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.