Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-10-3ZBA Minutes for October 3, 2018, adopted Oct. 30 N � i is> T -r ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS C L E p i_. Public Hearing ?818 NOV _ 1 P 2 Fairgrounds Road H �: Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 www.nantucket-ma.gov Commissioners: Ed Toole (Chair), Lisa Botticelli (Vice chair), Susan McCarthy (Clerk), Michael J. O'Mara, Kerim Koseatac Alternates: Mark Poor Geoff Thayer Jim Mondani -- MINUTES ~— Wednesday, October 3, 2018 Public Safety Facility, Nantucket High School Auditorium —4:30 p.m. Called to order at 4:30 p.m. and Announcements made. Staff in attendance: Eleanor Antonietti, Zoning Administrator; Mike Burns, Traffic Planner Attending Members: Toole, Botticelh, McCarthy, Koseatac, Thayer, Mondani Absent: O'Mara, Poor Town Representative: Ed Marchant, 40B Advisor; George Pucci, K&P Law, P.C.; Peer Reviewers: Courtney Jones, Tetra Tech; Jeff Maxtutis, BETA Group Agenda ado ted by unanimous consent 1. August 28, 2018: Motion to Approve. (made by: Botticelli) (seconded by: Koseatac) Carried unanimously 11. OLD BUSINESS 1. 20-18 Surfside Crossing, LLC Surfside Crossing 40B Freeman / Reade The Applicant is seeking a Comprehensive Permit in accordance with M.G.L. Chapter 40B, pursuant to a project eligibility letter issued by MassHousing, in order to allow a multi -family project consisting of 156 for -sale dwelling units comprised of 60 stand-alone single- family cottages on fee simple lots and 96 condominium units in 6 multi -family buildings, with 25% (39 units, 15 cottages and 24 condominium units) designated as affordable units, with a total of 389 bedrooms. The existing lots will be subdivided into 60 fee simple lots, 4 open space lots, and a 3.6 acre condominium lot. Off-street parking will consist of 2 spaces per cottage and 148 spaces designated for the condominiums. Infrastructure and amenities will be provided; however, the proposed project is proposed to connect to municipal water and sewer infrastructure. The application and supporting materials are available for public review at the Zoning Board of Appeals office at 2 Fairgrounds Road between the hours of 7:30 A.M. and 4:30 P.M., Monday through Friday. The Locus is situated at 3, 5, 7 and 9 South Shore Road and is shown on Assessor's Map 67 as Parcels 336, 336.9, 336.8, and 336.7 and is shown as Lots 4, 3, 2, and 1 on Plan Book 25, Page 50 as recorded at the Nantucket Registry of Deeds. The total lot area of the combined parcels is approximately 13.5 acres. Evidence of owner's title is recorded in Book 1612, Page 62 at the Nantucket Registry of Deeds. The property is located in a Limited Use General 2 (LUG -2) and within the Public Wellhead Recharge District. Any person interested in the proceedings or who wishes to be heard should appear at the time and place of the public hearing. Voting Toole, Botticelli, McCarthy, Koseatac, Mondani Alternates Thayer Documentation File with associated plans, photos, video presentation, and required documentation Representing Don Bracken, Bracken Engineering, Inc. Peter Freeman, Freeman & Freeman Law, P.C. Chris Dallmus, Design Associates, Inc. Bob Michaud, Principal MDM Transportation Consultants, Inc. Jamie Feeley, Cottage & Castle, Proponent Josh Posner, Principal Page 1 of 8 Public Discussion ZBA Minutes for October 3, 2018, adopted Oct. 30 Paul Derensis, attorney for Nantucket Tipping point and 285 Island homeowners Jim Timmins, Attorney for Cabrals at 8 South Shore Road Peter Fenn, Attorney for Nantucket Land Council (NLC) Meghan R. Perry, 14 South Shore Road Tucker Holland, Nantucket Housing Specialist Jamie Holmes, 21 Equator Drive Nan Spery, 8 Cornea Lane Mindy Levin, 10 Folger Avenue Hershel Allerhand, 47 Union Street Ron Bamber, 48 Washing Pond Road Jacques Zimicki, 13 Wherowhero Lane Diane Coombs, 44 Orange Street Chris Meredith, 1 Wherowhero Lane Ara Charder, 121 Orange Street David Glowacki, Pine Crest Drive Judy Zurheide, 1 Folger Avenue Diane Cabral, 8 South Shore Road Madeline Callahan, 154 Surfside Road Feeley — Reviewed potential changes in terms of density, open space, buffers, community park, and parking. The condo section sits on 4.2 acres; that's less dense than Ticcoma Green. Asserted they are not withdrawing the original plan; it is still on table for discussion if necessary. The sewer and water and stormwater management plans are sufficient. The traffic study shows that the impact is within the acceptable range according to industry standards. The archeological study is sufficient and in compliance. They will comply with all environmental requirements. Clarifies affordability restrictions. 100% of condos will be restricted. 25% of cottages are at 80% AMI. 45 condo units will be restricted to year-round residents so middle-income islanders currently priced out of the homeowner's market can become homeowners. Details seed to be worked out. They are actively working with Nantucket Affordable Housing leaders and Judy Barrett Bracken — Slide Show Presentation: comparison of original plan and the new modified plan; comparison of new nodified plan density with the density of other Island developments; increased vegetative buffer and open space; condo -econfiguration and reduction to 60 units; parking reconfiguration; and roads and traffic circulation changes. Jalhmus — Explained how he addressed concerns laid out in the Historic District Commission (HDC) letter dated July 7, 2018. Reviewed the proposed architecture for the condos and cottages. 'osner — The Condos are directed at middle-income, year-round islanders to address a critical need for housing. 25% of ll units must be at 80% and will count toward the Town's goal of 10% for SM. 70 to 100 units will be restricted in some vay to address the critical need for year-round housing. )erensis — For the record, we object to the presentation on the grounds that they are proposing two parallel projects to ie considered by the ZBA simultaneously. He feels that is unfair to ZBA. There are 75 days left The initial plan was icomplete, and this plan is incomplete, and it is materially different. It is a redesign, so all Peer Reviews now need to be edone, and the revised plan has to be recirculated to various Town of Nantucket Boards and Committees. There are only 5 days left to hear this. There is still no proposed sewer solution. They still have no legal way of getting water that would of exceed the Town's water withdrawal permit. They have no presentation about how they will comply with stormwater tandards. They won't withdraw the old plan; they want the ZBA to still consider that plan. reeman — He disagrees. He has worked on about 150 40B permits. This is part of the give and take. The reason for the hange is in response to all that has been said. In terms of time frame, peer reviews took a long time. We are not asking 311 to simultaneously look at everything. We are hoping that what we have just proposed could be considered. This is art of the process. Plans are still at the preliminary stage — appropriate under 40B. Look at case law. Feels Mr. Derensis' )mments are extreme exaggeration and essentially not accurate. If anything, there is less impact Various points in terms F sewer water and stormwater management; he respectfully disagrees. Those plans are before the ZBA. We will take itension into good faith consideration if it becomes necessary. immins — Agrees with Atty. Freeman that they are within their rights to submit an alternate plan. He just spent an hour !aring that a sewer easement is now open space; he finds that offensive. There is a lot going on that is insulting. He )esn't care about floor plans. We're here about the traffic and major impacts. The affordability presentation essentially id that 25% will be affordable; that is obvious under Chapter 40B. There was no talk of price restrictions; so, the 70 is usory just like the sewer easement is illusory. The ZBA has been patient but at some point, we have to get down to -ass tacks: waivers and conditions. He thinks that this Board should review the 156 units. All we're going to hear is lout the impact of the 156 units. We don't know about traffic impacts from this revised design. We the residents want to part of the discussion re. conditions and waivers. :eeman — He's not going to keep trying to pop up every time he disagrees; his silence doesn't indicate that he agrees th what's been said. icci — He recommends that the ZBA continue with the hearing including questions and comments on the modified in. We will get into conditions and waivers, but we're not at that point yet in hearing process. It is normal to have Page 2 of 8 ZBA Minutes for October 3, 2018, adopted Oct. 30 modified plans in the 40B process in response to hearing comments. With the December deadline looming, he would hope and expect that the Applicant will consider a reasonable deadline extension to public hearing process. Toole — He is also concerned with timing and would ask for an extension Fenn — NLC is an environmental organization that has existed since 1974. We don't necessarily share the same concerns as all the residents who are here. Our concern is the physical environment and the human environment: carrying capacity, Sewer, water, traffic, and high density. 100 units is still high density. This is an important wildlife corridor. There are buffer zones, but that is not green space. He is going to send letter to Natural Heritage Endangered Species Protection (NHESP) asking them to protect rare and endangered species. The property needs to be examined for endangered species to see if its refugium/habitat. They are still holding 156 units over your head, and this proposal is still very dense in an important conservation area. The ZBA looks at three issues of local concern 1) Health & environmental, 2) traffic, and 3) site control. You cannot comply with the law until NHESP completes their study. Perry — The developers have denied access to the environmental consultant. I am asking you (the ZBA) to go to the State and request that these studies be done. Pucci — Two issues. In terms of site visit, it would be reasonable to ask for, and the ZBA could ask for, site access. You do not have right to insist upon environmental site review. He checked with the conservation agent with the town; he does not know of any Conservation Commission's (ConCom) jurisdictional resource areas. In terms of NHESP-related site visit, that is within State jurisdiction. The ZBA does not have the right to insist upon site visit related to that issue. The Select Board has retained an environmental consultant, who will be heard from; he was denied access based upon the assertion that it is within exclusive jurisdiction of State agency. The ZBA cannot delay its process waiting on a State NHESP review. You cannot defer your hearing until that process is completed. Anything within the jurisdiction of the State proceeds on a different track. Perry — Asked if the ZBA would be willing to request access. Toole — Asked the members if they would like to have a site visit. Pucci — The ZBA is not entitled to go on the site to look at the moth or bat issue; your site visit would have to be related to issues within your jurisdiction. Fenn — You cannot require a site visit by consultants, but environmental issues are within ZBA purview in considering a 40B. If you don't have the environmental information you need, you can deny the permit or condition it until you have that information. Pucci — Obviously if you grant this permit, it would be conditioned that other required State approvals be obtained. A general local concern has to be within your purview. You can seek a site visit related to those. Endangered species and rare habitat are not within your purview. Derensis — Disagrees. We are simply requesting that the ZBA formally ask the developer to allow access for a survey to be done to determine the presence of endangered species. Toole — He prefers to defer to Mr. Pucci's decision. Six of us are nodding our heads how we feel about this. We want to be specific about what we are asking. McCarthy — We are asking the applicant if they are willing to allow a consultant to come onto the property to do a survey to determine if there are any endangered species, insects, animals, birds, plants — on the property. Freeman — We have already answered. We sent a response to the Select Board and we stand by it: the ZBA doesn't have this as a local issue; we are going through the State process. These studies are not based on local bylaws. Believes that Atty. Derensis is wrong. You cannot just expand the scope of what we are required to do. We are going through the proper process with State agencies. The Town can request information from them. We have no problem with a ZBA site visit. However, we respectfully decline allowing the Town consultant access to the property. Mondani — This is moving sideways. Asked to talk about the site plan. We have the original plan; if we don't move forward, he is concerned with what happens down the road. Toole — He wants to look at new plan; this is normal in the process. If we deny or impose conditions that they don't like, they can go back to HAC with the original plan. He doesn't think the threat had to be made but it is there. We are being reasonable. Hopes the Applicant will be reasonable. Thinks an extension is warranted; 75 days is two additional meetings. These plans are sketches. Asks Applicant if they intend to provide an extension. Freeman — We first need to see that there is good engagement and back and forth. Let's see how it goes for the next hearing. The likelihood is that yes, we would grant an extension at next hearing. Derensis — You need an extension as a condition of going forward and accepting the plan. Freeman — He will sign a 30 -day extension Antonietti — Had applicant sign a 30 -day extension. Discussion reviewing modified plan layout, parking, traffic flow, and density. Toole — Asked how the buffer would be treated. Bracken — The hope is to use the edges of open space for additional drainage; they will be revegetated as green space. We will have some drainage swales and rain gardens, those types of treatments as seen in other developments. He believes he can get preliminary information for the next meeting. Toole — With the reduction in density, asked Mr. Bracken if he anticipates being able to meet rules and regulations in terms of drainage and if they would be asking for waivers. Page 3 of 8 ZBA Minutes for October 3, 2018, adopted Oct. 30 Bracken — We were never going to ask for any drainage waivers. We contend that we meet the stormwater standards. The waiver list will be changed; but we will still need waivers re. sidewalks, bikepath, roadway radii Toole — At next meeting, assuming there is forward momentum, we will have more detailed plans and adjusted waivers. Polled board about identical "C" condo buildings. He doesn't like it and would like the applicant to think more about ,1 3otticelli — You could take the language and modify them with massing variation; it would be simple; it would look a ittle bit more like the buildings were developed over time versus dumped at the same time. Goole — He agrees with Ms Botticelli; he would like to see them smaller. More like a little village. 3allmus — We do intend to speak with HDC and informally discuss the new plans. 3otticel i — I would like to see the changes she mentioned because we are acting as the HDC. 4olland — Pointed out that the Ticcoma Green project has 114 bedrooms in 64 units on approximately three acres. 3otticelli — If you do break it into separate sites, the 4.3 acres for the condos ends up 30 units per acre and cottages loser to 18 per acre. Goole — As to affordability and condos being exclusively available to year rounders, it needs a lot of research. Is it in Perpetuity or is it a first-time deal? Sounds like a nice selling point but it needs a lot more meat on the bone before we onsider it. 4cCarthy — She feels year-round needs to be defined regarding what constitutes a year-round resident as well as middle icome. We need to know how that impacts the income funded project, profitability, proforma, restrictability. 'oole — We need to see detail on this point pretty quickly, not just the idea. 4ondani — He hopes we can increase the 25% to 30% in terms of 80% AMI. Rarchant — Another important issue in terms of not creating false expectations, you need to be assured that there will be o fair -housing complications in terms of reserving these units for year-round Nantucketers. You can restrict 70% of ffordable units to local residents. DHCD is the final arbiter in terms of eligibility of the units for SM. Be prudent and se due diligence to get an answer on that. Ioole — You are going to be setting up distinct areas within the development of all year-round residents and then a fixture. He wonders how that is really going to work. As to list of waivers, it would make sense for the Applicant to do a .ndering of the street view, so we can understand what it will look like from South Shore Road. We need to see where arious house types are going as it relates to affordable versus market rate and size type. We need to start talking about hasing and what is the intention in terms of build out of the project The sketch plans don't show garages or sheds; orage is a consideration. londani — He assumes the Planning Board will also review the new plan. oole — If we can get to some relative agreement on what is included, more detailed plans must be submitted, and Mr. hessia will look at them. Peer Review where necessary will be done again. Asked that comments be limited to the new pery — She hears about buffer zones, looks of building, sewer, water, but nothing about light pollution. Nantucket is niquely situated for Dark Skies Initiative. She is concerned about the loss of that resource. Ioole — We are aware of the issue and there is a Town bylaw that we would ask the developer to adhere to rather than sue waivers. btticelli — Asked if there is a lighting plan. ,racken — There is a lighting planwith the initial plan and it will be revised for the new plan. evin — Read a statement of opposition relating to sewer and Town water hook up. The new developments are Lentioned but not the existing homes still on septic systems and wells being hooked to Town sewer and water. She uestions about management of a homeowner's association to maintain the public areas. She doesn't understand what >st prohibitive means in relation to a gravity main sewer line. oole — It is within our normal process to address those points. erry — We've yet to see a sewer plan: how it gets off the property and to the plant oole — If they don't come up with a valid plan, we don't approve it Uerhand — The question is if the public can see a legal plan of how it will be fleshed out before the meeting, so we can view and ask intelligent questions. We live in a market economy, but he's bothered by the hypocrisy. The developer is [king about helping Nantucket but there are other places better suited for this development. oole — He would like to get that information before the meeting as well. amber — There are 961 lots that are sub -dividable; people have the right to build on those lots. If you issue permits for ese, those people might not be able to build on their lots. Claims all the wells in Madaket are contaminated and putting wer out there is ridiculous. Started complaining about the Planning Board. icci — Interrupted Mr. Bamber pointing out to Mr. Toole that this is not pertinent to this project Imicki — He wants to talk about the green plan. Headlights will hit his house when cars are coming down when he used be in the middle of nowhere. He did not expect a parking lot 25' off his back line; it looks to be about 1,500 feet of ad. The main drainage areas will be in between Condos in the back and the southerly comer. Both areas are about 220 �t from his well; he's worried about contamination of his well. Page 4of8 ZBA Minutes for October 3, 2018, adopted Oct. 30 Holmes — He is in favor of this project. We need to figure out how people can move here, stay here, and live here. He moved here in 2012. The cost of an entry-level house was $600,000; now it's about $900,000. We need to figure out something; though this may not be the answer. He likes the modification; he feels that they listened. Coombs — (Could not get to microphone so Mr. Toole relayed her comments.) This has not formally been to the HDC. Toole - The applicant has been asked if they are willing to go before the HDC and they said no; we are acting as the HDC. Meredith — He is very concerned about cutting down all the foliage. We will be exposed to noise from this and Sachems Path. He's worried about the gas -powered equipment - weed whackers, gas machines, and snow blowers — for maintenance of this property. He's also concerned about the light pollution from cars. He has seen nothing on the berms or fences to block the noise and lights. Charder — She's worried about how they will choose the year -rounders; saying it is for year-round people doesn't work It has to be for people who are working here on island; she's concerned with how to protect that these are not sold or rented to non -year rounders. Traffic Peer Review, Jones — She generally found that the traffic study was in accordance with industry standards, but several items need further clarification to be able to provide a comprehensive review. She provided the Town with a detailed letter, bigger concerns: 1. Expand study area and revisit seasonality of traffic volumes; 2. Ensure adequate sight -line distance; 3. Possible constraints for emergency vehicle access within the site; talk to Nantucket Fire Department (NFD) about circulation for their vehicles; 4. Up to three (3) possible crosswalks proposed; asked that be limited to one (1) to prevent deficiencies in operation along South Shore Road; 5. Consider the feasibility of building a sidewalk on the westerly side of South Shore Road to connect to the intersection at Surfside Road; 6. Traffic operations at the 4 -way intersection; the July study showed acceptable levels; but the Town has its own studies over the years the majority of which have shown operational deficiencies. We received MDM's response to our comments but haven't had time to respond to those. We have only had time to conduct a preliminary review. Toole — He's looking for MDM's response dated September 14, 2018. Michaud — A study in February 2018 was updated in July 2018 to get summertime counts (done on June 28). Our September 14 response to Tetra Tech included augmented counts from August 2018. The overall finding is that we comply with good industry standard. Reviewed the many areas of concurrence. We are aware of the BETA traffic study, which studied an expanded area; they received that last week; he is reserving comment on that while we absorb data. Slide Show: Primary and secondary more remote locations; reduced build program of 35% fewer units means 35% less traffic. At 156 units there are 113 peak hour trips; under the alternative plan, trips decrease to 74 trips. The primary intersection is Surfside Road at South Shore Road. Less than one (1) additional car per minute with the old version. This level of impact is not material at the level of HAC. Referenced the August counts at other locations. We are extrapolating trip numbers. If you look at the count station data collected independently, the day-to-day fluctuation in traffic can vary from 30-100 vehicles on any given day, June 28, August 2, and August 16 counts. This location is subject to same types of volume variability that are documented by Department of Transportation (DOT) accounts. The average volume conditions are 900-1000 vehicle trips. On that basis, we have the higher density unit count The capacity analysis shows a level of service (LOS) C or better; we have acceptable operating levels. The net effect of this project represents about 2 to 6 second delay increase over a no -build condition. There are accumulated impacts that have nothing to do with this project that would contribute to volumes increasing over time at this location. We are not saying that there will not be delays. The nearest impacted intersection is at LOS D. 35% fewer units means the impact will be about 2% or less beyond Surfside Road. From mitigation perspective, the focus is to leverage the ability for people to use public transportation or walking/bike modes of transportation. There is an integrated system of sidewalks that connect to the community center or to South Shore Road, a pedestrian connection to Surfside Road, and public transportation. There will also be sidewalks between driveways. There will be on-site bike storage. Site driveways will meet all applicable criteria for stopping and intersection sight distance. We are ensuring proper maneuverability of emergency apparatus. We will ensure that NFD's largest response vehicle can access all points of the development. We have added "STOP signs and lines. We want to enhance multimodal way of getting to and from the development. We still have to absorb the entire BETA study. All criteria can be met under both plans. Two specific BETA recommendations are highlighted. They did identify two locations that would represent improvement initiatives (roundabouts and relocation of NRTA stops and safety related improvements). Neither the 3% (reduced build impact) 'nor 11% impacts (original proposal) would trigger mitigative reactions. Derensis — Pointed to the BETA finding that the build scenario would ultimately lead to an LOS F. Michaud — The LOS F occurs as a result of projects independent of our project. Their study shows that under a no -build conditions LOS F exist at this intersection. The July study is the relevant basis for our finding. Page 5of8 ZBA Minutes for October 3, 2018, adopted Oct. 30 oole — Asked Derensis to stop with back and forth Pucci — Pointed out that all questions are typically presented to the chair. Mr. Toole runs the meeting; he can maintain ontrol of this. oole — If you are trying to make a point, make the point. Stop with the cross examination. It is a matter of record. Ierensis — He has already determined that this intersection is LOS F. oole — Asked how it is that everything is at LOS D or better when other studies indicate an LOS F. ichaud — We did the original counts in January when the Island is sleepy; we had to do an extrapolation 66% djustment which ultimately overestimated. We then went on June 28 and August 16 to do actual counts. We understand at the location is subject to day-to-day fluctuations: actual summertime volumes, rather than projections. oole — So, 66% projected increase was greater than the counts. ichaud - Correct. Also, we needed to consider there was a Get-out-the-ride movement promoted on social media oole — BETA's findings seem to have quite a few additional LOS F. ichaud — He is reserving the right to comment. Their larger expanded study is based on different assumptions. The findings which we are still reviewing indicate a failing LOS F condition is connected to other background projects. Relative impact of this project is minimal. Botticelli — Asked upon what assumptions did he base the additional trips. There are 285 bedrooms in reduced plan; couples each have separate cars and people rent out bedrooms; multiple people will use these units. Michaud — We use same method used by BETA. There are two categories for trip rates: single -family detached housing d the condo units published by ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers). otticelli — Our unique demographics mean that people who need to be able to afford living in market rate units will be enting out a room. ichaud — He agrees that it does not lend itself to typical commuter pattern one would see on mainland. We are in roximity to multimodal transportation (buses, bike paths, etc.). Look to the Planning Department erensis — BETA's traffic count on August 2 is very different - 30% higher. Asked Mr. Michaud how he got to his verage. It appears he took three numbers and divided by 3; two numbers came from you and one number came from ETA. [ichaud — August 2 was one of highest visitation activity days of entire summer and relates to beach activity where there ere about 120 directional trips to Surfside Beach. laxtutis — Our study is independent of the MDM study although he will make some comparisons. We looked at a larger >mprehensive study area of 12 intersections. We used two sets of data (Town turning movement counts from June 14) id our own counts on August 2. We got to a composite. We collected vehicle classifications (all forms/multimodal type E count). MDM did their counts on June 28 adjusted up to peak summer conditions. Those were comparable to what we )unted on August 2. But our June 28 counts were 33% higher. One of biggest differences is that base volume we are sing for analysis. The Town conducted counts during the week of August 6 to 10 and those counts were comparable at airground Road and Old South Road. We also looked at bike and pedestrian volumes: moderate to high pedestrian and ike volumes along Surfside Road also effect operation at some of these intersections. We looked at Crash Data from the :ighway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Crash Clusters. There can be funding available in road safety audits from [assachusetts DOT. There are a few locations which have sizeable number of crashes. We looked at 7 -year time horizon isuming 1% annual growth in background traffic. Richmond is one of the projects that informed our data as well as iccoma Green. We took trip generation from Richmond's study. Looking at Richmond Great Point and Ticcoma Green evelopments, there are about 240 trips in morning peak hour and 333 trips during peak evening hour. Then there are ,352 vehicle trips daily for 156 units. Based on the original plan with the 3 -driveway configuration, we conducted capacity ialysis, which is basically the LOS. At the intersection near the site, the existing condition is LOS D; the no -bad >ndition is LOS E and the build condition is LOS F with additional 93 morning trips. Surfside Road southbound is the orst. Afternoon peak hour are similar but start at LOS E. This project would exacerbate delays at the intersection. The own is proposing roundabouts at three locations and other future geometric improvements. The 2025 No -Build without !commendations would be LOS F. Consider modern roundabout. In seven years, this intersection would have high delay id long queues. In 2025 with recommendations, could be LOS A for both morning and afternoon. Suggests minor aprovements for the Miacomet-Surfside intersection. The new proposal addresses several items we had commented on (3 riveways, pedestrian connectivity, emergency vehicle access, parking). Ioole — Your conclusions were much different than MDM's. Asked if that is normal. laxtutis — It boils down to base volumes that are being used. We did not do a sensitivity analysis. Ioole — It's the data you put in that is the critical issue. laxtutis — The peak -hour factors are standard methodology. Ioole — Asked what LOS F means. laxtutis — It is based on a scale of delay; 50 seconds of delay per approach. The average vehicle would experience 50 :conds of delay. Long queues take a long time to dissipate with LOS F. About a minute delay. 'oole — Asked if a roundabout takes care of this in most cases. Page 6 of 8 ZBA Minutes for October 3, 2018, adopted Oct. 30 Maxtutis — It is one solution. Taking left turns out of intersection is another. Everyone is then making a right turn circulating and yielding. It could operate well and is generally safer than conventional intersection because volume is at a low speed. Glowacki — Claims Nantucket would not meet industry standards. 35% reduction in units does not equal 35% reduction in traffic. Working people often make midday trips home for lunch. This does not mirror real life experiences. He wants to know why they did not conduct studies at mid-day. Maxtutis — The Town has done road tube counts. The afternoon peak hour does have high volumes, but the true peaks are still 7-9 a.m. and 4-6 p.m. Toole — Asked if the Town has traffic counts that are throughout the day. Burns — All counts that we collect are throughout the day. There is a peak in the morning, a little low period before noontime, then a peak at lunchtime; the evening peak is higher than the midday period. We do proof that information. We picked intersection times based on ATR (automatic traffic recorder) data. Allerhand — Without roundabouts asked Mr. Maxtutis would he recommend; also asked if the Town would be legally obligated to build roundabouts. Maxtutis —We're tasked with mitigating the problem not solving it. If you don't improve the intersection, in 5-7 years you will operate with long delays and queues and safety issues. Toole — Asked if the ZBA can ask the applicant for mitigation. Pucci — Yes, if mitigation for the project ties in with the Town's planning concerns. The ZBA would then impose a condition. Marchant — A developer is not fully responsible for the cost of an improvement, but many 40B developers will contribute based upon incremental traffic generation created by the subject project. Fenn — This Island generates different traffic patterns and volumes that create more trips than the industry standard. You need to look at this differently because traffic can be double the industry standard. Zurheide — She's concerned because there is no inclusion of school traffic. Travel from Folger to Blueberry was extraordinary in July taking 30 minutes; by comparison August was a breeze at 15 minutes. Burns — We've done counts in September to do school counts. We do it in August to see the stress point; during school it is not stressed to the same level. Derensis —The proposed roundabouts are not a reality; the ZBA has to act on the existing conditions. Contended that the MDM traffic counts were lower due to manipulation of numbers; if they had used the BETA traffic study counts, they would have come out with the same grade of F. Maxtutis — If consultants use the same data, they come out with the same results. Michaud — If we used the same volume conditions, the count would be the same. We used different horizon years; industry standards suggest a 5-year horizon for planning studies; 7 years is used by DOT for State highway projects because of the timeline associated with the regulatory process. This is not a State highway. The assumption of using studies from other projects did not assign trips to this location. As to capacity analysis, there is very specific guidance. We follow the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology; if we had used the volume conditions from August 2 and based on the 5-year horizon and HCM methodology, we would not show the same numbers. We will respond about that in writing. Cabral — In the winter, it takes four minutes to get to work at the hospital; in the summer, it takes 28 minutes to get to work. South Shore Road is a dead-end road. If we have an emergency; asked how residents would be evacuated through this intersection. Callahan — This is an Island, not the main land so industry standards don't apply. You speak about capacity analysis, protocol and data and manipulation of numbers. We're looking at an additional 800 cars at that intersection. Our way of life will never be the same again. Regardless of the data, the people on South Shore Road must be feeling overrun. No one wants to talk about the impact on the quality of life. Zimicki — We have hard numbers of bedrooms and cars that exist along South Shore Road; the numbers they are coming up with fall short in the traffic impact. He's concerned about school kids; they are not reflected in the traffic studies. More parents drive their kids to school rather than let them take bus; that should skew the turns headed for the school and it isn't reflected. Toole — We need to stop tonight's public comment and talk about the extension; the consultants have to leave and aren't willing to stay. The traffic issue is not finished. Motion Motion to Accept the extension to January 15, 2019. (made by: Botticelli) (seconded by: McCarthy) Vote Carried unanimously Discussion about the date of future public hearings. Motion Motion to Continue to Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 4:30 p.m. at Nantucket High School (made by: Botticelli) (seconded by: McCarthy) Vote Carried unanimously Page 7 of 8 Motion to Submitted by: Terry L. Norton ZBA Minutes for October 3, 2018, adopted Oct 30 c)ole — At that hearing we will talk about water and bats and hope the applicant has more detailed plans. atonietti — There are later dates available in November for extra meetings. iscussion about dates for additional hearings: public hearing will be scheduled for Tuesday November 27, 2018 at 4:30 p.m. at Nantucket High School. at 8:18 p.m. (made by: McCarthy) (seconded by: Koseatac) Carried unanimously Page 8 of 8