Islanders critique Great Harbor at DEP hearing
BY PETER B. BRACE
The state Department of Environmental Protection wants to issue a decision on Great Harbor Yacht Club’s waterways license sometime next spring.

Ben Lynch, DEP program chief of the Chapter 91 waterway protection statute, speaks to a group of islanders on Thursday.

Ben Lynch, DEP program chief of the Chapter 91 waterway protection statute, came to Nantucket last Thursday to hear what Nantucketers thought of the yacht club proposed for 96 and 97 Washington St. Ext. and got an earful from many islanders, including neighbors and abutters of the project, who have tracked its progress over the last three and a half years.

Though Lynch heard about 90 minutes of new information, many of the issues were old hat for those stumping for their resolutions. As part of the hearing procedure, Lynch gave Great Harbor’s representatives the option of not responding to questions and comments and, instead, sending him written responses. Developer Gary McCarthy and club attorney Sarah Alger deferred to this option most of the time, but did address several questions.

Questions and comments dealt with issues dogging Great Harbor for much of its permitting process, including the water-dependency status of 96 Washington St. Ext., the disputed 1,433-square-foot triangle-shaped lot adjacent to the south bulkhead that the club and the town both lay claim to, drainage issues, public access, the club’s boat-hauling abilities and environmental impacts.

First to speak were the three selectmen at the hearing — Chairman Whitey Willauer, Brian Chadwick and Michael Kopko — after Willauer called a meeting of the selectmen to account for the impromptu quorum.

DRAINAGE

Speaking first, Chadwick and Willauer pointed out that the selectmen had yet to sign off on the club’s plan to tie into the town’s stormwater outflow system that flows into the manmade wetland at the end of the street. But Conservation Commission administrator Dirk Roggeveen reminded them that the club had a right to tie into the pipes if they ran by their property. McCarthy said, and Lynch agreed, that drainage of stormwater is not under the jurisdiction of Chapter 91 for this application.

Besides, said Roggeveen, the club’s Stormceptor catch basins are known to discharge extremely clean water before it flows out into the harbor.

JUST ADD WATER

Water-dependency, Willauer’s main concern, brought other islanders in attendance into the discussion. In late November, Lynch ruled that Great Harbor’s proposed facilities at 96 Washington St. Ext. were waterdependent and Willauer asked why and how.

Citing Great Harbor’s water-related uses — including 40 boat slips, valet boat storage for 10 boats, 30 members with boats moored in the harbor serviced by the club’s launch and the junior sailing program with 18 boats — Lynch said the amalgamation of uses means this portion of club property is water-dependent.

“The way we approached this is that there has to be a primary water dependency use on the operation,” said Lynch. “It can’t be secondary. So that you’ve got a very large restaurant and a small marine operation to go with having the restaurant; they have to be commensurate in scale. The accessory use cannot swallow the water-dependent use.”

Christine Silverstein, executive director of Sustainable Nantucket, peppered Lynch with questions on how he and DEP arrive at waterdependency rulings, and how he ensures the non-water-dependent uses that are proportionate to the accessory water-dependent uses.

Lynch admitted that since DEP began licensing water-dependent uses in filled tidelands in 1984, Great Harbor’s application is the first they have scrutinized.

“We were less concerned whether there would be weddings and whether there would be corporate meetings,” he said. “We know what would go on there and are more concerned with the robustness of the water-dependent use that would go on.”

TRAVELIFT VS. CRANE

Two of the issues that worry islanders are the disputed triangle of land, and the club’s switch from a Travelift to a 30-ton crane. That crane would sit on the south side of the property and lift boats onto and off trailers. It would also haul boats to storage and to Grey Lady Marine’s boat barn across the street.

Though Great Harbor removed the lot from its plans, some believe the town still owns land at the end of the wharf that the crane will have to swing over while moving boats.

“Can the Travelift move without going over town land?” Willauer asked McCarthy.

“I think everybody in this room is completely aware that we have removed the triangle of land until at such time this thing is resolved,” said McCarthy. “We’ve also presented in detail the way the crane would remove the boats from the water and that it would not swing the boat over town land.”

Nantucketer Duncan Fog, having spoken with mainland boatyard operators, contested McCarthy’s claim. He said that Travelifts move more boats faster and that cranes require three people to operate.

“Mr. McCarthy just stated that at a very shallow angle, a boat could be lifted from one of its positions, not crossing town-owned land, not encroaching on wetlands,” said Fog. “The crane would have to function on a better than 180-degree arc to transport a boat. Let’s say a boat’s 30, 40 feet long and 10-, 12-foot draft. In any kind of wind, how can you not cross wetlands? It just doesn’t pan out.”

Marine Superintendent Dave Fronzuto also questioned the adequacy of a crane over a Travelift in hauling boats prior to storms.

“I’ve worked with these folks for a long time and this is the first I’ve heard of a crane,” he said. “I know how well the Travelift works; it works extremely well.”

The whole issue of a crane replacing the Travelift could be solved if Great Harbor did not move its boat removal/launching operation from its current location on the north side of the property to the south, according to the Nantucket Land Council. The Council advocates minimal dredging, and a smaller pier and float installation. Cormac Collier, executive director of the Nantucket Land Council, told Lynch that Great Harbor’s eelgrass remediation proposal of six to 10 meters of planted eelgrass — the club’s ConCom order of conditions calls for approximately 15 meters— does not compensate for 795 cubic yards of sand and eelgrass being removed from a 15,270-square-foot area that the dredging for the piers will wipe out.

“Our main concerns as they relate to Chapter 91 proceedings is that a significant fishing and shellfish nursery area providing a multitude of public benefits is being destroyed for private purposes,” Collier told Lynch on Dec. 14. “We have continually stated that there are clear and definitive alternatives that are available to prevent this habitat destruction such as keeping the Travelift in its current location, reducing the size of the pier and float system, and reducing or eliminating the dredging component.”

FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD

Two of Nantucket’s most ardent activists in protection of the harbor and island interests, Charles Sayle III and Steve Bender, took this opportunity to get their requests heard by DEP.

Sayle asked that the Travelift be left where it is, that the public walkway around the edge of the wharf be linked to a public dinghy dock and space for loading and unloading commercial boats, and that the public walkway not dead-end on the beach below the north bulkhead, but circle back from the north across the property.

Bender stressed that all boat washing and maintainance be done on a concrete pad with proper containment of toxic liquids; that all 40 yacht club slips be hooked into the town’s sewage main on Washington Street Extension; that there be a 50- to 100- foot buffer between the docks and the marine habitat and that the dredging be done as delicately as possible.

I