Zoning board continues Surfside Crossing 40B hearing after water, fire safety and stormwater concerns

The Zoning Board of Appeals on Feb. 19 continued the public hearing on Surfside Crossing, a proposed 40B development at South Shore and Surfside, to March 4 to allow further submissions and for the town consultant to attempt an update of a 2018 hydro/stormwater report.

The board acted after extended public comment from neighbors and technical witnesses who said the project’s underground stormwater design may not meet Massachusetts stormwater standards for high-pollutant land uses or for sensitive wellhead areas, and after repeated concerns from firefighters and public commenters about emergency access and water availability for a large fire.

Why it matters: The site sits inside the town’s wellhead protection area and near private wells, and commenters and retained experts said the project’s proposed reliance on subsurface infiltration could allow soluble contaminants — including PFAS — to reach the aquifer. Witnesses also warned the development’s single full roadway access and narrow emergency access could hamper firefighting on an island with limited mutual aid.

The hearing opened with town counsel George Pucci joining by Zoom and reporting that the Housing Appeals Committee (HAC) granted a partial extension that moves the deadline to close the public hearing to March 4. “They granted it in part, and they granted an extension of the deadline to close the public hearing to March 4,” Pucci said, urging the board to take advantage of the extra time so it can consider any new material.

Board staff said the March 4 session will be Zoom-only and the chair said the board’s goal at that session is to hear any remaining public testimony before closing the hearing.

Public testimony and expert evidence

Residents and preservation and water groups pressed technical points at length. Dr. Tim Lepore, a longtime island resident, told the board, “I think this plan should be reviewed at the state level by the state fire marshal,” and described concerns about narrow site access and limited island firefighting resources.

Sean Reardon, an engineer appearing for the Nantucket Land and Water Council, argued the project does not include the treatment elements specifically identified in the stormwater standards for higher-pollutant land uses and sensitive areas. Reardon told the board that the standards “require treatment by the specific structural BMPs determined to be suitable for treating runoff from such land uses.” He said the project’s design relies on pretreatment and subsurface infiltration but lacks the vegetated treatment measures the standards list as “suitable” for higher-polluting uses and Zone 2 locations.

Emily Molden of the Nantucket Land and Water Council and chemist Kristen Mello urged stricter scrutiny because of PFAS detections on the island and the site’s location in a wellhead protection district. Molden said the council had hired experts “because these issues really need to be fully vetted and understood so that you, as a board, can make the best informed decision.” Mello told the board that a monitoring well would only show contamination after it has occurred and argued that prevention is the only reliable protection for the aquifer.

Applicant’s team and town peer review

Don Bracken, the project engineer, responded that the submitted design meets the stormwater management standards as interpreted in past Nantucket projects and that the design uses pretreatment measures plus infiltration to meet the required suspended-solids removal and recharge metrics. He emphasized space constraints on the island and said above-ground vegetated basins are often not feasible at this site.

Applicant counsel Paul Haverty said the town’s consultant report from 2018 is an independent town document and that the applicant is not obligated to fund an independent update; Haverty said the applicant does not accept a requirement to pay for a town-conducted review.

Town counsel noted he had requested Bristol Engineering update its 2018 hydro-report and that Bristol’s signatory had said getting a thorough update by March 4 would be difficult but that an engagement letter would be provided and expedited if possible. Pucci said the town manager had already authorized outreach to Bristol Engineering.

Other concerns raised

- Fire and emergency access: Multiple speakers, including former and current fire personnel and residents, said the site’s access routes are narrow and that the development’s layout could impede firefighting. Commenters asked the board to seek a state fire marshal review.

- Water supply and firefighting demand: Public comments noted the Veranda House fire and island well vulnerabilities; witness testimony described how large firefighting flows can strain local wells and potentially mobilize contaminant plumes.

- Monitoring and operations: Critics asked who would oversee maintenance and monitoring of subsurface systems and whether ongoing water-quality testing would be required; town staff said operation-and-maintenance plans are typically reviewed by the town’s planning process but that the sewer/stormwater oversight framework remains under development.

Board actions and next steps

The board voted to continue the public hearing to March 4 at 1 p.m., to be Zoom-only, so members can take additional public testimony and — if available — consider an updated Bristol Engineering supplement. The chair said the board intends to receive public testimony first and then enter board deliberations.

Votes at the meeting included routine approval of the agenda and the motion to continue the hearing; both motions were carried by voice vote. The board closed the meeting by a motion to adjourn.

What remains unresolved: testimony and expert filings conflict on whether the proposed subsurface-only treatment approach meets the explicit treatment options listed in Massachusetts stormwater standards for higher-pollutant uses and Zone 2 wellhead protection areas. The applicant’s team maintains the design complies with local precedent and technical criteria; opponents and independent experts say the record lacks evidence to find no groundwater degradation and urged either stronger treatment (vegetated detention/bioretention) or denial.

The hearing will reconvene March 4 by Zoom only. If Bristol Engineering provides an updated report before that date the board may receive it for consideration; Pucci cautioned that evidence received after a public hearing’s close may not be admissible for deliberation. The board did not take a final vote on the project at the Feb. 19 session.