Board gives nonbinding approval to 11 Pinecrest preliminary subdivision; asks staff to pursue roadway and pedestrian options

The Nantucket Planning Board on May 12 provided preliminary, nonbinding feedback and authorized staff to draft a letter to the applicant for an eight‑lot subdivision at 11 Pinecrest (also accessed from Marion Drive). The board and staff focused on roadway design, pedestrian connections and parking implications.

What the applicant proposed: Dan Malloy, engineer for the applicant, described the site as roughly a 45,000‑square‑foot parcel in the R‑5 district (5,000‑square‑foot minimum lot size). The plan showed eight lots served by a cul‑de‑sac largely accessed from Mary Ann (Marion) Drive, and the applicant proposed a 16‑foot paved roadway with Cape Cod berms; the applicant said roadway dimensions draw on recent approvals nearby.

Board and staff discussion: Board members asked whether off‑site improvements would be required near Mary Ann and Old South Road and whether pedestrian or emergency connections to Pinecrest should be considered. Planning staff and transportation staff noted the plan is preliminary and additional roadway review will follow; staff said applicants should expect to contribute to improvements where appropriate and noted the board has recently suggested a $2,500 contribution per structure as a guideline for off‑site improvements.

Pinecrest access and future connections: Pinecrest is currently a common‑drive easement rather than a public road, and the board discussed whether an easement for pedestrian or emergency access would be appropriate in a future definitive plan. Planning staff said the Pinecrest conversion to a county layout is a long‑term process, but recommended reserving a potential future pedestrian connection rather than guaranteeing a vehicular cut‑through. “Consideration for a minimum future pedestrian connection… is something the board should take under consideration,” a staff member said.

Other concerns: Board members asked applicants to ensure adequate on‑site parking given nearby street‑parking problems, to consider sidewalks in the lollipop cul‑de‑sac and to think about year‑round housing and deed‑restriction opportunities to improve attainability. One board member noted the new inclusionary zoning would not apply to this proposal.

Outcome and next steps: The board authorized staff to draft a nonbinding advisory letter reflecting the board’s comments and to sign it on the chair’s behalf; the preliminary plan was approved as nonbinding advice to guide the applicant toward a definitive submission. The applicant will return with a definitive plan addressing staff comments and the board’s concerns about roadway width, sidewalks and potential emergency/pedestrian connections.

Quote: “Because we’re in the preliminary phase… everything’s on the table,” the applicant’s representative said. “We want the board’s feedback before the definitive plan.”

Ending: The board’s action carried as a nonbinding step; staff will work with the applicant and transportation staff on roadway width, potential sidewalk and conditions the board identified for the definitive plan.