The Town of Nantucket Zoning Board of Appeals on Jan. 24 continued its hearing on application 2524, Surfside Crossing LLC, after extended public testimony from former firefighters, water‑quality advocates and engineers who raised concerns about the project’s effect on the town’s water supply, firefighting capacity, stormwater controls and compatibility with the remand from the Housing Appeals Committee.

The testimony focused on three interlocking issues: whether the island has enough water quantity and pressure to fight large fires at a dense 19‑building development; whether a documented PFAS contamination plume and recent well shutdowns make drawing municipal water riskier; and whether changes between the plan the HAC reviewed and the developer’s current submission require full review of stormwater, grading and other site‑control measures.

Why it matters: Board members heard that the development would change the demand on a sole‑source aquifer and could require significant water withdrawals during fires or for building sprinklers, potentially accelerating movement of a PFAS plume toward town wells. Speakers urged the ZBA to consider site changes made since the HAC process — including tree clearing, added impervious area and utilities on a town easement — when deciding whether to approve waivers or conditions.

Beau Barber, a former member of the Nantucket Fire Department, said the department’s capacities are limited and that the 2019 Veranda House fire stretched the system to its limit. "The Veranda House fire was the limit of our capabilities," Barber said, recounting that roughly 850,000 gallons were used over nine hours and that pumps were operating near minimum intake pressure. Barber and other witnesses warned that multiple simultaneous fires or a large conflagration in a dense development would overwhelm available flow and pressure.

Megan Perry, speaking for Nantucket Tipping Point, said she supplied a transcript from an Aug. 29, 2024 meeting in which the town’s water director discussed taking wells offline to avoid pulling PFAS from a nearby contamination source. "If we don't have drinking water, it doesn't matter where the trash bins are located... It doesn't matter if you can't drink the water and you don't have pressure to put out fires," Perry said, and she cited the state maximum contamination level of 20 parts per trillion as a reference point; she and others noted that at least one well (well 15) has measured 55 parts per trillion.

Attorney Paul Haverty, representing the applicant, pushed back on some technical claims and emphasized regulatory limits to the ZBA’s review, saying the board should compare the originally remanded project to the currently proposed modifications and that many engineering details had been submitted in response to prior review. Haverty also noted that the revised project would require sprinkler systems for all residential structures, which he argued lowers fire risk compared with earlier configurations that included more single‑family houses without sprinklers.

Attorney George Pucci, town counsel, and several members of the public urged the board to focus on the record and gather expert testimony on water quantity, stormwater treatment and groundwater monitoring before deciding. Dennis Murphy, who spoke for the Nantucket Land and Water Council, noted the Superior Court vacated the HAC decision and remanded the matter to the ZBA "for consideration of the altered project in the first instance," arguing that the board therefore has scope to examine changes not anticipated in earlier proceedings.

Technical and regulatory points raised in the hearing included:
- Firefighting water: Testimony described the Veranda House event as consuming about 850,000 gallons over ~9 hours and said three apparatus were pumping at or near 20 PSI intake pressure. Witnesses cited a town water tower capacity of roughly 4,000,000 gallons total and said peak seasonal demand can approach the system’s pumping capacity. The town water company’s current pumping capacity was described in the record as about 3,900 gallons per minute with two wells out of service; peak seasonal usage has been cited around 3,300 gpm.
- PFAS contamination: Witnesses cited a municipal reference maximum contaminant level of 20 parts per trillion (ppt) used by town practice, while others noted the U.S. EPA has proposed far lower guidance levels; one well (well 15) was cited as testing at about 55 ppt. Witnesses and written material in the record warned that additional pumpage could draw a shallow PFAS plume into deeper municipal wells and that filtration systems could be costly (estimates cited in the record ranged from tens of millions of dollars for multiple wells).
- Stormwater and vegetation: Multiple commenters, including the Land and Water Council and the project peer reviewer, said the project as currently shown on final design plans includes more impervious or semipervious area than earlier preliminary plans, and that recent on‑site clear cutting and grading could change runoff patterns. The peer review engineer noted differences between the earlier HAC plan and the latest set and flagged unresolved items such as pretreatment, pretreatment percentages for allowed devices and whether the stormwater design adequately addresses the site’s Zone 2 groundwater protection requirements.
- Project scope and remand: Several public speakers and counsel argued the developer’s current submission differs materially from the project presented to the HAC (changes cited included removal of a pedestrian easement, addition of on‑site generators and streetlighting, and altered utility locations that may interfere with a town sewer easement). Dennis Murphy and others referenced the Superior Court remand language instructing the ZBA to consider altered aspects in the first instance.
- Architectural and programmatic concerns: The Historic District Commission’s peer comments were read into the record; the HDC reviewers generally found the building designs acceptable but expressed concern about repetitive massing, scale facing South Shore Road and the size of the community building. Board members and commenters asked the applicant to justify the clubhouse program and size (applicant provided floor‑area figures on request and agreed to discuss the clubhouse at a future hearing).

What the board directed or will seek before the next session: board members asked for clearer, expert responses on water‑supply capacity and fire flows; written replies to outstanding peer‑review comments about stormwater design and pretreatment; clarification about any wells proposed on site and their potential effects; documentation about the cease‑and‑desist for on‑site fueling cited by speakers; and a rationale from the applicant for waiver requests and the clubhouse size. Several members encouraged or planned site visits to inspect areas affected by clearing and grading.

Public comment and legal process: Multiple residents and advocacy groups urged the ZBA to deny the project on public‑health, safety and environmental grounds or to require substantial mitigation. The applicant and its counsel argued much of the technical record has been submitted and that the board’s review should follow the remand’s scope and state regulatory standards; town counsel recommended the board take additional expert testimony and not rely solely on lawyers’ argument over scope.

The board voted to continue the hearing; it did not render a decision on the merits at the Jan. 24 session. The continuation gives the parties time to submit requested technical replies and for the board to schedule further expert testimony and site review.