quarterly survey that showed a shortfall, and deem the project in failure only if all four follow‑ups also show less than 15 feet. Commissioners suggested alternatives (biweekly, monthly, or three surveys in roughly 45 days spaced about 15 days apart). Several commissioners favored a specific short‑term monitoring cadence (for example, three surveys within 45 days) rather than leaving the response wholly to staff discretion; others argued the commission should retain discretion to set monitoring frequency case by case.

Public and technical testimony

Trey Ruthman of Sustainable Coastal Solutions, representing the Nantucket Land and Water Council, told the commission that the quarterly surveys referenced by the condition are done in quiescent conditions and thus not susceptible to someone “going out and measuring during a storm.” He also said average wave run‑up at Skansie is about 36.7 feet, arguing that a 15‑foot standard “jeopardizes” access and monitoring.

Multiple public speakers and technical experts addressed a separate but connected dispute: whether the applicant must provide a large volume of sand to make up a shortfall tied to a prior order of conditions (SE48‑2824). Applicant representatives and counsel argued the older order expired (staff said SE48‑2824’s original issuance dated Sept. 30, 2015, and after COVID tolling and statutory extensions the original order’s effective expiration was Jan. 5, 2025, while an amended 2018 order would have expired Mar. 5, 2025, but DEP policy 85.4 means the original date controls). Applicants proposed a remediation figure of about 26,000 cubic yards to “make up” the amount they say corresponds to the period when the prior order was active; others in the public record described a much larger number that has been discussed previously (referred to in the hearing as the “106” figure).

Opponents argued the commission has legal and contractual reasons to require the larger prior mitigation total: Dennis Murphy (on behalf of the Greenhill family) reminded the commission that an enforcement order requiring compliance with the earlier OOC remains in place and that the original 2015 OOC was part of a settlement agreement. Emily Molden of the Nantucket Land and Water Council said the prior 22 cubic yards per linear foot requirement was supported by data submitted during earlier proceedings and that mitigation “is mitigating for prior impacts that have already been permitted and agreed to.”

Applicant position

Applicant counsel Chip Nylund and SPPF representatives said they are willing to provide a makeup plan and described an alternative adaptive sand management approach for the new permit that would replace fixed annual 22‑cubic‑yards‑per‑linear‑foot requirements with targeted annual replenishment tied to measured loss. They also offered to provide a one‑time plan (26,000 cubic yards, by their accounting) to address past deficits, or to submit a plan for the commission to review. Counsel asked the commission not to hold the current order open indefinitely while the separate question of legacy mitigation is resolved.

No final permit decision; next steps

Commissioners did not vote on the permit. The commission agreed to continue the hearing to Feb. 20 for scheduling only and indicated they will aim to address the remaining substantive issues at or before the commission’s March meeting (March 6 was discussed). Town counsel and Town of Nantucket representatives said they needed a brief period to confer internally and confirm the town’s position before agreeing to close the hearing.

Votes at a glance

- Approve meeting agenda — approved by roll call (5–0). The transcript records five aye votes. - Continue Skansie Beach hearing to Feb. 20 (scheduling only) — agreed by commission consensus; no substantive vote on the permit occurred during this session.

What remains unclear

The hearing left unresolved (1) the specific short‑term monitoring cadence the commission will require if a quarterly survey shows unobstructed access below the chosen linear width, (2) whether the commission will require the applicant to provide the larger mitigation sand total discussed in earlier proceedings or accept the applicant’s proposed 26,000‑cubic‑yard remediation plan, and (3) whether the commission will adopt staff‑proposed language that delegates more monitoring cadence discretion to the commission or write specific survey intervals into the order.

Commission chair Seth Engleberg closed the session by setting the next procedural date and asking applicants and town representatives to consult with counsel; the commission will reconvene to take up scheduling and the unresolved substantive points on Feb. 20 and again in March if needed.

Ending

The hearing remains open. The commission asked parties to supply any additional materials needed for deliberation and signaled that it will aim to resolve monitoring language and the legacy mitigation figure before issuing a final order on the SPPF application.