Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Coastal Resilience 2 Shore Road topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Coastal resilience panel questions pool plans as dwelling is moved to 2 Shore Road
Summary
The advisory committee reviewed a plan to move a dwelling from 92 Washington Street to 2 Shore Road, including elevating structures to flood-elevation requirements; members said they will advise the Conservation Commission to discourage pools in this high-risk coastal zone or require stricter design conditions.
The Coastal Resilience Advisory Committee on Jan. 27 reviewed a Notice of Intent to relocate a dwelling from 92 Washington Street to 2 Shore Road and to add a garage, deck and an above‑grade pool. Paul Santos of Nantucket Surveyors, representing the applicant, told the committee the property sits in AE flood zone with a base flood elevation of 8 and "the minimum first floor elevation that is required is elevation 10." Santos said the work would use elevated foundations with flood vents and that no fill would be placed on the site.
Committee members pressed the applicant on several technical points: whether the two properties share ownership (they do not), how impervious surface and decks would affect runoff, and how construction materials and potential pool drainage would be handled during storms. Santos said elevated foundations, flood vents, and protocols that prohibit storing fuels or oils on site are typical order‑of‑conditions controls and that pool discharge, if necessary, would be removed by tanker rather than allowed to flow into the neighborhood or harbor.
The committee focused most of its discussion on the proposed pool. Matt Fee cited studies and local experience and warned that "a saltwater pool is creating forever chemicals" and that other jurisdictions have restricted such pools. Paul Santos read the Conservation Commission's standard on pools: "all swimming pools are required to be designed to have no ability to interact with floodwaters." Several members noted that the town's Coastal Resilience Plan (CRP) discourages large structural investments in high coastal risk areas except where necessary for public safety.
Members said the application appears to meet several code and conservation requirements but expressed concern that approving pools in such locations sets a precedent. "I would actively discourage anyone in this location adding a pool," said Doug Rose, summarizing a position echoed by multiple members. Staff member Leah Hill said she would draft the committee's comment letter to be included in the Conservation Commission packet for the project's Feb. 5 hearing and would circulate a draft to committee leads before submission.
The committee offered specific technical suggestions to strengthen the project's resilience, including increasing the vertical separation between the pool bottom and existing grade (the applicant records the pool bottom as 1 foot above grade) and ensuring utilities and exterior mechanicals are elevated above the flood elevation. Santos also described proposed helical piles and a grade beam to support the elevated pool and building while allowing floodwaters to pass below.
Next steps: Leah Hill will draft the committee's advisory letter for the Conservation Commission hearing on Feb. 5; the applicant will bring the project to Conservation Commission and the Historic District Commission for additional review. The committee said it would emphasize the site's high coastal risk and either recommend against private pools there or recommend stronger elevation and drainage controls if Conservation Commission permits one.
