Nantucket ZBA closes Surfside Crossing hearing, asks fire chief to seek state review and sets deliberations for March 19

The Town of Nantucket Zoning Board of Appeals closed the public hearing on the Surfside Crossing comprehensive-permit application (20-25-24) on March 4 and voted to ask the Nantucket Fire Department to forward project plans to the Massachusetts Department of Fire Services for an additional review. The board set deliberations to begin at 1 p.m. March 19 at the Nantucket Public Safety Facility.

The matter before the board is a comprehensive-permit application for Surfside Crossing LLC under Massachusetts Chapter 40B rules. The hearing closure ends the public-comment portion of the proceeding; the board’s March 19 meeting will be an open deliberation without additional public comment. Chair Susan McCarthy opened the meeting and confirmed board and staff attendance before the discussion began.

Why it matters: The project drew sustained public safety and emergency-access concerns from abutters and public-safety experts, and the board spent much of the meeting on whether to obtain an independent peer review and on securing an outside fire-safety assessment. Those items could introduce new technical information into the record before the board issues a decision.

Peer-review update and who pays

Board members discussed whether to withdraw a request for an updated peer review from Bristol Engineers after the Select Board did not vote on funding before the ZBA’s hearing deadline. The meeting record contains an estimate for the update described as being “in the ballpark of $8,000 to $11,000” (amounts cited in the record are approximate). The board decided not to withdraw the request and to let the Select Board decide whether to authorize the consultant contract.

George Pucci of KP Law, who advises the ZBA, recommended a path forward if the Select Board does authorize the consultant: "I would recommend filing a motion to reopen the hearing just for the limited purpose of accepting that report and also hearing any comment on it either from the applicant or interested third parties," Pucci said during the meeting.

Pucci said that if the Select Board does authorize the contract and the consultant produces a report by the end of the month, the ZBA could reopen the hearing for that limited purpose so the board could consider the new material. He also noted the board could seek reimbursement from the applicant by motion, though success would depend on later proceedings.

Public-safety, medical-capacity and secondary access concerns

Opponents emphasized emergency access and local medical capacity as core reasons to deny the project. Attorney Duranzes (identified in the record as representing opponents) introduced a letter and an expert statement from Dr. Timothy Lepore into the record. The document submitted by Duranzes warned that the proposed site configuration — “one-road entrance size and massing of the 19 large buildings, the density of the number of future residents and their expected vehicles” — would “ignore the limitations on medical facilities to address a major emergency.” The submission noted Nantucket Cottage Hospital’s limited capacity and said a large-scale casualty event could overwhelm island resources.

Duranzes summarized the testimony: "Pretty much everybody who knows what they're doing and is familiar with Nantucket ... want secondary access," and asked the board to add Dr. Lepore’s statement to a list of reasons to deny the permit.

Board members referenced previous sworn testimony from municipal and former emergency-management personnel and several first-responder witnesses who had urged secondary access. The ZBA agreed to include Duranzes’ materials in the record and to make them available to the board for deliberations.

Fire-department and state review

Several speakers asked the ZBA to secure an independent fire-safety review from the Massachusetts State Fire Marshal’s Office. The town’s planning staff had requested comment from the Nantucket Fire Department; the fire chief responded in writing that he could forward plans to the state but had concluded the project as submitted complies with the state fire code and that a second means of egress, while preferred, is not required.

After discussion, Lisa Botticelli made a motion asking the fire chief to forward the Surfside Crossing plans to the Massachusetts Department of Fire Services for review; Alisa Allen seconded. The board approved the motion on a roll-call vote (Lisa Botticelli: aye; Alisa Allen: aye; Jim Mundani: aye; John Brescher: aye; Chair Susan McCarthy: aye).

Short-term rentals and affordable-unit restrictions

Dennis Murphy, appearing for the Nantucket Land and Water Council, raised a separate issue: a recorded regulatory agreement attached to the project file that the council says includes an affordable-housing restriction barring leasing of the affordable units and giving the monitoring agent authority to recover rents. Murphy said that prohibition appears to bar short-term rentals (STRs) for the affordable units and urged the board to consider STR restrictions if it were to approve the permit with conditions.

Attorney Paul Haverty, representing the applicant, responded that Housing Appeals Committee (HAC) precedent has overturned local conditions that bar short-term rentals for market-rate units and said a similar restriction would likely be set aside. Haverty said his client has offered to work with the town to market up to 75% of all units to year-round residents, but he cautioned that an outright ban on STRs for market-rate units may be vulnerable on appeal.

Board schedule and procedural votes

The ZBA took multiple formal votes during the meeting: it approved the meeting agenda; it voted to ask the fire chief to forward plans to the state fire marshal for review; it voted to close the public hearing on Surfside Crossing; it voted to continue deliberations at 1 p.m. March 19 at the Nantucket Public Safety Facility; and it adjourned the session. All recorded roll-call votes passed unanimously.

What’s next

The ZBA’s deliberations on March 19 will be an open meeting (the board indicated it will not accept new public comment during deliberations). The transcript and the exhibits introduced March 4 — including Dr. Lepore’s letter and the regulatory agreement cited by Dennis Murphy — will be part of the public record available for the board’s review.

Speakers quoted in this article spoke at the March 4 meeting or submitted written material entered into the record.