Nantucket ZBA hears dispute over Surfside Crossing waivers; orders hydrogeologic update, sets Feb. 19 continuation

The Nantucket Zoning Board of Appeals on Tuesday continued public hearings on Surfside Crossing LLC’s revised 156‑unit development and focused the session on the applicant’s requested zoning waivers, competing expert claims about stormwater and groundwater impacts in the public wellhead recharge area, and design and parking concerns.

Board members heard opposing technical testimony from the applicant’s counsel and consultants and from the Nantucket Land and Water Council, Tipping Point and residents. After discussion the board voted to ask town administration to seek an updated 2018 Bristol Engineering hydrogeologic report and agreed to continue the public hearing to Feb. 19. The board also approved a separate, board-initiated request that town council seek an extension from the Housing Appeals Committee of the statutory deadlines for this matter.

Why it matters: The waivers under review would lift or alter local dimensional and procedural rules for a project sited partly in the town’s public wellhead recharge area (Zone 2). Opponents told the board they have submitted consultant testimony alleging the project would increase pollutant loads and cannot meet the Zone 2 standard that, if exercised, requires recharge of 95% of precipitation and no degradation of groundwater quality. The applicant says its stormwater system complies with state and local stormwater standards.

Most important points first:

- Stormwater and wellhead concerns dominated public comment. Janice Murphy of the Nantucket Land and Water Council told the board the applicant has not shown it can achieve 95% recharge or avoid groundwater degradation and pointed to expert testimony that the project’s proposed impervious cover (the plans show 52% impervious) will increase pollutant loads. “I don't see any data, any response” addressing the 95% recharge standard, Murphy said. (Janice Murphy, Nantucket Land and Water Council.)

- Applicant counsel Paul Haverty said the developer’s consultants find the proposed stormwater management system meets state and local standards and that the requested waivers are procedural in some cases; he said the team will respond to Weston & Sampson’s letter at the next hearing. “My client's consultants are informing them that the proposed stormwater management system meets all applicable standards and will protect the groundwater,” Haverty said.

- The board voted to ask town administration to request an updated Bristol Engineering hydrogeologic report (originally prepared in 2018). The motion passed and was seconded; the board asked staff to transmit the request to the town manager. (Motion passed.)

- The board voted to request that town counsel seek an extension of the statutory deadlines through the Housing Appeals Committee (HAC) and to continue the public hearing to Feb. 19, 1 p.m.; both motions passed.

What the hearing covered (details, in order of importance):

Stormwater, groundwater recharge and wellhead protections

Public commenters and conservation attorneys pressed the board on the project’s location in the town’s public wellhead recharge district and on the technical standard members should apply. Janice Murphy (Nantucket Land and Water Council) said the board has discretion under the local wellhead‑protection bylaw to allow more than 15% impervious area only if the applicant proves two things: 95% recharge and no groundwater degradation. Murphy and other opponents cited consultant testimony that the project will generate pollutant loading from 6.5 acres of pavement and “over 7,000,000 gallons a year of stormwater,” increasing risk to local wells.

Attorney Paul Haverty (applicant counsel) said the revised project relies on a stormwater management system his consultants say complies with state and local standards and that the related waiver is procedural rather than substantive; he said the applicant will address Weston & Sampson’s recent letter at the next hearing. Town counsel George Pucci (KP Law) advised the board that competing expert reports are already on the record and that the board must weigh conflicting consultant testimony on substantive issues such as the 95% recharge and “no degradation” standard.

Requests to update older analyses

Board members asked the town to consider updating a 2018 Bristol Engineering hydrogeologic report. The board voted to request that town administration ask Bristol to update its report; town counsel said any such request should be routed through the town manager. The board discussed timing and whether an updated Bristol report could be produced before the hearing closes; staff said it would try to post any new materials as soon as they arrive and asked parties to submit materials by noon on Friday for posting that afternoon.

Waivers and other zoning issues under review

Attorney Haverty read a detailed comparison of waivers the applicant seeks for the modified project versus waivers requested for the original project. Notable items included:

- Relief from the local use chart and certain overlay restrictions to allow the proposed 156 condominiums in the project area. The applicant said one waiver previously requested for the original plan (limiting impervious coverage to 15% of 2,500 sq. ft.) is no longer needed for the modified proposal, though opponents dispute that change.

- Dimensional waivers: the modified plan requests a front yard setback waiver tied to a potential generator for a sewer pump. Applicant engineer Don Bracken explained the pump/generator component was included in earlier plans but may not be necessary if the sewer plant upgrades proceed; generators would be propane powered if used.

- Height: the modified project requests a waiver above the local 30‑foot height limit. The Housing Appeals Committee previously calculated a maximum project height of 32 feet, 7 inches; the applicant is requesting relief in that range for some buildings.

- Parking and land‑banked spaces: the applicant used 1 space per bedroom to calculate required parking for the condominium design and said it proposes roughly 293 spaces, with 8 shown as land‑banked (to be constructed later if needed). Board members and several commenters raised concerns about whether the bylaw’s apartment/condominium parking standards reflect Nantucket conditions, visitor parking, and emergency access. The applicant said the modified plan reduces the number of bedrooms compared with the earlier project and provides more parking in total than the original submission.

Historic District and building massing

Members of the public and HDC commenters raised concerns about building massing and repetition and urged more variation and lower mass along South Shore Road. Several board members asked whether modest design changes — for example, reducing top plate or trimming certain shingled areas — could reduce perceived height and massing without fundamentally changing the proposal. Applicant counsel said the applicant has no intention of redesigning the project further at this time but acknowledged it would review any conditions in a final decision to determine whether they render the project uneconomic.

Public comment highlights

Resident John Cowden, an abutter, described clearing on the site, concerns about snow‑disposal runoff and contaminants reaching local wells, and the loss of wooded buffers that were part of earlier marketing materials. “What we can't live with is a clear and present danger to the aquifer and the clean water it contributes to our wells,” Cowden said.

Board actions, procedural rulings and next steps

Votes at a glance: - Approve meeting agenda as drafted — motion by John (board member), seconded by Lisa; outcome: approved (voice vote: all in favor). - Motion to request an updated Bristol Engineering hydrogeologic report — mover: (board member moved on the record), seconded by Jim; outcome: approved; staff to forward request to town manager. - Motion to ask town council to request an extension from the Housing Appeals Committee for the public hearing and deliberation timeline — mover: John, seconded: Jim; outcome: approved. - Motion to continue the public hearing to Feb. 19 at 1 p.m. — moved and seconded on the record; outcome: approved.

Discussion vs. decision: The board kept the public hearing open and took no final zoning decisions on waivers at this session; members directed staff to collect outstanding reports (Weston & Sampson letter, any updated Bristol report, building department/fire department comments and a maintenance plan review) for review before the continued hearing. Several board members expressed that, because of school vacation and scheduling, the statutory 40‑day deliberation period after the close of the hearing will be tight; the board voted to ask HAC for an extension to preserve adequate time for deliberation.

Ending note: The board asked parties to submit any new materials by noon Friday for posting that afternoon; the hearing will reconvene Feb. 19 at 1 p.m. to discuss Weston & Sampson’s letter and any other materials posted in advance.