Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-12-18ZBA Minutes for December 18, 2018, adopted Jan. 16, 2019 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Public Hearing 2 Fairgrounds Road Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 www.nantucket-ma.gov NA N T U Gig ''TOWN .01Lf. 2019 JAN t 7 AM S: 35 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, December 18, 2018 Nantucket High School Cafeteria — 4:30 p.m. Called to order at 4:30 p.m. and announcements made by Mr. Toole. Staff in attendance: Eleanor Antonietti, Zoning Administrator; Tucker Holland, Town Housing Specialist Attending Members: Toole, Botticelli, McCarthy, Koseatac, Thayer, Mondani Absent: O'Mara, Poor Town Representative: George Pucci, K&P Law, P.C. Agenda ado ted by unanimous consent APPROVAL1. OF 1. December 5,2018: Motion to Approve as amended. (made by: Botticelli) (seconded by: Koseatac) Carried unanimously 1. 20-18 Surfside Crossing, LLC Surfside Crossing 40B Freeman / Reade ORIGINAL APPLICATION: 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 2 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. MODIFIED PROPOSAL under consideration: 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 100 for -sale dwelling units comprised of 40 stand-alone single-family cottages on fee simple lots and 60 condominium units in 5 multi -family buildings, with 25% (25 units, 10 cottages and 15 condominium units) designated as affordable units, with a total of 285 bedrooms. The existing lots will be subdivided into 40 fee simple lots, a 3.3 -acre condominium lot, a 0.5 -acre community lot, and 2.8 acres of open space lots. A total of 244 parking spaces will be provide consisting of 80 off-street parking spaces (2 per cottage), 124 spaces for the condominiums, 20 spaces for the recreational community building, and 20 overflow on street spaces. Infrastructure and amenities will be provided; however, the proposed project is designed 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. Voting Toole, Botticelli, McCarthy, Koseatac, Mondani Alternates Thayer Documentation Architectural Design Plans, HDC comments, 40B Comprehensive Permit application documentation. Representing Don Bracken, Bracken Engineering, Inc. Chris Dallmus, Design Associates Peter Freeman, Freeman & Freeman Law, P.C. Jamie Feeley, Cottage & Castle, Proponent Josh Posner, principal Public Jacques Zimicki, 3 Wherowhero Lane Shawn Cabral, 8 South Shore Road Sean Perry, 14 South Shore Road David Iverson, 21 Meadowview Road Cormac Collier, Executive Director Nantucket Land Council Joan Stockman, 13 Wherowhero Lane Campbell Sutton, 15 Appleton Road Page 1of10 ZBA Minutes for December 18, 2018, adopted Jan. 16, 2019 Public Hershel Allerhand, 47 Union Street Continued Linda Derensis, Nantucket Tipping Point Patrick Taaffe, 21 Okorwaw Drive Paul Derensis, attorney for Nantucket Tipping point and 285 Island homeowners Liz Coffin, 47 Union Street Jill Vieth, 12 Okorwaw Avenue Discussion Toole — Explains there are only two microphones and the NCTV is filming for archived footage, no live streaming. Thanks members of the public who submitted written comments in advance. Posner — Made introductory remarks. Recognize they have a way to determine a mutually acceptable development Understand that the Board and public find the development too dense with too many units. We responded by reducing density to 150 units. At November 27 and December 5 meetings, we spent time looking at housing elements in more detail. The take-aways are that single-family cottages (SFC) are generally acceptable despite stated concerns about architecture, number of bedrooms, lot configuration, sizes of buildings etc. We have some updates on these units. Hoping to get closer to resolution on this part of the development. Went to the Historic District Commission (HDC) last week re. the SFCs. There is progress on that element. While the Board thinks the condo buildings are improved in scale and relocation, there are still major concerns, too big, direct access to units from outside, private yards space, basement units, and layout of buildings. Working on all the concerns. Do not yet have solutions to all concerns, do have some approaches to discuss on preliminary basis. Want feedback on approaches to individual buildings but that doesn't address the number of and layout of condo units. We want to be responsive and to earn broad support at January 16 meeting. See that condo buildings present biggest design and density challenge. We hear the message that we could likely get approval with SFC only. We persist with retaining condo element because the Island has serious affordable housing problem that hits residents at various income levels. The condos provide badly needed middle-income housing to those who are increasingly priced out of the real estate market Community is being hollowed out as more people cash out or give up and move away. This development is a chance to reach a healthy equilibrium. He's been developing affordable housing since the 1970s around New England; he started as an idealistic community activist in his 20's. He has been summer resident since he was 10. This is not a way to make a fast buck, it requires long term commitment to create a high-quality, successful, mixed -income housing community. This can be one as well that will make a meaningful dent in the Island's affordable -housing shortfall. He wants to end up with a plan that most people can live with. We are sincere in our efforts to try. We will do our best to accommodate legitimate concerns of the Board and the community within the context of creating badly -needed affordable housing. Therefore, we don't accept the bottom line that site should be restricted to SFC or that the condos should be minimized. We do not accept that middle-income, affordable, family housing should be done in some unnamed other location. The need is too great and the cost is too high and the availability of appropriate land for a housing development is too limited not to build affordable housing at Surfside Crossing. Our presentation will include updates on things incorporated from the last session as well as feedback from the historic District Commission (HDC). Hopes to talk about the sample condo plans. He wants to clarify that they have submitted a formal sewer proposal and want to have more detailed conversation on year-round restrictions for condos, perhaps set up a workshop. Would like to focus on revised condo plan on January 16, based on today's feedbacks. Would also like to revisit recreation/community building on January 16. Once we have resolved development plan together, it makes sense to move on to waivers and Homeowners Association (HOA) documents. SEWER Bracken — First plan on slide was in packet, it's a revised sewer connection plan; the entire site will be gravity fed down to pump station. Located on the plan are the hydrants, as suggested by Nantucket Fire Department (NFD). The next slide zooms in on what we are proposing for the Sewer connection. Effluent comes in by gravity, goes north to the wet -well pump system, there will be utility building, stand-by generator, and buried propane tank He's been working with Director of Sewer Department David Gray and Town consultant Sheahan for a way that doesn't increase the flow in the sewer mains in South Shore Road. We're waiting to hear from the Sewer Department; he made an official request to the Town several weeks ago to install our own force main. Toole — You say this deviates from original proposal which took the force main all the way down South Shore Road. Asked why it deviates. Bracken — At the direction of Mr. Gray, who is concerned about the existing lines. We first met right after sewer disaster. He needs a better Master Study of what flows are going in. We feel we are doing the right thing by not interfering with the existing system. Right now, we feel that if this is a viable connection for us and we want to look into it The lines affect the flow. These lines are still accepting new flows. There are still tie-ins and volumes are increasing. If there is a technical reason why we cannot, he wants to know how the flows are being increased_ If that's the case, maybe no one else should be tying in at this point. Originally, we wanted to tie into the existing lines Toole — Asked the applicant to confirm that Mr. Gray asked that they go down the road with their own force main Bracken — Yes, and at that time we were getting ready to submit so we needed to come up with the best viable option. Thayer — Asked if they go to Surfside Plant or if they go downtown. Page 2of10 ZBA Minutes for December 18, 2018, adopted Jan. 16, 2019 Bracken — Thinks they both go to plant. The Sherburne Commons Force main goes to downtown then pumps back to the plant. Thayer — That goes downtown. Doesn't think either one of those sewer mains goes directly to the plant. Bracken — Thinks the 12" goes down there because Abrems Quary ties into that 12" force main. Thayer — It doesn't make sense to pump downtown first. Toole — So, you are waiting on information as to whether or not these pumps feed directly to the facility. Explain the difference in costs; gravity always works, so why wouldn't you do that. Bracken — If you could do it, yes. But in this case the gravity line would go to pump station rather than the sewer treatment plant. The Cost between the lines themselves is three times more expensive. Depth and excavation and manholes is the cost driver, along with all the gravity connections. Toole — Asked if they would have to provide more manholes. Bracken — For force main, don't need as many manholes; but they go deeper and are bigger, therefore more expensive. Toole — Talking about the technology, the pumps have to speak together to make this work; different pumps cannot go at same time. Bracken — Maybe they can, depending on capacity and pressure. But it's better to have them talk with each other, wait until the other is done before another turns on. He doesn't think this tech is new; Stantec has used this. Toole — Asked if the on-site system is all backed up with generator on site. Bracken — Yes. Toole — Asked if the developer would realize significant savings if they were allowed to tie into an existing force main. Bracken — Yes. Toole — Asked Mr. Pucci if the ZBA can ask about budget items. Pucci — He would recommend the Board have the local Sewer Department comment on the plan before getting into options and cost factors. Toole — We need to get together with the proper Town department to examine this. At this point, this is the plan of what the developer is intending. Mondani — Noticed in write up that Town will bear maintenance for whole system; included what's located on the plan. Asked if those costs will be borne by HOA or just Town sewer. Bracken — That would have to be worked out. They would take over pump station. We would give them an easement. Whether they would take over gravity lines he's not sure. Toole — Asked if that is typical. Bracken — He doesn't think so. The Town has not had good experience with developers or private homeowners building their own pump stations or treatment plants. Mondani — Asked if this type of system is more expensive to maintain and repair over time. Bracken — Tying into the existing force mains is probably less expensive. Thayer — Gravity is cheaper to maintain long term but there is no gravity option going into the plant. At some point it will be pumped into treatment plant. Bracken — If the Town did install their portion of the gravity system, we would contribute our portion. We used to have pump station in middle because it worked out better for flow, but Dan Sheahan asked to put it at the end for their convenience in pumping out. Thayer — Asked why the Town is asking for a gravity line. Bracken — You don't have to maintain that pump station. A lot of work has to be done to design the gravity line; it was a timing issue. Zimicki — Both those lines run north, not south; neither will go directly down to sewage treatment plan. The line that goes across property, which is empty, is only way sewage gets to plant right now. Gravity feed would be best because would enable the Town to eliminate 4-5 of their pumps, taking maintenance problems out of the system. Asked if there will be a holding area to synchronize pump. Bracken — Yes, there is a large wet well. Zimicki — The Sherburne Commons pump station pumps back up the street. There are probably 7-8 other pumps that might tie in. Pressure and volume might play a bigger role. Understands engineering firms will examine this. Toole — We won't get to the bottom of the engineering today; the intent will be to have Mr. Gray and his consultants look at this plan and comment on it; then we will have another discussion. S.Cabral — Asked about the connection and driveways as shown in the photos (sic). Wants to know how he can feel comfortable having a connection installed about 15' from his well. He wants reassurances that his well will be safe. Bracken — The final design will have specifications on how that will be tapped. S.Cabral — It's not a clean cut; you dig a large hole, which is a dirty job. There will be a spill of sewage in his well- He cannot move his well to the back as that is where his septic is. This could cost neighbors a lot of money if their wells become polluted. Bracken — It would be alive tap under pressure and there are ways of doing this to prevent anything from coming out. He will ask David Gray and have Stantec address safeguards. Page 3 of 10 ZBA Minutes for December 18, 2018, adopted Jan. 16, 2019 Toole — Nothing says this is a final plan, but safeguards have to be taken; but we need more input on that We are not blessing this plan tonight. Zimicki — Cutting into force mains is different from what you would normally do in residential hooking up to sewer. It can be done cleanly, but magnitudes of complexity are involved. Bracken — That is why we are hiring Stantec. S.Perry — Weston & Sampson peer review ruled out both of these lines as not being able to handle additional capacity, citing hydraulic limitations and structural concerns of the pipes. The peer review stated a Pump Main or Gravity Main were viable options. Asks Bracken what changed their mind. Bracken — We have not gained any traction on our proposal and the Select Board sent a letter saying our option is not feasible; we have to look at the next feasible option. Toole — Asked what the Select Board said and why the Force Main option isn't viable. Bracken — They just said Force Main was not an option. Toole —There is a meeting scheduled in January to get to the bottom of the Select Board's comments. Read the Select Board letter. The Select Board will give us a recommendation so let's not get bogged down. This is not the final plan. Pucci —The meeting with the Select Board in January is not a public meeting. Iverson — Wisdom of this proposal is beyond me. Seems like we are setting ourselves up for another catastrophic break_ They are tying into something that is maxed out and we are already down to one pipe that is compromised. Toole — Reiterated that this isn't the final plan and not to get bogged down on it Bracken — Field Avenue and Morgan Square sewer designs just got approved. It's time for everyone to step up and analyze this. Maybe we are the last ones in. Maybe the door is already shut Botticel i — Asked what projected flow is. Toole— It's calculated at 285 bedrooms times 110 gallons. S.Perry — Peer Review had the projected flow at 43,000 gallons per day (GPD). Asked if Morgan Square building is outside their zone density. This is a much denser project. Toole — We need to move on. There are a lot of questions about sewer. If you cannot tie in and there is no sewer capacity, we will have a different discussion. This is the current proposal that we aren't going to accept at this time. UPDATED BEDROOM INFORMATION Bracken — Packet contains the upgraded bedroom comparison. Bedrooms were labeled on submitted plans. We looked at all floor plans and using the Board of Health formula, we come up with 163 bedrooms, instead of 165, for SFCs. Botticel i & Toole — They stated they are not buying that. Botticelli —They take total number of rooms divided by '/2 as long as it's not a bedroom. Bracken — You could call it a den; it's just a matter of how it's labeled. Botticelli — If it has a closet they will call it a Bedroom. Bracken — Happy to take direction. Toole — If you have labeled it a bedroom already, you cannot take it back. So, we will work with the 165 bedrooms. Asked about a room with a window well that is labeled `sitting room'. Bracken — We have an updated waiver list and will add this Board of Health waiver if needed. Toole — He'd like to go over the waivers at some point to give the developer some idea of what the board thinks. YEAR-ROUND RESTRICTIONS. Feeley — This came up; we could discuss that or do a workgroup. Toole — He would prefer to nail down the Site Plan; if you are insisting the condos stay, then we will need to get into it PHASING Feeley — As to phasing, Phase 1 is all site work, clearing, utilities, paving, drainage, electrical, and sewage. It will take about 6 months. Phase 2 would be common buildings and condos; that would take about 18 months to 2 years. Phase 3 is SFCs closest to common areas and condos and those that directly abut neighbors. Would take about 2 years. Phase 4 would be interior cottages, which would take 18 months — 2 years. Thayer — Assuming you are selling units. Feeley — Yes. There would be a market element to cottages. Collier — We are already talking about Phasing before we are anywhere near an agreed upon plan. He hopes they will not clear cut the entire site when it could be almost 3 years before they get to building cottages. Asked they just cut to the roads and lots that are being built. Hopes for more open space protection. Stockman — We're talking 6-7 years of construction. Toole — Asked if it is the intention to build out the condos all at once. Feeley — Yes. Sutton — Agrees with Mr. Collier regarding clear cutting; 13 acres is large area. We have a lot of wildlife that have been displaced with all the building going on between Richmond, Hawthorne, etc. They find open areas like this and would prefer the cutting be done slowly to give them time to find homes. S.Cabral — If you clear cut it; he's concerned about the drainage issue and clogging the road. Mondani — Asked what will trigger building a condo, selling all units or sale of just one. Feeley — We want to build all the condos at once. Page 4of10 ZBA Minutes for December 18, 2018, adopted Jan. 16, 2019 Thayer — You will need to pre -sell a certain amount of units to make a commitment. Wants to know how many that would be. Feeley — There would be lottery process and we would anticipate pre -selling most of them. Toole — If you don't, you are committed to building the buildings. Wonders if we can condition it that two condos are built at once. S.Cabral — With income restricted units, you are asking people who are below income level to make a commitment into the future when their present is unclear. They are already under financial stress and that creates additional uncertainty for people who are living month to month, paycheck to paycheck. Feeley — The lottery is done before we start construction. There is a qualification process. Botticelli — However, they would not close until unit ready. They don't actually purchase and make payments until closing; the buyers are pre -chosen. Allerhand — Asked what happens if the market tanks. Toole — That would probably extend the build out but conversely it could accelerate. Freeman — There is always the market risk. Our desire is to do it as fast as possible and there is nothing unique here. We cannot predict what the absorption rate will be for units. Toole — Arguably, if this plan stays the same, you cannot build the back, comer condo then the market crash without the other structures; it would be a disaster. The intention is to build all condo buildings at once. Freeman — Mr. Feeley did say that. We are analyzing that. It might not be feasible. The sales are not obligated, just the pre -qualifications. Toole — He's concerned about a building being constructed with three units sold with people in there then the whole thing craters. You have not made a commitment to building and selling the condos; you have made a commitment to pre -selling things. We don't want to give you a Comprehensive Permit which could be a disaster. Feeley — We don't have it all worked out. Botticelli — Maybe with a different site plan you could build a few buildings in one location without everything centered around the green where they need to be built at the same time. Market phasing could be influenced by that. Mondani — Asked about the plan for amenities. Feeley — The recreation building and pool are part of Phase 1. Toole — You need to consider that you have two developments in one. He's worried about bad outcome. More thought should be given to the order of construction. L.Derensis — Talked about what happened in town of Sherburne with another Posner project where he clear cut then the market changed. She'd be happy to provide photos of what the Sherburne project looks like. Posner — Some developments go quickly, and some go slowly. Sherburne has been challenging project; but it is doing well now. There are a lot of reasons for that. Botticelli — People have made a good point about not clear cutting the entire site on day 1. She advocates for keeping as much native vegetation on site as possible. Feeley — We are open to that. Thayer — You can clear a 40' right-of-way and a 30' right-of-way through. Feeley — Agrees. Thayer — It's tougher on you and the site guy but worth it. Feeley — Phase 3 & 4 could be left natural. Toole — Does not want to get too stuck on phasing. Taaffe — HDC was formed because of Tristam Landing. Islanders have said we don't want Town Houses and condos. Asked that Phase 2 be eliminated. Toole — Phasing is an important part of this and it needs more thought vis -i -vis a potentially different site plan. ARCHITECTURE Dallmus — Based on comments, have revised most cottages. He has modified some architectural details and styling. He met with HDC last week. It was a good first meeting. Much of discussion was oriented toward site plan features, such as placement of cottages and streetscape. We did get into the Type A cottage. Thayer — Asked if they are scheduled to go back to HDC. Dallmus — No. Botticelli — An HDC comment was that the color -coded plan was very helpful; we have yet to see that; these 4 Type A cottages along north road, color coding which are affordable. HDC paid close attention to the repetitiveness with the site plan. Zimicld — Gives color -coded plan to Ms Botticelli Botticelli — Asked why the Board didn't get that. Dallmus — This was presented to HDC Botticelli — Having a plan enumerated like that helps with discussion. Also, HDC wants more variety, they had concerns with the `cookie -cutter look'. They were concerned about the sites being the same shape and parking being repetitive; it's all side-by-side versus tandem. It's hard to look at architecture without site plan that portrays some of those comments. They only got into Type A, which is all the same; Nashaquisett has a variation. Mr. Welch commented on the height, Page 5 of 10 ZBA Minutes for December 18, 2018, adopted Jan. 16, 2019 single-story masses, the eave line, the front-facing gable, and the eave height is very high. You could have bigger windows along front elevation if roof line was lower. Lot of positive changes. Mondani — Asked if there were minutes. Botticelli — HDC Compliance Coordinator John Hedden probably took notes; there was no minute taker. Dallmus — Asked how the Board wants to proceed; should they schedule time to go back to HDC? Botticelli — Yes but would like to see site plan here as well. Toole — Suggested they continue that dialogue. His question is about 7 houses near the pool, their fronts face the pool. That seems odd; they would want to face the street Botticelli — They should be rotated to face the road. Dallmus — We have modeled this off the condo buildings which are in a U-shape. We had cottages facing street but felt it was appropriate in 3D modeling to twist them 180° to face the condos. Toole — He would not want to buy that. It would be odd driving into your back yard and looking out at the community pool. The HDC wants houses to have a street presence. Asked if condo buildings could be interspersed in and amongst houses so there would be little pods of development which could be done in a phased way. Botticelli —They gave schematic plans of smaller buildings. They seem stuck on the clustered condos around the green. Dallmus —That is our current design approach. Toole — Building design is one of few things that we are near agreement on. Asked if the board and batten idea was presented to HDC. Dallmus — He believes so. Botticelli — They did not get there; we never got past the first page of cottage Type A. There were real concerns about the site plan. Did not love that board and batten on Type A4&-5. She thought the details on the porch and different window types and sizes would break up sameness. Toole & McCarthy— Not a fan. Mondani — He is seeing a lot more lately. Botticelli — It's found on free standing buildings like barns. Toole — Asked the intention on alternate elevation board and batten protrusion as 2-over-1 windows whereas rest of house is primarily 6-over-6 windows. Dallmus —The idea is that there was a later addition; its distinguished by sidewall material and windows. Botticelli — She doesn't like the 2-over-1 on the front. Another comment was whether or not these are pre-fabricated because a lot of space between the 1st-floor window headers and 2nd-floor stills. Shows up on front porch where porch is far from window sill. Dallmus — Looked at that, it's based on 81/2' ceiling height which is appropriate. We could increase the roof pitch on porch to mitigate that. Feeley — We are planning on stick built Toole — Does not matter. He thinks dormers should be steeper perhaps 6/12 pitch, so it goes up main roof a little higher and breaks up that roof. Getting into floor plan of A-4; this has 4 labeled bedrooms plus one little office that should be considered a bedroom. Botticelli — The regulations cut off bedrooms at 70 square feet This is 7X7. P.Derensis — A room that is 70 square feet or bigger counts as a bedroom. Toole — To me this is definitely 4 bedrooms looking at floor plan. Came up last time that you could over-develop everything. Type A-5 is another story. He doesn't think there should be any 5-bedroom houses. It's too small an area with too small lots and increases density. Thinks there are about 10; deleting the A-5s would eliminate 10 bedrooms. Less parking, less sewage, less water. This would not have a window well and would become an A4. TYPE B Dallmus — We continued porch around to back side Botticelli — Looks better. Dallmus — All plans now show basement areaways on all units, whether market or affordable. Toole — In terms of bedrooms, this has an extra room labeled as a den. We could make the argument that storage area should not be finished so there is no confusion. He can accept the stated bedroom count on this. B-5 storage gets a window well and a bedroom; he would prefer not to see B-5. These are big improvement on architecture. TYPE C Dallmus — We changed rear dormer and broke it up into 2 shed dormers. Botticelli — She prefers continuous dormer. The HDC concern is the meeting rail aligning with the eave. Toole — You changed the fenestration on left elevation. Dallmus — There are 6 windows with same spacing. We grouped some windows with minor changes to interior floor plans. Toole — On C-A-3, there is only 1 bedroom in basement; there's a window well for legal bedroom and a window well in the bathroom. Asked why this is labeled C-A-3 when it has four bedrooms. Discussion about typos on plan: C-A-3 is shown to have 4 bedrooms and C-A4 is shown to be 5 bedrooms. Page 6 of 10 ZBA Minutes for December 18, 2018, adopted Jan. 16, 2019 Toole — He hasn't parsed the matrix with the bedrooms; that needs to be fleshed out. We're not loving the 5 -bedroom houses. McCarthy — Agrees with reducing bedroom. Toole —That would reduce strain on resources. TYPE D Botticelli — She doesn't understand revised left elevation. The huge gable end on left elevation is ugly. Dalhnus — That was a shed dormer. Botticelli — Thinks a shed dormer is less impactful. Massing wise, she's not in favor of the left elevation change. She does like the addition of porch on right elevation. Toole — Agrees. The plate height came down on rear mass. Still rear plate -height is still high. The loft disappears but plate height is still pretty tall. It is bubbled but he doesn't think it was changed; it looks the same. Botticelli — If they lower that rear plate height, it would provide the opportunity to lower the windows and add fenestration. Toole — The D-4 common and sitting areas both have window wells and an office big enough to be a bedroom. At a minimum, you should eliminate window wells, so those basement rooms cannot be made legal bedroom. Dallmus — For it to be a habitable room, other than bedroom, it is appropriate to have light and ventilation. Botticelli — Asked the difference between the sitting room and common area. Toole — You don't get two common areas; eliminate one. Botticelli — The interior stairs come into the sitting room. Configuring the exterior walkdown away from the common area would help eliminate its becoming as a bedroom. Toole — The D-5 has five bedrooms with the common room able to become a bedroom; same with the D-4. That doesn't fly. TYPE E Botticelli — Likes windows having become an inset dormer on the rear. Toole — He likes the rafter tails; they should be on the front upper eave as well. Botticelli — She does not love mixture of window types. Dallmus — Asked if that is the 6 -over -1 as opposed to the 2 -over -1 windows. Botticelli — The glass size on the 9 -light casements is not at all like the 6 -over -1; the same with the 6 -light windows in the back dormer. The smaller panes look more antique; the 6 -over -1 look is early 1900's with bigger pane sizes. It looks incongruous to her. Toole — Suggested a pediment roof over the mudroom door to break up the elevation and offer protection at the door. He's not huge fan of board and batten but it differentiates things a little. The floor plan shows 4 bedrooms and two laundry rooms. Botticelli — Asked if the length of the rear ell has changed; not sure that was commented on. The rear ell room is very long; suggested it be made smaller and configure it to be a sun room with a different window type to look like it was built later. Toole — This has 3 bedrooms upstairs and 1 in basement with finished storage near the mechanical space; he wants the storage space left unfinished so there is no temptation. The E-5 has a 51h bedroom in the storage area with a window well and bathroom. The 5 -bedroom cottages are too much for this site. TYPE F Botticelli — Doesn't like the big dormer on the front and the meeting rail not aligning. Suggested a broken back and more symmetrical. The porch roof could engage the eave. Coffin — She has only seen board and batten is in New Zealand, late 19th century structures where they have huge subtropical forest. Nantucket never had forests to provide large amounts of wood; there is no historical reason to put an exotic look onto these houses; we did not use our wood that way. Feeley — There is a great example of a board -and -batten house just built on Clara Street; it's nice looking. Botticelli — That's Steve Cheney's house; he has one pod done in board and batten. Taaffe — Board and batten is a trendy design feature right now; it's a mainland feature and not historic; he objects. It's not Nantucket. If you want to do something different, use clapboard. Botticelli — You do see older board and batten bams on Nantucket. Toole — Let's not get stuck on the board and batten; we've said we are not fans. Zimicici — There are copious notes from HDC meeting about all these things: shingles, roof, windows. Asked if they are going back to HDC for their input/corrections. Toole — Combo. They only got to Type A. Dallmus — We expect to go back; we hardly dented the surface. Toole — Thought the A designation is used to indicate "affordable". Dallmus — None of the Type A's are affordable. If it is a suffix to another type, it is affordable. Botticelli — There is no market rate Type F. Asked if Type F is only affordable. Dallmus — Yes. Botticelli — The F floorplan looks like a spin-off of another type. Page 7 of 10 ZBA Minutes for December 18, 2018, adopted Jan. 16, 2019 Toole — Asks if they could wrap the porch around to include the mud room door. F -A-4 is a four bedroom with no real opportunity to create another bedroom in basement. F -A-3 is same except bedroom is not included in the basement; but it has a window well; eliminate the window well so clear that that cannot be bedroom and fight can come in doorway. TYPE G Toole — The G -A-3 has same basic plan. Botticelli — This has the same weird gable thing and eave-height issue, whether or not the meeting rails line up Toole — Inside, there is an extra upstairs room labeled office that is 148 SF and no closet This is labeled as a 3 -bedroom. The basement has no window well, so they cannot legally create a bedroom down there. The G -A-4 does have a basement bedroom but no window well; that needs to be added. Dallmus —They will add it. Toole — Suggested moving on to the revised condos. CONDOS Dallmus — In interest of exploring other design options have prepared early design studies. There will be some discrepancies in the floorplans and elevations. There will be a SAMPLE 5 that will appear on screen and a partial landscape plan for SAMPLE 3 these are on screen but not in packet SAMPLE 1 contains four modules for a total of eight units. SAMPLE 2 (S2) contains five modules with a potential of 10 units; this plan only shows the first floor. All these units are 18 feet wide so the length of S2 is 5X18. Toole — They are still fairly large buildings. DaWmus — SAMPLE 3 (S3) has three floors of units and has a partial landscape plan. Reviewed the landscape plan around S3 and that each unit has an exterior exit to private outdoor space. Toole — Asked for printouts of the slides for the next hearing; it's difficult if the screen is behind the Board members. Asks how they are dealing with storage when the basements are built out Dallmus — We've talked about having outdoor sheds across from parking area that are not yet associated within any particular unit. He doesn't have architectural plan for those. Botticelli — That would be more buildings and would look like little monopoly village. HVAC will all be contained within units. Toole — Still not a fan of basement units; but if you want fewer buildings with basement units, that's up to the developer. Dallmus — With S3, we are planning on a trough in the roof line; it would have a U -shape to it and units would be mounted on top and therefore not visible. The treatment also serves to reduce the height of the building. Botticelli — Better now that whole unit is not stuck into the basement The 3 -bedroom market -rate units Would have bedrooms in basement. Dallmus — S3 is upside-down town houses with the two lower levels for bedrooms. They all have their own independent access on upper levels and would be either studio or 1 -bedroom units. Toole — The basement is problem because it's a way to squeeze more people into smaller area Could have mitigation space. Botticelli — Does not like the module being repeated. S3 is not complete but more organic looking. Toole — He liked the early gambrel one. Botticelli — The gambrel allows a lower roof with more interior space; this design however, looks top heavy. Toole — Suggested not pursuing the 5- and 6 -modules. SAMPLE 1: Dallmus — The floor plan is an upside-down townhouse. Sleeping level at lower level and lower level terrace. Primary living level is still at the first floor with the terrace below grade. Toole — Asked if there is any intention to raise floor elevation. Dallmus — We developed an option that pulled the first floor up out of the ground. Botticelli — Keep in mind the grade change in showing you meet the height requirements. Toole — We had this trouble with Surfside Commons; the intent was to have the first -floor elevation being 4-5' out of ground and they wanted a waiver for the height. He's not seeing his way to allowing that. Botticelli We have asked for existing and proposed grade on this plan; we don't have that yet Dallmus — This is the 15C -floor plan with living and dining and kitchen. The lower level is the sleeping area and lower level terrace below grade. Botticelli — Finds the 10 -feet -below -grade terraces odd. Option 3 is more successful with more pleasant outdoor space. Dallmus — Agrees. The 2nd -floor plan works as follows: 3 -bedroom unit would have a corresponding 1 -bedroom unit above and 2 -bedroom unit would have studio above. Toole — Let's not get too much into the architectural details; just give thumbs up or down. He's not loving the whole modular thing with underground terraces. Botticelli — Need more variation in terms of the roof line. Same for all samples. She wants to avoid a 72' long roof ridge that is 30' tall. Toole — Let's move on to S2 SAMPLE 2 Dallmus — This is the same concept as Sl but added on a fifth module. Page 8 of 10 ZBA Minutes for December 18, 2018, adopted Jan. 16, 2019 Toole — Asked if this also has sunken terraces. Dallmus — That's the only difference. Vieth — Asks about outdoor showers. Dallmus — With the cottages yes. No discussion about them with condos. Vieth — The developers are putting people back in basements. Consensus is don't like Module 5 on S2. SAMPLE 3 Dallmus — The length is 79' x 42'. The main difference is that instead of stacking the modules, two modules face one way and two face another. We are trying to circumnavigate these buildings with outdoor living spaces. We are still doing upside down townhouse configuration here. Thayer — Asked if there is no contemplation of basement bedrooms here. Dallmus — There is a basement bedroom. Botticelli — Asked if S3 is market rate; questions the marketability of basement units. Feeley — If we have a lot of light and terraces, it won't feel like being in a basement Botticelli — This plan does not have terraces. Feeley — We are committed to outdoor space whether subterranean or first floor. This is more about trying to get direction re. massing. Botticelli — We want to ensure that they are successful. Could see maybe one bedroom in basement but not all of them. Toole — He's troubled by every inch of basement being such integral part of plan. He likes S3 exterior architecture. Botticelli — Likes it too. It doesn't look like a bunch of modules. Toole — Does not think the module thing reads well. Botticelli — This has variation in roof lines SAMPLE 5. Dallmus — This is a raised condo building with raised garden level. The Townhouse is first and second floor. The Garden unit is at the lower level; similar to the south end of Boston or Brooklyn. It's half a flight down to the garden level space. That does present a building height problem as we are looking at approx. 34' in height; but this arrangement allows both front and rear entries. All the garden levels have terraces at the front and back. The townhouses have rear outdoor space. Botticelli — Architecturally this looks like Main Street meets Life Saving Museum. Thayer — Too tall at 34 feet. Botticelli — Conceptually not bad but too tall. She would not want them all to be elevated 5' out of ground; some could not have Garden units and have the ridge height 5 feet lower than others. Toole — Suggested getting away from the strict module of 18' and have them be a little more organic. Botticelli — Likes idea of having variation between the buildings and maybe they are segregated. Toole — Almost prefer not to see common green; put the parking inside. This is a monolithic plan where everything is massed together. Asked to look at waivers as they pertain to site design. WAIVERS Toole — The first one is on Page 64 in the packet; requests one lot be allowed: minimum lot size of 5,000 SF, frontage of 25 feet, 0 feet front yard setback, 5-feet side and rear setback, and 30% groundcover ratio. Asked if there is compelling reason for the zero-front setback. Bracken — There are a few lots at the curbs where houses are close to curbs. Botticelli — Thinks the front yard setbacks should be 10 feet. It's less about setback but being able to have buildings that relate to street. She doesn't mind the different front setbacks because it adds variation to streetscape. Beach Plum Village has variations in lot sizes; these all look the same. Bracken — We're trying to avoid Beach Plum model with easements. Toole — We can say no to the 25-foot frontage and it could become a park. Botticelli — She's not bothered by the 25-foot frontage. The groundcover ratio is 30%. We can specify which lots are allowed zero feet front setback. Toole — Regarding the waiver to screening of parking, polls board. Consensus does not want to waive screening. Botticelli — We talked about the raingardens not being in buffer, they're shown in the site plan. The whole pump station and generator will be in 75' buffer at front; ideally those buffers should remain intact and not cut Bracken — We're still maintaining the vegetation. Drainage system, we can only put it as close as we can to back of lots. Toole — Suggested that maybe there should be less stuff. Botticelli — Move drainage system. Bracken — Would squeeze all the lots. Thayer — Has problem with parking lot and rain garden. Left with zero buffer. Taaffe — Regarding the 5-foot side setbacks, asked if there will be swimming pools. Toole — The applicant has talked about spas but they are not on the plan. Taaffe — Asked what happens once they are sold. Page 9 of 10 ZBA Minutes for December 18, 2018, adopted Jan. 16, 2019 Toole — The Comprehensive Permit remains in effect; it runs with a property so if we say no, there are no swimming Page 10 of 10 pools forever. L.Derensis — Cites one of the Select Board letters which says "pool or pools" for this development- evelopmentToole Toole— We're looking at the site plan. We are not issuing road opening permits Trees and shrubs. S.Perry — Asked about the Board of Health regulation: if they asking to redefine the definition of bedroom Toole — First we haven't granted a waiver. We will ultimately determine what we think is a bedroom within reason. Botticelli — Wants more documentation about what exists in the buffers: trees, etc. Cited Mr. Collier's letter regarding the Peer Review. Pucci — The Board could be more specific. These are vaguely worded. Coffm — We don't want this site to be skating -rink flat. We need to see the topographical plan. Botticelli — Asks for topo plan of existing and proposed conditions. Bracken — We will add that when we have final grade and elevations. Toole — With so much crammed in, he's not sure you can fit a tree. We need clarity on all of this. There are sidewalks only on one side of street; we should think about that. Botticelli — Aesthetically, it looks more rural without them, but it is a safety thing. Toole — This is not a rural subdivision. They are building a little urban landscape. Bike paths are not needed Street lights need to be discussed. Botticelli — Asked about the mail room; if it show up in the redesign of common building. Asked also about trash. Holland — Asked if the next meeting is January 16 and when it the deadline. There is a lot of information coming. Toole — Not proposing an agenda. Clear that there is a lot more information needed from applicant Motion Motion to Continue to January 16, 2019 at 4:30 p.m. at Nantucket High School Auditorium. (made by: Koseatac) (seconded by: Mondani) Vote Carried unanimously OTHER12. 1. None 3. rJOURNMENT Motion to Adjourn at 7:40 p.m. Submitted by: Terry L. Norton Page 10 of 10