Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surfside Crossing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Nantucket Board of Appeals signals intent to deny Surfside Crossing change over stormwater, access and safety concerns
Summary
The Town of Nantucket Board of Appeals on March 19 opened public deliberations on Surfside Crossing (case 02524) and signaled a likely denial of the developer’s project change, citing unresolved stormwater and water‑quality risks, single emergency access, and fire and traffic safety concerns.
Get email alerts on the Surfside Crossing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Town of Nantucket Board of Appeals on March 19 opened public deliberations on Surfside Crossing (case 02524) and signaled a likely denial of the developer’s project change, citing unresolved stormwater and water‑quality risks, single emergency access, and fire and traffic safety concerns. The board set a further deliberation for April 2 at 1 p.m. and scheduled a final meeting to consider and sign a decision the week of April 11.
Board members said the public hearing for the Surfside Crossing application closed March 4 and that the board’s decision action deadline is April 13, 2025. Multiple members told the board they had little confidence that outstanding technical concerns — especially stormwater performance and potential impacts to the aquifer — had been mitigated by the applicant. Several members also cited written comments and peer reviews from the Board of Health, the Fire Department and other town departments as weighing against approval.
Counsel George (Town counsel) advised the board that if it finds evidence in the record that supports denial, the board should issue a denial and that counsel would defend that decision on appeal. George explained the appeals process the board should expect: an applicant unhappy with a denial may appeal to the state Housing Appeals Committee (HAC), which will adjudicate the administrative appeal and may then be subject to judicial review in Superior Court. George said interested community parties can seek intervenor status when an appeal is filed. He told the board, “If you think that there is evidence in the record that compels you to deny this project, you should do that. And we’ll defend it.”
Board members described a number of specific, recurring concerns: uncertainty about the project’s effect on groundwater and stormwater, loss of a second (double) access that had previously been shown, emergency access and fire‑safety risks, traffic and density issues, and a pattern of what some members described as the developer’s unwillingness to modify plans in response to town input. Members also noted that the site had been clear‑cut and that infrastructure (utility work) had been installed at the developer’s risk; several members said that behavior diminished their confidence in the applicant’s willingness to negotiate mitigation.
Staff reported two pieces of outstanding technical correspondence the board had expected: a letter from Bristol Engineering saying the earliest review they could provide would be March 31, and correspondence from the Fire Chief confirming that required drawings had been submitted to the department. The board said no additional materials had been received beyond those items.
Because the board did not take a final vote on denial at the March 19 session, no formal permit decision was recorded. The board did, however, vote on meeting scheduling: Lisa moved and John seconded a motion to continue deliberations to April 2 at 1 p.m.; the motion passed unanimously. The meeting ended after the board also took a routine motion to adjourn.
Next steps: town counsel will prepare a draft denial decision for the board’s deliberations on April 2; the board expects to review counsel’s draft at that meeting and to aim for a final vote and signature in the week of April 11 so the decision can be filed before the statutory deadline. If the board ultimately issues a denial, the applicant may appeal to the Housing Appeals Committee, which will hold an administrative hearing and issue a decision that could then be subject to judicial review in Superior Court. While an administrative appeal is pending at HAC, the developer would not be able to proceed as of right.
Votes at a glance - Motion to continue the matter to April 2, 2025 at 1:00 p.m.: moved by Lisa; seconded by John; vote — 6 yes, 0 no, outcome approved. - Motion to adjourn: outcome approved.
(Procedural note: the public hearing for case 02524 closed 03/04/2025; the board noted a decision action deadline of 04/13/2025.)

