The Nantucket Conservation Commission continued a public hearing on an application by the Scasa/ SVPF project at 413–119 Baxter Road on Jan. 15 after extended debate about how much compensatory sand the project must deliver, how to measure public access along the beach, and whether an earlier permit remains in effect.

Commission chair Seth Engemore opened the hearing and said the main outstanding questions were the makeup sand obligation, whether order SE 2824 remained open and valid, and clarifications to failure criteria in the draft order. Staff told the commission that, because of a state permit-extension law enacted after COVID, the commission’s earlier permit (SE 2824) appears unexpired and therefore still carries mitigation obligations through March 2025. "If this order ... remains active and open today, it carries all the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities," staff said during the discussion.

Why it matters: the amount of compensatory sand affects neighbors, the town’s shoreline template and whether the commission can satisfy its duty under the Wetlands Protection Act to avoid long‑term resource-area harm. Town staff presented a desk calculation that the project’s shortfall through March 2025 is about 105,465 cubic yards; the applicant and its advisers urged a lower total (about 80,000 cubic yards, as described by applicant counsel) and proposed phasing and adaptive management over years rather than a single lump-sum delivery.

Commissioners and technical witnesses disputed the proper accounting method. Staff described the annual mitigation baseline in the earlier order as 20,834 cubic yards per year and said the staff estimate used that baseline plus verified deliveries documented to the commission (just under 21,000 cubic yards in the 2022 sand year and 45,100 cubic yards in the 2024 sand year). Applicant counsel said their adaptive-management approach would meet the littoral-system needs, while a town consultant and other public commenters warned that using a lower number could leave neighboring reaches exposed to increased erosion. As attorney Dennis Murphy, representing the Greenhill family, put it: "This is not supposed to be a negotiation. This is actually regulation and science."

The commission also debated an on‑island sand‑storage requirement. Draft language proposed keeping an on‑island stockpile equal to 10% of the construction-year volume (staff said the wording needs work to reflect phasing and the type of mitigation in place). Some commissioners and members of the public favored a higher buffer because barges and weather can delay off‑island deliveries; applicants suggested contract terms guaranteeing quick access to sand from the source instead of double‑handling on‑island stockpiles.

A separate and related discussion focused on public access language in the draft order. The chair proposed dropping the subjective phrase "walkable beach" and replacing it with a regulatory standard: "failure to maintain unobstructed access alongshore." Commissioners debated specific metrics to trigger a failure (options discussed included a 10‑foot or 20‑foot clear width measured relative to structure location and mean high water) and agreed that failure would be judged only after repeated measures rather than a single short‑term storm impact. The draft failure mechanism ties monitoring to quarterly surveys; two consecutive quarterly surveys showing loss of the required access would constitute a failure and start a 30‑day cure period.

What the commission decided: the hearing was continued to Jan. 23 to allow staff and the applicants to refine the draft order language on the sand‑deficit accounting, the on‑island storage clause, and the access/failure criteria and to circulate updated materials. The commission asked staff to add an administrative condition (metal tags on installed structures for future identification) and requested written confirmation if the applicants intend to consolidate other related applications into this order.

Votes and formal actions at the meeting were procedural: the commission approved the meeting agenda by roll call at the start of the session, and members later voted to adjourn and explicitly continued the SVPF hearing to Jan. 23 for further work. The commission did not adopt the draft order at the Jan. 15 session and took no final permitting vote.

The commission left numerous technical and legal questions unresolved: how to reconcile the earlier SE 2824 obligation with the applicant’s adaptive‑management proposal; the exact compensatory total (staff’s 105,465 cubic yards vs. the applicant’s requested 80,000); how to measure and enforce unobstructed alongshore access across differing mitigation types (geotextile tubes, coir terraces, sacrificial dunes); and precise wording for on‑island sand storage and emergency access. The hearing resumes Jan. 23 and may be continued to a special meeting to finalize those items.