Zoning board presses Surfside Crossing applicant on secondary access, fire safety and stormwater risks

The Town of Nantucket Zoning Board of Appeals on Monday, Feb. 3, 2025 continued its review of Surfside Crossing LLC’s proposed Surfside Crossing 40B condominium project, pressing the applicant for clearer plans for emergency and secondary vehicle access, firefighting operations, pedestrian and school bus access, and stormwater protections.

The hearing brought several expert witnesses and detailed technical back-and-forth. Retired Deputy Fire Chief Robert Bates told the board the project “does not meet the requirements of a secondary access roadway” for large fire apparatus and cited National Fire Protection Association guidance on multiple access roads. Project engineer Don Bracken explained the current design includes a single 24-foot-wide two-way driveway for daily use and a separate emergency-access path surfaced with “reinforced turf,” which, Bracken said, “can hold an emergency vehicle.” Attorney Paul Haverty, representing the applicant, said the team will review the recorded conservation restriction held by Natural Heritage to determine whether a wider or additional access is possible and will report back to the board.

Why it matters: Board members, emergency responders and neighborhood speakers said the single regular driveway plus an emergency-only path could leave residents and firefighters at risk in a worst-case event. The site also lies in a municipal recharge area where speakers warned about contaminated runoff and PFAS risk if stormwater and fire-suppression water are not controlled.

Discussion highlights

- Emergency access vs. code: Retired Deputy Chief Robert Bates argued the proposal lacks a true second fire access, citing NFPA standards and a series of operational concerns including minimum widths, vertical clearances and turn radii. Bates said the project’s proposed emergency path, while described as able to support emergency vehicles, is not designed as a full-time fire apparatus roadway and raised concerns about adjacent landscaping and parking that could impede aerial operations.

- Applicant position and next steps: Attorney Paul Haverty said the applicant met with the fire department during earlier review phases and will have its fire protection consultant review the record and provide a written response to the board before the next hearing. Haverty also said the team must re-examine the conservation restriction recorded with Natural Heritage to determine whether a permanent, second access is physically possible without violating that restriction: “we will go back and we will review the conservation restriction that was recorded with Natural Heritage to see if there is even a potential for increasing the width,” he told the board.

- Pedestrian and bus access: Board members asked whether school buses would enter the site or pick up at Surfside Road, and where continuous sidewalks and crosswalks would be placed for children and mobility-impaired residents. Don Bracken said pedestrian/bike access would mainly use the bike path across Surfside Road but acknowledged town coordination will be required and that the site plan shows sidewalks on one side of the internal driveway for most of its length and curb ramp locations on separate landscape/architectural sheets.

- Stormwater, impervious area and PFAS concerns: Environmental commentator Kristen Mello, who holds an analytical chemistry background and has worked on PFAS issues elsewhere, urged the board to account for increased impervious surface and contaminant loads. She calculated annual runoff from parking and urged protections for nearby private wells and the town’s Zone 2 recharge area, saying, “1 inch of rainfall on an acre of parking lot produces 27,000 gallons of stormwater to manage.” Project engineer Don Bracken submitted a letter comparing runoff volumes between the original and modified designs and concluded there is no net increase in modeled runoff volume between the two preliminary layouts; opponents and the board’s peer reviewer disputed aspects of the accounting and asked for clearer, plan-to-plan comparisons.

- Clubhouse size and on-site amenities: The applicant described a community building with multiple rooms, a small gym, game room and property-management office intended for residents and their guests, not commercial rental. Developer Jamie (presenting the amenities) said the clubhouse is intended to support a year-round community and reduce external trips; board members and neighbors questioned whether the building’s size and parking supply are appropriate and asked the applicant to consider a smaller footprint and more green/open space.

Directions and follow-ups requested by the board

- Applicant to review the conservation restriction recorded with Natural Heritage and report whether it allows any expanded or relocated access; deliverable requested before the board’s Feb. 19 meeting. - Applicant to provide a written response from its fire protection consultant that addresses the specific apparatus access, hydrant spacing and aerial operations concerns raised by retired and current fire officials. - Project engineer to contact the town Department of Public Works (DPW) and report what process exists for establishing a town sidewalk or other town-controlled pedestrian improvements near Surfside Road. - Retired Deputy Chief Robert Bates and other commenters were asked to submit written testimony and technical materials for the record; board staff offered to circulate those materials to parties.

Outcome / meeting actions

No planning approvals or project conditions were adopted at Monday’s hearing. The board set future dates to continue the matter and requested the materials above. The only formal votes at the meeting were procedural: the board voted to adjourn at the scheduled time (see “Votes at a glance”).

What’s next

The board scheduled a special session on Feb. 11 and further hearings Feb. 13 and Feb. 19, 2025. The applicant and its consultants agreed to provide written technical responses on fire access and to report back on the Natural Heritage conservation restriction before the Feb. 19 session. The board indicated it expects updated, annotated plans showing any committed changes to emergency access, landscape buffers or sidewalk connections.