Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-11-27ZBA Minutes for November 27, 2018, adopted Dec. 5 N A fol 1 U C K LE �OWIJ CLEF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Public Hearing 2018 DEC -6 PM 0.21 2 Fairgrounds Road 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 -- Tuesday, November 27, 2018 Nantucket High School Mary P. Walker Auditorium — 4:30 p.m. Called to order at 4:37 p.m. and Announcements made. Staff in attendance: Eleanor Antonietti, Zoning Administrator; Mike Bruns, Transportation Planner; Tucker Holland, affordable Housing Coordinator Attending Members: Toole, Botticelli, McCarthy, Koseatac, Thayer, Mondani Absent: O'Mara, Poor Town Representative: Ed Marchant, 40B Advisor; George Pucci, K&P Law, P.C.; Peer Reviewers: None A enda ado ted b unanimous consent APPROVALOF 1. October 30, 2018: Motion to Table until the next meeting. (made by: Botticelli) (seconded by: Koseatac) Carried unanimously 11. OLD BUSINESS I - 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. Sitting Toole, Botticelli, McCarthy, Koseatac, Thayer, Mondani Documentation Traffic Engineering Consultant memorandum, Powerpoint® presentation, and 40B Comprehensive Permit application documentation. Representing Josh Posner, principal Don Bracken, Bracken Engineering, Inc. Jamie Feeley, Cottage & Castle, Proponent Chris Dallmus, Design Associates Peter Freeman, Freeman & Freeman Law, P.C. Public David Iverson, 21 Meadowview Road Hershel Allerhand, 47 Union Street Mary Beth Splaine, 11 South Shore Road Paul Derensis, attorney for Nantucket Tipping point and 285 Island homeowners Jacques Zimicki, 3 Wherowhero Lane Mindy Levin, 10 Folger Avenue Bruce Liljegren, Cormac Collier, Executive Director Nantucket Land Council Diane Coombs, 44 Union Street Jill Vieth, 12 Okorwaw Avenue Joan Stockman, 13 Wherowhero Lane Bruce Perry, 14 South Shore Road Page 1 of 9 ZBA Minutes for November 27, 2018, adopted Dec. 5 Discussion Toole — The Beta and MDM traffic consultants didn't make the meeting. Asked Mike Burns to summarize the memorandum. Burns — There was a difference in data collected at various times resulting in different values. Proportional impact agreed upon by three different traffic analysts is outlined in the memorandum and break out the 156 -unit development and the 100 -unit development. The proportional impact to the Surfside & Fairgrounds Roads intersection under the 100 -unit development impact is 5.3% and the 156 -unit development is at 8.2%. The impact on the Surfside Road & Miacomet Avenue intersection under the 100 -unit development impact is 2.7% and the 156 -unit development is at 4.2%. Conceptually used a price to implement improvements of $2M; it effectively means sufficient 'funds are generated by the impact to do a roadway safety audit and respond and to do the conceptual and preliminary designs. Used Beta's August numbers to create a build -out scenario going out seven years. Botticelli — The article for the rotary didn't pass so she wonders if there is funding in the Town budget to deal with the two roundabouts referred to in the study. Burns — What was on the ballot dealt exclusively with Old South Road and Milestone Road; it didn't address anything in the vicinity of this project. There are no public funds for either of these intersections. Botticelli — Asked if the onus is on the applicant to create better traffic flow or is it on the Town. Burns — We use this as a way of discussion about how the applicant could mitigate traffic. We rarely ask a developer to rebuild a network of intersections; the responsibility is shared. Botticelli — Asked if the Town will always have to keep expanding our roadways and creating roundabouts to accommodate large developments. Burns — That is a valid question, but he doesn't have an answer. We determine which intersections are stressed from a development and how to bring it to a better level of efficiency. Toole — We don't have to accept the mitigation. Asked if this development specifically renders the two intersections from level -of -service (LOS) -C to -F or were the intersections F to begin with. Butes — He believes the LOS was at E and it took only two vehicles to move it into LOS -F. The three engineers stopped debating LOS at a certain point and began focusing on proportional impact and mitigation. Toole — Asked if many Island intersections are at the LOS -E to -F range on a peak day. Burns — In the mid -Island area, absolutely and in Town. If you wait more than a minute or two from the time you enter the queue to when you get through the intersection, the LOS is F; that's the scale. Four Corners takes 5 minutes in the summer; that is a "super F." Mondani — If it were determined major improvements were necessary, it is still possible that at Town meeting it could be voted down. Asked if it were possible to make improvements without going through Town Meeting. Burns — Surfside -Fairgrounds is a very busy intersection; a roundabout would make it much safer. Only a project that can be absorbed into the existing Town budget doesn't need to go to a ballot; a roundabout could not be absorbed. If money were donated for the work, we wouldn't need to go to ballot. There are low-cost options for improvement Toole — Asked how the board feels about the traffic issue. Thayer — Doesn't feel the traffic consultants need to come back. Botticelli — We have enough information. McCarthy — Agrees. Mondani — He has no concerns with the methodology. His concern is if there are improvements and having to rely on Town meeting and a ballot. Marchant — The process for other 40B projects has been similar to this. We call the mitigation fairshare; the reason towns want the applicant to provide funding is to prepare a PS&E (Plans Specifications and Estimate) so it can be submitted to Mass DOT for State -funding programs. As he read the report, the fairshare contribution would be used for that. These improvements are expensive, and most communities try to get State assistance on these -types of infrastructure improvements. Toole — Focusing on the 100 -unit numbers, asked if this amount of impact (5.3 & 2.7) is a big impact; how would he rank that. Marchant — The project he worked on happened to be in the 6% to 7% range. If there is an existing condition within the community, the 40B developer is not expected to cure that; you can ask for a fairshare contribution. The HHC would not allow the Town to require the 40B developer to fund 100% of the improvements; it was existing. The solution is a proportional mitigation contribution. Iverson — He would like the traffic consultants to come back The Beta Report reflects that upon finishing this build, both South Shore and Fairgrounds Roads will be at a LOS -F; but so, will Sparks Avenue intersection. He's not sure why we're having them pay for mitigation on intersections that are already at LOS -F; they should help pay for improvements to the bigger problem. All the reports minimize the effect of the neighborhood on South Shore Road; they are increasing the traffic by over 50%. To the residents, the impact is not 7% but 50+%. The 1% might be a good metric for Cape Cod but not Nantucket. The Board should require the traffic mitigation be completed before construction begins. Toole — In your opinion, you want to condition that a shovel can't go in the ground until the roundabout is built Iverson — Yes, so many studies have been done and MDM has come back with responses to numbers they don't like. Why are we talking about the whole intersection and not talking about the people who live on the development side of Page 2 of 9 ZBA Minutes for November 27, 2018, adopted Dec. 5 the intersection. A 54% increase in traffic in a neighborhood is staggering. The study had no discussion about what happens when Lovers Lane is paved, and all that traffic comes down Surfside to that same old stop sign; there is a lot that needs to be looked at. Toole — He doesn't see how bringing the traffic consultants back to be grilled will change things. Iverson — Urged the Board to take a closer look at the report. Botticelli — They based their numbers on professional data. Iverson — Their all -day trips and peak am & pm are not that far apart. The way they did it minimizes the impact on the neighborhood. They talk about how the trips are distributed out of the parking lot, but not about the specific percentage increase in the neighborhood. Toole — Asked if Mr. Iverson's 54% is based upon the 100 -unit or 156 -unit development. Iverson — His calculation is 54% increase; MDM's number is 41% increase adding only 1272 daily trips. Beta is at 1352 daily trips which adds 43%. We have 526 bedrooms on South Shore Road; that number will increase by 54% by an addition of 285 bedrooms. Allerhand — Under 40B the Town is on the hook to spend the money to make reasonable improvements whether we want to or not. Marchant — The Town isn't forced to fund those improvements. The argument made by the applicant is that if it is such a great problem, why wasn't already addressed; that is a valid comment. The applicant has said that they will pay their fair share. Splaine — Both traffic reports looked north of the intersection; now we're talking mitigation. One report about the fires in California is that poor planning with dead-end streets and cul-de-sacs led to gridlock forcing people to walk out South Shore Road is a 1 -mile -long, dead-end street with seven or eight dead-end streets feeding into it In the event of an emergency requiring evacuation, we won't be able to get out because this development is strangling access out of the neighborhood onto Surfside Road. Derensis — In the Selectmen's letter, each roundabout would cost $2.4M. The mitigation (fairshare) for 100 units was $132,000 for one roundabout and $67,000 for the other. For the 156 units, the price of mitigation for both intersections is $312,000 against a total of $4.8M. The intersections already have a LOS -F; essentially the existing infrastructure can't handle the project; these improvements should be made before permitting the project. Zimicld — Currently at peak morning, they have 148 cars exiting South Shore Road; asked how many cars would be added by the 100 -unit and 156 -unit development. Burns — For the 100 -unit development, the report has 60 vehicles going through an intersection that has 1140 trips going through it. For the 156 -unit development, the report has 93 vehicles going through that intersection that has 1140 trips going through it. Toole — Asked that all questions focus on the 100 -unit development. For him, he will not vote for the 156 -unit development. Zimicld — Say we have 500 cars off South Shore Road; this is another 200 or 300 cars coming out of the development. To him the numbers don't add up. Burns — He doesn't know where the 500 vehicles are coming from. We looked at the peak hours in the morning and the evening. This development contributes 5.5% to the traffic in those peak hours. He doesn't want to change the spectrum, windows of time or volume. Zimicld — He was changing the metric by saying how many cars actually live on South Shore Road. You're asking us to believe that if we double that number, we'll only have 60 more cars. Botticelli — There 160 or something like that parking spaces. Of those cars, only 60 trips were added. Burns — In the morning, 60 trips were added at the Surfside -South Shore intersection, 36 of which would go through the Miacomet intersection. In the evening, 77 will go through the Surfside -South Shore intersection with 42 having passed through the Miacomet intersection. This is how stressed the intersections will be at peak hours. Zimicld — The traffic will be much worse. Asked if when a traffic study like this has been done, has the Town ever gone back and done another study to see if what the approval was based on turned out to be true. Burns — Not for a particular development but for an area; we try to update intersection counts periodically. That is where we get our 1% growth. Toole — He's satisfied with the answer. Levin — As she understands it, from 100 houses (sic) there will be 60 cars at the intersection at peak hours. Asked what the peak hours are. Burns — Counts were taken from 7-9 a.m. and 4-6 p.m. We averaged those out and took the high number. Repeated, it's 60 in the morning and 77 in the evening. Numbers were derived from looking at communities and consider everyone who is driving. Levin — It doesn't seem reasonable to think that only 60 cars will leave from 100 houses between 7 and 9 a.m. Burns — The trip generations are collected in the field; the trip numbers from this development are based on surveys for the manual created by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Page 3 of 9 ZBA Minutes for November 27, 2018, adopted Dec. 5 Liljigren — Believes the numbers are way off; you're taking national numbers for a specific intersection. He doesn't see any directional impact for each direction at the Surfside -South Shore intersection. Considering all the bike traffic being fed into a rotary, he believes safety will get worse. Feels that $2M is a too low estimate. Iverson — We aren't looking at the whole picture. Already there are 192 at the intersection during peak hours and we're adding another 60 and in the evening peak there are 252 cars with 77 being added. That really minimi es the whole picture. Collier — Though he doesn't agree with the weak numbers, he does agree that it is within ZBA's jurisdiction to ensure the improvements are done before development happens. The Planning Board often places the condition for completion of infrastructure work. Toole — Diane Coombs wanted to address something, so wants to have her speak now before he forgets. Coombs — This application has never come before the Historic District Commission (HDC) for review, other than the architecture provided by Matt MacEachern, Emeritus Development; they had one meeting in May about this to provide a letter of opinion to the ZBA. HDC has never been able to review the plans developed by Chris Dallmus. It has been implied that this has come before the HDC three times and it has not Toole — The applicant is asking the ZBA to act as the HDC, but we will send a request for HDC input; just haven't gotten there yet. Coombs — The ZBA is focusing on the 100 -unit plan but the original 156 -unit plan is still open. At the State level, the 156 -plan is the only one they have, correct? Toole — The applicant has many avenues open to them. They are allowed to appeal any decision. We are currently discussing a modified plan. Ultimately it will go back to the State depending on what happens here. Pucci — The goal of this is to reach a project everyone is happy with; everyone will be happy with the conditions. In the event someone is not happy, the full unit number project is technically on the table, which the applicant can use as leverage over the ZBA. There is no reason for this to end up back at the Housing Appeals Board. You're acting in accordance with our recommendation to keep talking about the modified plan; focus and work on that plan. The ZBA also has leverage in that the 100 -unit project is an economically viable plan for the developer. Posner — He had thought we would move into a discussion about the housing program and architecture; there are plans for the recreation building. Toole — We don't need to talk about specific architectural details just yet He would like to talk about the plan as it relates to the year-round component. A quid pro quo is the condo units. Posner — The 100 -unit plan consists of 40 single-family cottages and a series of condos in different buildings totaling 60 units; 15 condo units are restricted under the 40-B program with their price restricted by a formula for households that are in the 80% of the area's medium income. That leaves 45 units, which we propose will all be restricted year-round Island residents. We've spent a considerable amount of time detailing, for the ZBA, a program of how that would work. 30 of those could be restricted at the outset to year-round residents who can demonstrate they are year-round residents. If there are more applicants than units, there would be a lottery process similar to the lottery for those affordable units. There would be a deed restriction on those units that requires residents for the first 30 years to resell only to year-round qualified residents and those units cannot be rented out, they must be occupied by the primary resident We would have up to an additional 15 units reserved for purchase by Nantucket non-profit organizations for their permanent, year-round employees. Toole — You said this would provide middle-income residents an opportunity to purchase a home. Asked if there is an income restriction for that. Posner — We are setting a price rate that we think is affordable for middle-income Islanders; resale will be restricted to other year-round Island residents. Toole — Asked what would preclude someone above middle income from buying a condo to downsize. Without an income restriction, all 30 could be sold to owners who might only be here for seven or eight months. Posner — He thinks the restriction on its being only a primary resident keeps it from being a part-time residence. Toole — He believes that living in a house for six months and one day makes it a primary residence. McCarthy — For first-time homebuyers, Land Bank has ways to ensure during the first year that it is a primary residence. Feels Mr. Posner should spell out more specifically about who is eligible for financing purposes. Downsizers would have easier access to financing. There should be a cap to ensure teachers, nurses, police, the population you want to help is in fact getting the condos. Your target population is not retirees looking to downsize; you want this to be for working families and essential personnel. Posner — We had thought this would not preclude people who are downsizing; but this is exactly the type of conversation we want about what this program should be. There are difficulties with the whole income program as a practical matter when you get up to 200% annual medium income (AMI) in terms of what restrictions are in place and what a buyer is willing to accept in terms of future resale and bureaucracy. As a developer, our concern is what price we will be able to sell those units. Toole — You specifically said these are out there to fill a need in that young -family market If you're not building for that market, don't say you are. It's okay if that's the case; he wants this to be transparent Page 4of9 ZBA Minutes for November 27, 2018, adopted Dec. 5 Posner — The pricing that we propose that is written in the application, we think will mean that if you purchase a unit, you won't be able to sell it to an investor who wants to rent the unit. That restricts the value of the unit that will result in a level of affordability for a middle-income buyer. We reached out to others in the affordable housing field on Island; they worked with us to talk about this program. We are sincerely interested in making a difference for people otherwise priced out of the market. Feeley — Our message from the beginning about the condos has been consistent and it included a retiree who wanted to take equity out of their home, so they could continue to live on Nantucket. Today there are only three homes for sale under $750,000; none are under $600,000. There are only three for sale between $750,000 and $850,000. Toole — This is the first time we've seen this program and are also interested in a continued dialogue. McCarthy — She took this to be a rough draft outline that would be tightened up. Asked who would be the monitoring agent. Posner — There is a monitoring agent for the 40B units that is selected and approved, who plays a role in the lottery and verification process. McCarthy — Asked if there is an ability for the monitoring agent to take on this process and who that is. Posner — Yes. They would get funded through the transfer of the units. Marchant — In terms of the price model for the 40B, eligibility is 80% of AMI. However, pricing has to be based on 70% AMI; that creates a window of eligibility. In addition to income limitations other limitations are assets and must be a first- time home buyer. There is also a local preference permitted on 40B projects that allows the sale of 70% of affordable units to households who qualify under the local preference: Island employee, business owner, or child in the school system. The State monitors 40B projects. There are two types of monitoring agents: the eligibility monitoring agent is related to the sale of the unit and monitors the lottery agent, and then the State appointed limited dividend restriction monitoring agent monitors the profit restrictions on the developer. As he read the write up, he thought it said the year - rounders could rent the unit once a year for one month. The developer has to find the eligibility monitoring agent; that agent is funded by 2.5% out of the sale proceeds. McCarthy — Who would be monitoring agent to oversee the year-round residences for 30 years. Toole — Wants to know who it is and who pays for it. Marchant — You need a clear deed restriction; very often towns have lost units because monitoring was not done correctly. It is the ZBA's job to ensure a monitoring program is in place. You can share some of the costs; we're talking about small dollars for a very important item. His other concern is to ensure that whatever program ZBA approves is approvable by DHCD. With income restrictions, you might make a better argument for third -party subsidy money to further reduce those prices without an income restriction. He thinks it is a program that we can figure out. Vieth — With the new plan, it sounds like only 15 units will be on SHI (subsidized housing inventory) list. Botticelh — It is 15 condos and 10 houses. Vieth — Asked if that would be the minimum number for one year of safe harbor. Toole — It is the minimum number. Vieth — It is her understanding that you can do longer than a 30 -year deed restriction. McCarthy — You can apply to have it extended at the end of the 30 years. Vieth — Asked who the year-round qualified persons would be. It's not hard to register to vote. McCarthy — That has to be defined. Toole — We aren't that far along yet. We just got this, and it needs a lot of fleshing out. Yes, one question is how to ensure the program works. Vieth — Her concern is the idea of selling to non -profits; feels that would pit groups against one another. A lot of our year-round businesses have people who would need to buy these units as well. McCarthy — She had a similar question; but under the mission related purpose, you can use it for actors rotating through for performances. That is a very high -traffic use, more so than seasonal workers and the same for rotating physicians. Doesn't know how that would be reconciled when business have managers here for seven to eight months out of the year. Posner — Those are good points that deserve to be discussed. We want to have this to be a community that is mostly year-round; that won't always be the case because some of the market rate houses will be used for summer rentals. In the case of the year-round residences, we want to try to steer those around to the use by long-term, year-round, non-profit employees. The expiration of the 30 -year deed restriction refers only to the year-round, middle-income housing; at the end of the 30 -year period, Nantucket Affordable Housing Trust has right of first refusal. Toole — There is no money restriction on the year-round residences. Mondani — This is a good idea but doesn't know why they don't just increase the number of affordable units. This idea could be tried on another project. Jill — Asked if Beach Plum is a year-round project. Posner — That's mixed; the 40B units are restricted to year-round people who earn 80% of the AMI or less. We reserved 10 with 70% of those to go to local people and 30% open to anyone. As it turned out, 100% of the 10 units are occupied by Nantucket residents. The rest are market -rate units open to anyone. Page 5 of 9 ZBA Minutes for November 27, 2018, adopted Dec. 5 Derensis — From the point of view of someone who has put together programs, we have put together programs with restrictions that run for 200 years; the 30 years is for private restrictions. The expiration year comes faster than expected and people don't want to continue those. When they say this is for residents only, their documents describe that you get to have the ability to buy these units if you agree this will be your primary residence; as a result, anyone could buy one of these houses. That does not limit the housing to "current" Island residents. There is a lot of controversy throughout the nation about what constitutes a primary residence; it doesn't have to be your only house. All a person has to do is declare that this is their primary residence; they could sleep in it one night This is not practical, unenforceable, and not state of the art. Posner — We are trying to accomplish a year-round resident as the beneficiary; we aren't trying to create loop holes. Invited Mr. Derensis to sit down with them to discuss how to accomplish what he wants to see accomplished. Toole — This begs for a workgroup, when we get to that point. If we decide to go in this direction, we can create a workgroup to iron out the minutia when we get there. Stockman — Encouraged the ZBA not to have the Town of Nantucket assume any costs for regulatory committees or oversight for a project meant to create profit for the developer; the developer should figure out how to fund that She has a problem with the 20% profit potential mentioned by Mr. Marchant; that is what we saw on the original PEL letter; there are many ways to make millions on the sale of units. In Beach Plum village as she understands from a resident, only one market -rate unit is currently occupied by a year-round resident When she looks at the cost for the units for non -profits, she calculated the mortgage, 20% down payment, homeowner association fees, and other ownership costs, she calculates about $2000 month at today's interest rates; we don't know what the rates will be when the units are sold. She takes issue with the year-round restriction on the stand-alone units; using the same math, that's about $9,000 to $10,000 a month; that doesn't qualify as year-round affordable. B.Perry - His concern is how the limited dividend restriction monitoring agent is chosen and what enforcement ability does this person have. His other concern is with the eligibility monitoring agent, the more transfers this person approves, the more money he or she makes. Finally, he wonders if we're setting up for someone to be able to knock on the door and ask the resident for papers. Toole — The minutia of this plan needs a lot more work. ZBA and the developer aren't there yet We will get to the point where all these questions are answered. McCarthy — This is a great program and novel idea. The amount of research and policy to make this successful and workable will take us way beyond'the January 15, 2019 date. If the developer could try to look at increasing the number of affordable units or do like Sachem's Path did with 80%, 100%, and 150% AMI and still keep it economic; that would be an easier, cleaner, better way to meet a similar goal without creating a new program. Discussion about how the Sachem's Path 100% and 150% units were funded and the program behind them. Allerhand — If you have a deadline that must be met, and this can't be fleshed out by then, he thinks the ZBA should base their decision based on the fact that this is a 40B only. Levin — Doesn't think the ZBA should have to act as HDC; it is HDC's job to approve the architecture. Holland — In the case of Sachem's you have different monitoring for the different levels. We've talked about the income restriction being something easier to get a handle around; there's still work going on in that regard. Suggested a workgroup sooner rather than later. Toole — January 15, 2019 is one -and -a -half months away. We just saw this plan. Jan 15 is out of the question, so he assumes the developer will grant an extension. Posner — We understand the ZBA will need additional time; they are willing to create a schedule of hearings to work with the ZBA and move this along. Toole — Asked to get off this and talk about the plans. Botticel i — Asked if the affordable units have been categorized within the condo buildings. Posner — Not at present. Botticelli — She's curious about the affordable units; she wants to ensure they are appropriately spread out and don't end up in the basements. Toole — He agrees with Botticelli about basement apartments; they are inferior due to lack of light, access to outside and none of them should be designated as affordable. He's not a fan of big buildings; they should be cut further into two to create a more village -like concept with the parking not ringing the subdivision. The 285 bedrooms on 21 acres is far in excess of density to anything on Nantucket. One solution is to eliminate all basement units. The idea of two developments within one development really bothers him; you're setting up a cluster of year -rounders and a cluster of summer people. At one point there was talk about one grilling spot for 60 units; a lot more thought should be given to the condos and more outdoor space. Botticelli — Wonders about storage of stuff like bikes, fishing poles, etc.; something needs to be in place to deal with stuff that ends up on a porch and doesn't get put away. Feeley — We weren't able to put in very large utility storage for things like bikes. We provided storage units in the basement, so units have one or the other. Some of the 2- and 3 -bedroom units are set up as townhouses using basement space and ground -floor space. Also bike racks have been identified. Page 6 of 9 ZBA Minutes for November 27, 2018, adopted Dec. 5 Botticelli — There are six private entry doors going into these units. She doesn't want boards and fishing poles and stuff ending up sitting on these beautiful porches. Feeley — We'll give that some thought. Toole — None of the plans show a basement connected to the lst floor. The basement units are all stand alone. Feeley — That's not the latest plan. Toole — When a developer says he wants to make progress, it's irritating not to have the correct plans. What we have in our package is more recycling and wonders why he's looking at that. Do not talk at the mic about how we're not moving fast enough, and we don't have the correct plans. That irritates him to not have the proper information. We got the clubhouse information one day before the meeting; that is inadequate. You need to submit information in a timely manner. Feeley — The information submitted for the last hearing does show the most recent condo configuration. He doesn't know how that information got into the packet. Toole — We have the packet from October 30. It does not show any townhouse units originating at the lower level, as Mr. Feeley stated a townhouse would. Dallmus — That's not true; all townhouse units originate at the first floor. Toole — Take a look at getting rid of basement units. Asked that all material be submitted in a timely manner, which is not two days before the meeting. Thayer — The drainage swales and rainwater structures in the buffer zones are unacceptable. That entire buffer zone will get cleared and must be substantially revegetated. He doesn't like the parking abutting the buffer zone; you're subjecting neighbors to those property lines to a lot of noise and light pollution. The buffer zone has to be substantially planted. Agrees with Mr. Toole about a mix; he doesn't like the condos jammed into one area. Consider lessening the density somehow. Toole — He counted 22 basement units not counting Building D, which he doesn't have. On the single -family -home area, one of the affordable units, Lot 7, is on the curb; it's a much smaller space and a funky shape, which is not going to fly. Botticelli — Suggested it be left open. Toole — Many plans indicate the affordable units don't have exterior access to the basement. Sometimes you can tell which units are affordable because the stuff is outside due to lack of exterior access. Sachem's Path has bulkheads. He'd like sidewalks to be brick. Thayer — The buffer zone should be a buffer zone. Drainage swales are planted with low material and is not a buffer. Toole — Asked if the intent of the ZBA should be not to touch anything within the buffer. Thayer — Yes; when the construction guys reach the site, it'll be cleared right to the property line. There should be a restriction asking that plantings in the buffer zone be augmented. Botticelli — We made Sachem's Path put up fencing to prevent clearing in the buffer zone. Toole — In terms of the clubhouse, it has a commercial kitchen. That would be conditioned and restricted; asked if the intent is to have functions. Feeley — The residents could have functions amongst themselves. People in condos won't have a lot of entertainment space; this provides that. Botticelli — It would be helpful for the architectural plans to have building dimensions. Toole — Asked if there is difficulty fitting in all the drainage. Bracken — There are still some things we don't agree on with Mr. Chessia. Mr. Chessia doesn't feel the proposed systems meet the regulations 100%. The rain gardens could be replaced with another option; getting feedback from hydrologists that type of LID treatment is preferred. Can still do catch basins. Ticcoma Green has a storm -tree system, a new technology, made up of a catch basin next to a container with a tree; rainwater goes into that system and overflow goes into a catch basin; Mr. Chessia doesn't feel that meets the stormwater standards. Right now, we're looking at a hybrid design with trees and catch basins. Toole — If the unit counts were lowered and parking reduced, asked if there's a better chance of getting the raingardens. He likes them. Thayer — He likes the raingardens, which are very effective, just not in the buffer zones. Toole — If the density were reduced, everything would get better. If this were a single-family dwelling project throughout, there would be room for 68 houses at 3.5 bedrooms apiece with no pool or clubhouse. He doesn't think we're there yet. Botticelli — We've brought up points about the density and layout and the buffer zone. We also haven't talked about trash and mail for the condos. Toole — There is a mail room in the clubhouse, but you can't get behind the boxes to put the mail in; that needs to be thought out. You have the potential for 570 people living in a very small area; this is an urban scale project, even if reduced to single-family dwellings only. Ultimately, we need to see a more detailed landscaping plan. Clarified that sheds are intended to be included with every house; we need to see the shed designs. Talked a little about parking. We restricted Sachem's Path to no boats or RVs parked in the area. No garages are shown on the plans; asked if the developer intends to apply for garages, those have to be shown on each and every lot for which they are planned. We will have to talk about whether or not over -night parking is allowed on the street, as done for Sachem's Path. We have to see the allocation of the affordable condo units sooner rather than later. Page 7 of 9 ZBA Minutes for November 27, 2018, adopted Dec. 5 Botticel i — We need to have all four elevations of the buildings; currently we have only the front and back. Dallmus — He thought all four sides were included. When we get to that point, all four elevations will be helpful. Toole — We have to have detailed '/4 -inch scaled drawings since we are sitting as HDC. Architecture could be one whole meeting. There has to be some thought about how trash in the condos is handled. He too has a problem with the perimeter parking. The fence is okay but there is no opportunity for landscaping in the buffer. Koseatac — If he qualified for one of these homes and he wants to get summer help, what's to stop him from loading up one of the bedrooms with workers and six or seven cars and who would enforce that Feeley — Having an on-site property management office would handle all landscaping and interaction with residents. There is a restriction to renting one unit up to a month; a copy of the lease has to be submitted to the propem- manager. We're hoping that will be the monitoring element. Koseatac — If he keeps violating, asked where the teeth is for enforcement. Feeley — That would be part of the homeowner's association documents; those have to be developed. Freeman — HOA docs typically cover that. If it is prevalent on the Island, the BOH has enforcement rights. Toole — The enforcement question is a good one and it is a problem. The fact that they are trying to sell these units at pretty hefty numbers, their involvement will be tight. Thayer — Asked if all units or just condos are limited to the one-month rental. Botticelli —just the condos. Toole — Questions why any rentals are allowed if these are year-round residents. Feeley — They are trying to accommodate a resident who wants to go away for one month and rent his unit during that time. Trying to avoid having the units go to boarders. Toole — If you own an apartment in New York you don't necessarily have the option be an Airbnb. Feeley — Asked if it is the preference of the board not to have any rental. Botticelli — It simplifies things not to have that issue. Thinks it's going to be hard to afford a 3- or 4 -bedroom unit and thinks there will be boarders. She doesn't think an on-site manager can enforce that. Toole — He thinks the property manager is a huge asset. Asked if one of the units is a resident for the manger. Feeley — No, they have an on-site office. Botticelli — It would be better to have someone on site all the time. Stockman — This plan shows a 25 -foot buffer between 72,660 square feet of condo pavement and the property line. Appreciates the comments about the parking, reducing the buildings, and perimeter road. This is like a shopping mall; this is a ridiculous amount of parking for a wildly inappropriate development in a residential area. Asked the ZBA not approve that kind of massive development. Stop & Shop is 41,000 square feet. The buffers should be no -cut zones with augmented plantings B.Perry — The cover page talks about the proposed zoning table; since this board is making up the zoning, they are asking for zero front setback with a 4 -foot -wide sidewalk and 3 -foot strip to the road. Suggested a front yard setback. There is a conflict in groundcover; the cover sheet has 50% groundcover but later they request 30% groundcover. The undisturbed buffers contain 3 drainage swales, the west digs down three feet up to the property line. They are proposing 1100 linear feet of stockade fence, which can't be put in unless the buffer is cleared; besides, a stockade fence is very unwelcoming. Lot 47 & 45, there is another 300 feet of stockade fence and one of those is supposed to be protected as open space. Addressing private water supply, at the last meeting, we talked at length about public water supply. The private lots to the south have their private wells within 37 and 40 feet to the raingardens, which is much too close; need to apply a cone of influence for those wells. Whatever runs off the driveways and raingardens will impact those wells. The two lots to the west, their wells will be impacted by a much larger raingarden where these wells are down gradient There are a number of questions in the Chessia and Bracken letters which haven't been discussed. It is pretty evident the entire property will be cleared with no real plans for how the buffers will be re-established or what will be between the houses or around the condos. We need more details so that we don't end up with a sea of non-native species. Top of foundation on all buildings is between 2 and 2.5 feet above existing contours putting the first floor between 2.5 and 4 feet above grade. All exterior windows in the northern condos face north so there will never be any sunlight in those apartments. The ones facing west will get partial sunlight some time of the year. Doesn't understand why the 60% impervious community building and parking doesn't need a waiver from whatever zoning will be made for this. This has a sales office; asked if that is restricted to sales of lots in this development or is it a commercial use in a residential area. There are no plans for trash or recycling; no lighting plan; no final sewer disposal plan. There is no plan for handicapped access to the basements, first floors, or second floors of the condos. Toole — Asked Mr. Marchant if any units have to be handicap accessible. Marchant — His understanding is there are no handicap requirements for for -sale units. There are requirements that common areas be accessible. Page 8 of 9 ZBA Minutes for November 27, 2018, adopted Dec. 5 Toole — When we get new architectural plans, show the current grade, proposed grade, and heights. The raingarden issue, assuming you can get it out of the buffer zone, asked if it needs to be away from wells. Bracken — If it has a subsurface leaching disposal system, it has to have a 100 -foot setback just like a septic system. We do show the neighbor's wells and did ensure they are far enough away not to be of concern. One raingarden will be sealed so nothing goes into the ground in this area and goes to the sub -surface leaching outside the setback. There is a change in grade across the area and foundations will all be at similar elevations. Discussion about the topography and the proposed grade change. Bracken - He doesn't think a lot of clearing will be necessary to put the fence in on the property perimeter. We aren't at the point of final landscape; we do intend for these to be heavily landscaped. Toole — Asked if it would make sense to move wells at the developer's expense, if the neighbors are interested. They meet minimum standards, but they are close enough to take another look. Mondani — Regarding the comments about native species, what was provided last time indicated most recommendations are non-native and some are invasive. He hopes they consider using native plants considering the sensitive habitat in this area. Feeley — We looked at brick sidewalks. In response to a neighbor's comment about country, we are trying to be responsive — do a sustainable country feel. Discussion about whether or not National Grid can meet the electrical demands of this development. Toole — Asked when we are going to see a sewer plan. Bracken — We are still working with the Sewer Department and their consultant looking at gravity. Toole — We are not even voting on anything without a sewer plan. We need basic plan in terms of number of units first. The applicant states they are talking to Sewer Department. There is no proposal about going out to Miacomet Road, there was talk about the intersection. Motion Continued to December 5, 2018 at 4:30 p.m. at Nantucket High School by unanimous consent. Vote N/A OTHER111. I. Aunr ADJOURNMENT Motion to Adjourn at 7:37 p.m. (made by: Botticel i) (seconded by: Koseatac) Carried unanimously Submitted by: Terry L. Norton Page 9 of 9