Nantucket airport commission backs permanent hold‑room addition to replace seasonal tent

The Nantucket Memorial Airport Commission on March 10 instructed staff and the design team to move forward with a permanent addition to replace the seasonal hold‑room tent, citing the benefit of fully interior, climate‑controlled seating and fewer operational constraints than a rooftop seasonal alternative.

Design team representatives from Fenick McCriedi and McFarland‑Johnson presented two feasibility options. Option A would repurpose and expand space inside the existing terminal and add a seasonal rooftop hold‑room to meet summer peak capacity; the scheme would add roughly 1,500 square feet under existing roofs and rely in part on a seasonal outdoor area to reach target seating. Option B would remove the tent and build a permanent addition (about 7,750 square feet of new construction plus about 5,250 square feet of renovation), producing roughly 375–395 seats and a permanent, conditioned concession area.

"Both options are viable from a feasibility and code perspective, but B meets the hold‑room capacity target with a fully interior conditioned space," the design lead said during the presentation. Commissioners discussed tradeoffs including seasonal usability of a rooftop terrace, elevator and accessibility costs for rooftop access, and the potential for higher construction disruption on the airfield for the addition option.

Commissioners also pressed the team on associated site civil work and potential impacts to aircraft hard‑stand locations. The design and civil team said Option B would likely require rerouting about 300 linear feet of airfield duct bank and estimated higher site costs; staff noted a conservative site‑work allowance of about $2 million for Option B versus about $1 million for Option A in preliminary estimates.

Commissioner Levit asked about near‑term capacity needs and how the 2042 planning target translates into a 5–10 year horizon; the design team replied that the 2027 intermediate target is roughly 80 percent of the 2042 requirement and that design/construction lead times mean benefits would be realized in about three years.

The commission agreed the permanent addition offered the more reliable year‑round capacity. Chair Arthur Gasparo summarized the direction: staff and the architects should proceed to refine scope and task orders for Option B, coordinate with the hard‑stand program so in‑flight infrastructure work does not conflict, and return with refined cost estimates and a schedule for design and permitting.

Next steps: staff will direct task orders for more detailed design work, refine the site civil cost assumptions (including duct‑bank rerouting and any hard‑stand overlays), and assess potential grant funding through the IIG/ATP federal grant previously submitted. The commission requested continued status updates as the design reaches a more developed cost estimate.