L E T T E R S

SAVE THE SCRUTINY; A LITTLE INNOVATION MAY BE FINE

To the editor:

The issue of using round fiberglass columns on Nantucket houses has been in debate at the HDC for a couple years now. For at least the last 12 years builders have been using these materials in island construction where round porch columns are specified.

There are probably 100 or more island homes with these materials already on them. The reasoning is that fiberglass columns are more weather resistant, most manufacturer's do not warrantee the use of wood columns for exterior uses, many of the manufacturer's wood columns are actually made with some fiberglass parts and it is virtually impossible to distinguish the difference between a wood and fiberglass columns up close, much less at a distance.

Many of the local Nantucket architects and designers have maintained the position that this material should be allowed in areas outside of the historic districts on non-historic structures. There is already a distinction in the material uses allowed between the core districts and the outlying areas for the use of certain type of roof shingles, vinyl and aluminum clad windows, and vinyl shutters, for example. Such a material distinction could be easily applied with the same type of parameters.

The undercurrent of this debate is really about asking the Commission to have a more consistent pattern of review and enforcement, because this Commission has been signing off fiberglass columns installed on Nantucket houses for many years without question. The HDC has only made this into a problem issue in the last two years. The Commission has maintained that there has been no change in policy, but it is hard for many people who have experienced and negotiated this process for years to not feel as if a policy change had been imposed without following proper procedures. No one has offered any real explanation how so many houses were signed off with this material, if it was so obviously against the rules.

This issue is not after all about using cheaper materials, fiberglass columns are more expensive than their wood counterparts. The installation process does not require less labor, builders actually hand paint these columns to match the house. The debate is also not about changing Nantucket's houses over to all plastic parts; no one who works on Nantucket's architecture regularly is advocating such a change. But, we simply must recognize that the island is a harsh maritime environment in which to build.

Materials and technology for construction are changing all the time and sometimes these changes are not based on making things look cheap and non-traditional but about improving the quality of construction while maintaining traditional appearances. A little innovation might be okay on new houses in more remote areas of the island. Save this kind of scrutiny for the island's historic homes which are too often being overlooked so that a stand can be taken on issues like this.

Sincerely,

- Steven Blashfield ALL THE BEST FOR CHIEF PIERCE

To the editor:

In reading of the positive results of Fire Chief Everett Pierce, I realize what a loss his leaving is to the Nantucket Community.

During his tenure, the Chief fostered a climate that allows, among other things, important policies to anticipate possible disasters - and apply for grants funding to move forward. He has been responsible for procedures and equipment that will have a lasting influence on Nantucket.

I had the privilege of serving in a nonprofit organization with the Chief so I have first hand knowledge of his concern for the Island. Nantucket owes the Chief a hearty thank you.

Chief, I wish you the best in all your future endeavors. Know that you are valued and will be missed.

- Bette M. Spriggs. TRASH BE GONE

To the editor:

This past Saturday morning more that a dozen folks from Nantucket's volunteer "Clean Team" arose at a very early hour to travel to Coatue for a beach cleanup.

Armed with gloves, heavy duty trash bags, and energy they spread themselves out over 1 1/2 miles of Coatue's north-facing beach. Working from the water line to the back of the primary dune they filled bags with several hundred pounds of trash that had floated or blown in over the winter months.

In 90 minutes they were finished with only a line of bulging trash bags left to be hauled away. The Conservation Foundation's sincerest thanks to the Clean Team volunteers and Saturday's organizers Bill Connell and Sarah Oktay.

We urge everyone who benefits from this group's Saturday morning outings to give them a thank you honk and thumbs up when you spot them working the edge of an island road. You might even consider joining them!

- Jim Lentowski Executive Director Nantucket Conservation Foundation, Inc.

AT WHAT EXPENSE?

The following letter was originally sent to Congressman Barney Frank and is reprinted here at the author's request.

Dear Congressman Frank:

I have read that you have changed you position, and that you are now supporting Cape Wind.

On the surface, the Cape Wind proposal for Nantucket Sound may be seen by many as a step toward energy independence and a cleaner environment. The Marine Minerals Management Service is creating policy for governance of offshore resource development. We have not yet established the areas that will remain off limits to industrialization; or a comprehensive offshore management policy within which to review this developer's precedent setting proposal.

We are in a concurrent review of this project while the new regulations to govern off shore alternative use development are being created. This simultaneous process makes little sense because the pubic and cooperating agencies are deprived of the ability to comment and participate in a process with an understanding of the underlying principles that serve as the basis for federal action.

This deficiency, in turn, diminishes the value of the public and cooperating agencies review of Cape Wind. The public and reviewing agencies are incapable of providing informed consent regarding this project as it stands. The "NIMBY" and back door "poison pill amendment" arguments should all be put aside as they obfuscate the valid issues presented by the Cape Wind proposal.

We are derelict to be without policy and to be actively considering a developer's precedent setting proposal that would turn an internationally recognized tourist destination; prolific ecosystem with endangered and threatened species present, and the world's finest surviving example of a historic whaling port, into an industrial scale wind facility the size of Manhattan.

Fishing and marine trades form the economic backbone of Cape Cod and the Islands. The Massachusetts Fishermen's Partnership, an organization that represents 3,000 Massachusetts' commercial fishermen, states that Cape Wind would pose a "significant hazard to their vessels in this waterway." Nantucket Sound is an Essential Fish Habitat, and our prime fishing ground under current use with federally protected marine mammals and finfish present.

Mass. Audubon scientists have determined that up to 6,600 birds would be killed per year by Cape Wind. The Marine Mammal Commission has stated that Cape Wind would cause a "taking of marine mammals by harassment."

The Cape Wind produced draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was found grossly deficient by federal agencies, and was given a "Category 3 Inadequate" rating by EPA Region 1. The state of Massachusetts has not approved this project. Rather, only one of several permitting agencies has given preliminary approval for the cable portion of the project. The Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs also noted significant shortcomings in the DEIS and wrote a 26-page decision outlining additional work areas to be addressed by the applicant. The Department of the Interior called the 3,800 page DEIS, "at best incomplete, too often inaccurate and/or misleading."

The Air Traffic Controllers Union at Cape Approach states that they, "could not think of a worse place to put these turbines." The Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority states this proposal poses a "significant hazard to safe navigation." The Barnstable Airport, Martha's Vineyard Airport, and the Nantucket Memorial Airport have all written letters against this project. The Barnstable Airport states that this project is "Lethal."

The British Ministry of Defense determination that a Hawk jet will disappear from radar when flying over a wind farm is being taken very seriously by our Department of Defense. The airspace in Nantucket Sound is traversed by about 400,000 flights annually.

The devil lies in the details of this proposal, Congressman Frank. I agree that we should embrace "clean, green, renewable, energy" but not at the expense of the public safety and our wildlife, and not in the wrong place, Nantucket Sound.

- Barbara Durkin