HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-3-26ZBA Minutes for March 26, 2019, adopted Apr. 11
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Public Hearing
2 Fairgrounds Road
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
w-,"v.nantucket-ma.gov
Commissioners: l,d Toole (Chair), Lisa Botticelli (Vice chair), Susan McCarthy (Clerk), Michael J. O'Mara, Kerim Koseatac
Alternates: Mark Poor, Geoff Thayer, Jim Mondani
-- MINUTES --
Tuesday, March 26, 2019
4 Fairgrounds Road, Public Safety Facility Community Room — 4:30 p.m.
Called to order at 4:40 p.m. and Announcements made.
Staff in attendance: Eleanor Antonietti, Zoning Administrator;
:Attending -Members: Toole, Botticelli, McCarthy, Koseatac, Thayer, Mondani
\])sent: O'i\Iara, Poor %t Y
Town Representative: Ed Marchant, Chapter 40B Advisor; George Pucci, K&P Law, P.C.
1 enda ado ted ]) unanimous consent
APPROVAL1. OF
1. March 11, 2019: Motion to Approve. (made by: Botticelli) (seconded by: Thayer) Carried unanimously co
OTHER
Consideration and possible vote on issues involving Applicant's counsel in Surfside Crossing 40B application and in pending appeals with
the I lousing Appeals Committee (Department of Housing and Community Development) relating to Beach Plum Village 40B and Rugged
Scott, LLC.
Voting Toole, McCarthy, Botticelli, Koseatac
ltemates Poor, Thayer, Mondani
Representing Arthur Reade, Reade, Gulhcksen, Hanley, & Gifford LLP
Discussion Toole — Counsel for the applicant, Peter Freeman, has withdrawn. risked if there were any questions or comments. \fr.
Arthur Reade, Reade, Gullicksen, Hanley, & Gifford LLP is now representing the applicant.
\Iotion No action taken.
Vote N/A
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 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 standalone 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 135 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 PowerPoint® presentation, and 40B Comprehensive Permit application documentation.
Page 1of8
ZBA :Minutes for March 26, 2019, adopted Apr. 11
Kepresenting lion Bracken, Bracken Engineering, Inc.
Arthur Reade, Reade, Gulhcksen, Hanley, & Gifford LLP
Marianne I Ianley, Reade, Gulbcksen, Hanle}_, & Gifford LLP
Jamie Feeley, Cottage & Castle, Proponent
Public Bruce Perry-, 14 South Shore Road
Cormac Collier, Nantucket Land Council
Patrick Taaffe, 21 Okorwaw Drive
Ron Bamber, 28 Washing Pond Road
Linda Derensis, Nantucket Tipping Point
Joan Stockman, 13 Wherowhero Lane
Discussion Reade — Since the last meeting, the applicant has submitted various information including: a memorandum stating that
the applicant feels this matter is ready- to be closed at today's meeting; a stormwater anal, sis m response to commenTs
from John Chessia, Chessia Consultant Services, LLC; memorandum from counsel relating to housing issues restricting
the condo units to rear -round Island residents.
Toole — Asked which plan will be reviewed tonight.
Bracken — We will be discussing the last official set of engineering plans submitted October 25, 2� �1 �_,; This is the 1 -umT
proposal.
Toole —The memo states the applicant wants -the ZBA to rote on the 156 -unit proposal; then we received a packet base
on the 100 -unit proposal. He's disappointed because he thought we were getting close to an agreement on the 1 -unit
plan.
Reade — The 156 -unit plan has always been before you. The 100 -unit plan is an alternative that would be accepTable To
both parties. You can take any action on either proposal that the Board wants to do within its junsdicTion.
Botticelli —The 156 -unit plan is the one with the condos close to the road.
Toole — Read the memorandum asking for a decision on the original proposal. Then -,e get all This information on the
100 units. Being asked to vote on the 156 -unit proposal feels like a waste of one year of my life.
Reade —There are two plans before the ZBA: the original and an alternative.
Pucci —Asked why we aren't working up the 92 -unit plan that was result of the workshop.
Feeley — There was still a lot that was requested which we felt we couldn't do so didn't develop it further. The r.,o plans
— 156 units & 100 units — we have submitted sufficient information for the Board to make a decision. An•,- other concept
plans submitted along the way can also be considered in the decision.
Koseatae — Asked Mr. Pucci if it is common practice for an applicant to have multiple plans on w-luch the ZB- is to
make a decision.
Pucci — No, he's surprised. It isn't unusual for a developer to keep the original plan on the Table for a potential appeal. If
you go through the process this Board has gone through in good faith, including the design workshop, and end up with
plan to work off, it doesn't make sense to ping-pong back and forth. It would make sense to work off the 92 -unit plan
which came out of the workshop and even -one worked on in good faith to come up w,iTh a palatable design. The other
problem is now the Board is left with a situation to discuss waiver requests-, if you're precluded from working off the
unit plan, you need to now discuss that in the context of the 100 -unit plan. -mother issue is sewer; there is no ,a. ejf
completing the process in good faith if you're left unclear which plan is being dealt with. Weston and Sampson, The
't'own's sewer consultant, is confused which plan they are working off, what review they are supposed to do; the•: need -o
complete a technical analysis and get their recommendation back so the ZBA can act as the sewer commission •.;lain the
40B process. He would urge the applicant to engage in a more realistic, good -faith process: work up a plan That came o°r
of the design workshop and identify remaining issues that need to be reviewed and considered by the Board. The ZB_
can't do that with the applicant insisting the hearing be closed tonight You need a commitment from the apphcant about
which plan they are working on, their willingness to work with the Board, and Then the Board can discuss waivers on *^at
specific plan. Then the Board can decide to approve or deny the application.
Marchant — He has worked on more than 150 40B projects representing both sides. He has never worked on a proiecT
where the applicant is requesting the hearing be closed without an agreement on which plan is To be resit ed. I-
impossible to think about waivers; it's a waste of time. He too is disappointed hayinL, been involved in the desmon
workshop that worked ven hard to evolve a plan that was better for everyone.
Toole — He agrees; he thought were getting close to a w -in -w -in plan, and then we get This.
McCarthy — She agrees with '\Ir. Toole.
Mondani —This past year has been bad faith; this move is bad faith. We've been going down this road in good fal-Th and
suddenly we are called on to decide on the plans from last April; that is bad faith and he w-zi1 go on the record saying that.
Thayer — He thought with the 92 -unit plan we were close; if the applicant came back with some concession on that plan_
he could have supported it.
Koseatac — He agrees with Mr. 'Mondani. He feels he's wasted a year and everyone in the room has been slapped to The
face.
Page 2of8
ZBA Minutes for March 26, 2019, adopted Apr. 11
Toole — We thought we were close to a resolution and wrapping this up, then we get this letter asking us to issue a
decision on the original proposal. Read the final sentence of the letter. He doesn't see how they can hope the "difficult
process" will result in a plan we "both like" if you want us to close the hearing.
Reade — The 100 -unit plan is the one we are prepared to go forward on and we want the hearing closed tonight.
Toole — We have an extension to April 4th so we could meet again whether or not you want to close tonight.
McCarthy — Now we have to do all the work we've been doing in one night. It feels like we are reinventing the «-heel as
we are meeting. Every meeting has been completely confusing; there has been no clear path; we've been tn-ing to push
the path forward. Reading the memo is a slap in the face. At the end of the last hearing, she thought we would get a plan
that we could all agree on. You want us to close the hearing and accept the 100 -unit plan with no concessions, that isn't
working the process.
Reade — You can put on any comments and conditions you want if they are acceptable to us.
McCarthy — You have already said it won't be; you've said it is acceptable as submitted.
Toole — The conditions on the 100 -unit plan won't make it uneconomical. In the letter, it states that the 92 -unit plan
would "undermine the project's economic feasibility"; asked if that is a statement saying we are making it uneconomic
and therefore we can review the economics of the project.
Pucci — The statement is vague. Conditions imposed on the project that might not be consistent with the applicant's
concept isn't the same as rendering a project uneconomic. The language might be specifically vague, so they don't have to
submit economic proforma. You need clarity from the applicant on what they are arguing. Also, it's a complete sham to say
the hearing will be closed tonight; because if you are imposing conditions that are uneconomic, there needs to be at least
one hearing for them to prove that. If they don't, there's nothing to appeal; the Housing Appeals Committee (H_`,C)
doesn't have jurisdiction to talk about the economics of the project until the applicant is specific. Suggested a short recess
to talk to the applicant about how they actually want to proceed or work off the 92 -unit plan that came out of the
workshop; the ZBA has the jurisdiction over the site plan issues. Determine what further information you need for that
site plan to render a decision, do as much as possible tonight, and be geared up for another hearing to be in a position to
render a decision at that time.
Marchant — If the applicant cites conditions that they believe makes the project uneconomic and the ZBA disagrees, the
ZBA exercises its right for a financial peer review. Based upon that review, the ZBA makes a decision on adjusting the
conditions accordingly. The difficulty is timing; once the hearing is closed, you can't accept further information. The
crucial issue is a plan that is acceptable. He expected the applicant to come back with a list of conditions that they could
accept and, in the spirit of fair play, come up with a plan.
Toole — Asked for clarification on the notion of making a project uneconomic.
Marchant — Under the 40B process, the applicant gets benefits in exchange for meeting certain requirements. 4013 limits
the profit an applicant can make on the project to 20%, but HAC has issued decisions that say anything below 15`'o is
considered uneconomic. The applicant and the builder, one and the same in this case, are allowed to make a profit.
Toole — The second part of this is that the applicant has said the project is infeasible because they also want to provide
for a specific market; there's a difference between uneconomic and infeasible. Do we have to care about "infeasible" if
the developer isn't make as much money as they wish?
Marchant — He thinks providing housing for year-round residents is terrific. 'X hat concerns him about the program is: 1)
a year-round resident is defined as someone who lives on Island for at least 182 days and isn't restricted for Island
residents; 2) there's no income restriction; and 3) there's no teeth to make it work.
Toole — There is this piece putting a lot of pressure on everything; how do we get by that.
Pucci — If your design review indicates the site is overburdened, the fact that you might cut down on the amount of or
limit the concept of year-round housing isn't jurisdictional for 4013; those aren't affordable units and not the reason the
ZBA has jurisdiction over this project. If the applicant had been acting in good -faith about their year-round housing, that
would be an important point of discussion about the least number of year-round housing they could accept. Either
eliminating the concept or reducing the number of year-round housing doesn't give them the right of appeal. Changing
the concept is not the same as rendering uneconomic. You can impose conditions that are reasonable and that don't
render it uneconomic.
Toole — The concept is laudable but puts pressure on every part of this project. He doesn't think the intention is enough
for us to approve 100 -foot long buildings, impervious surfaces everywhere, and underground units. It should be on a
smaller scale to prove that the concept works. Asked the applicant to reconsider the notion of closing the hearing and
continuing the dialogue.
Feeley — His understanding is that the ZBA can consider any concept plan submitted along the way. The first 100 -unit
plan was submitted October 3, 2018; that's six months ago. Since then, we've submitted many iterations that for us meets
the minimum criteria to satisfy their mission. He believes they have operated in good faith throughout this project; we
came up with a plan that we thought put our best foot forward, but we can't reduce it further. There's been this tug of
war between density and our desire to create a middle-income community.
Toole — Asked if it is an undue burden to reduce that component a bit and get to a mutually acceptable plan.
Feeley — We can't reduce it. As far as the design itself, we've show incredible flexibility. He doesn't think there is undue
pressure on the lot.
Page 3of8
ZBA Minutes for March 26, 2019, adopted _fpr. 11
Toole — At present, the 92 -unit plan is 20 bedrooms an acre; that is sigrnficanthy higher than an.,- place here. i:cc
Green is a work -force rental housing that all counts against the Subsidized Housing Inventon- 'SHI .
Botticelli — Richmond isn't a 40B.
Feeley —This level of densit-Y does exist and addresses affordable housing and middle-income housing.
Pucci — Recommends the Board start working off the 92 -unit plan and conduct the hearing the V.W.- it shoo -13. If the
applicant isn't satisfied, thev can appeal after the hearing is closed at the next meeting. Start working off the plan the
applicant agrees was developed in good faith. When we start working on issues such as surer where Town consultant art-
providing
reproviding feedback, present a plan that is being recommended off the plan the board will rote on. 1-ou need to get _,to
Public hearing on the waivers being requested.
Toole — The waiver list refers to the 100 -unit plan.
Pucci — Go under the latest waiver requests submitted and what would be needed under the 92 -unit plan as idemt�ed h..
the applicant.
Bracken — There was discussion about tying into a 6 -inch or 12 -inch main; we wanted a sewer consultant to p_1t t ge her
a design plan to use one of those mains but never received a response as to which main until ' arch 25, 2,_�i'�. He hay
looked at it but doesn't think it is the all the information we need; we need more information to finalize a se -.ver design.
Thayer — In his opinion, there is no other option than to pump sewage directly to the Surfside plant.
Bracken — .mother option discussed is to tie into the 12 -inch main that takes sewage from Monomo,: Pump Marion: -.,-e
need to investigate if that is viable. We don't know what lines to design for. _mother option is to store sewage on �_te to
be pumped during off hours.
Pucci — On )anuary 25, 2019, Weston and Sampson gave an analysis, which he produced to the apphcam's attome-.. -1 gat
is consistent with Mr. Thayer's comments about what is a viable option and is consistent with Town planning. The -t%ver
Department has made it vera clear that what the applicant is talking about is not a viable option. One viable i=sue m term
of H_1C is the Town's pre-existing long-term planning commitment, this information was provided to the app cant; tf
they chose not to go with that, the ZBA acting as the sewer commission can impose conditions against which the-, can
chose to litigate or not. There is no missing information or delay- in responding, there is a design recommendation.
Toole — Can we go so far as to require a gravity- line be installed to the pump from this development.
Pucci — You're first requirement is if that is a reasonable condition; it is based upon the technical review b-: `X estop and
Sampson. If the applicant says that renders the project uneconomic, that is a legitimate economic argument.
Toole — He's not sure we need to discuss sewer tonight.
Bracken — Ile would like to have the technical information supporting the WeSion and Sampson recommendation to
provide to their consultant. The original plan showed a force main going all the way to the Surfside plant.
B.Perry — His objection is the ZBr1 is designing the project for the developer; it is up to the developer to propene a
project to be conditioned. He thinks for the ZBA to spend time on the 92 -unit plan the developer has said TJhc:-: don't
want to do is a waste of time.
Marchant — The applicant said they would go with it.
Toole — Thev did submit it which indicates it works for the them as long as our conditions don't render it uneconu:.�c.
Unfortunately, there is a large body- of material that has not been made available.
Mondani — The biggest issue is the condo buildings; he would prefer to see them reduced.
Consensus agrees about cutting the number of 4 -module condo buildings down, to eight buildings and the
appropriateness of design and landscaping.
Toole — He would like to see the single-family homes changed down to 40 or up.- though he prefers the 4",. He n=1-
they'd be worth more if there were breathing room.
Botticelli — Parking was never shown so it was hard to get a sense of hoNv they would work together. Some lots cou_d get
wider and some narrower; she had hoped to see this plan more developed. _', reduction down to 41, would he nice. larger
lots allow for more amenities.
Toole —,-\ condition on tiny lots could be no spas. Asked about the cost of the duplexes.
Feeley — Ile thinks all the lots are all 5,000 square feet (Sly. Somewhere around $1M to S S_`.1 each unit.
Toole — You can make money-, fulfill the 40B requirement, provide rear -round housing, and have a project e;-er:one
could agree is acceptable and be proud of. He wants to see the argument that it is uneconomic.
Mondani — Ile would prefer more green space, a rain garden, etc.
Toole — Under -burdening the site would be a better design objective.
Botticelli — We need a new plan showing affordable housing, parking, sheds.
Toole —a`t'e talked about parking briefly; thinks they can meet the parking requirement: 2 per house, 3 on the duplexes,
and 0.75 per bedroom on the condos. There's enough room with the reduction of units.
Mondani — He thought there were concerns about parking for the 5 houses along the from road.
Toole —You can have a mixture of tandem parking and side -by -side parking.
Botticelli — There was talk about one of the streets becoming a 2 -way- street; right now, ii s all one wa:.
Toole — What we've described pro -Ides for adequate space for parking, outdoor space, sheds. _ ll we can do is ask the
applicant to provide more information on this 92 -unit plan.
Feeley — We are not going to make further revisions to this plan if it means changing the program.
Page 4of8
ZBA Minutes for March 26, 2019, adopted Apr. 11
Botticelli — We need a plan that shows all the information if we are going to make a determination.
Toole — If you provide a plan with all the information and make a case it is a great plan, we would still have the right to
condition it; that condition might be not all these big buildings. We can get behind the concept of this plan; but there are
specifics that need to be worked out.
McCarthy — That's where we were at the last meeting.
Thayer — He doesn't see a need for 60 -foot frontage for every lot; some lots will be small lots.
Botticelli —You still need to show parking in relation to the building.
Toole — Looking at the 100 -unit plan; this shows setbacks and parking details that we want to see on the 92 -unit plan.
Some say we're stuck on the numbers and the applicant is stuck on number; he thinks the 92 -unit plan will be economic
and will be a better product for the Island and residents living there.
Feeley — What he's hearing is adjust the cottages, reduce the number of units from 92 to 80... He thinks in that scenario,
we should close the hearing.
Toole — We are going to vote on the 92 -unit plan. We could look at the notion of a straight up denial based on the lack
of information; we don't have sufficient information to make an informed decision.
Marchant — The more orderly process is to ask for more details on the 92 -unit plan. We might not reach an agreement
on 80 versus 92 but could make an informed decision and craft conditions. The discussion about if those conditions
make the project uneconomic would happen at ILAC.
Toole — A well thought-out decision is better for everyone.
Reade — We think you should act on the 100 -unit plan which has adequate information and is our preferred plan.
Botticelli — We don't have adequate plans; we don't have architectural drawings of the large structures; don't have a
complete landscape plan; affordable units are marked on the plan; we don't have the layout for the single-famil%- units:
types A, B, & C. We have so many drawings in front of us; we need one complete set.
Toole — We did not get a complete set and it hasn't been clear what we're supposed to vote on: 156 units, 100 units, 92
units. It is a disservice to the Board to give us a bunch of unrelated stuff. If you want us to vote on 100 -unit submission
tonight, every bit of information should be there; we still don't know what the rec building will look like, we don't know
where the Affordable units are,
Feeley — In the memo we referred to March 11 that included an index of everything that has been submitted and what
was to be submitted; this is a supplement of that information. Asserts they have all the information. Where market versus
affordable units has been submitted in the past.
Botticelli — To expect us to find all the information in a huge stack of information is unfair to the Board. It would have
been appreciated if all the information had been submitted. Last week we were trying to get the information we need on
the 92 -unit plan; we were hoping to see that this week.
Toole — We want a single complete package that starts with the 92 -unit plan and provides all the information we need.
Marchant — We are moving backward if you need to write a decision; the weaknesses of the 100 -unit plan have been
discussed. If time is important to all, it will save time for them to provide information needed on the 92 -unit plan even if
you can't reduce the number of units; have the board draft a decision and fight it out at HAC. It doesn't make sense to
make the Board make a decision on the 100 -unit plan. In terms of where parking is, that's not a big deal.
Toole — This 100 -unit plan has been floated around for a while. Asked if the engineering has been started.
Bracken — No.
Toole — In your opinion, can you fulfil the engineering requirements with this plan.
Bracken — We can handle that. The geometry of the roadways and entries, we have to do some analysis.
Collier — A Nantucket Land Council area of focus is water quality and we hired a peer review; we've not received a
response from the applicant on our report submitted in December. If the applicant is going to make a stormw-ater design
based upon this plan and the applicant is going to push for closing on April 4, the process is a disservice to the public and
NLC because we can't comment on that plan.
Bracken — By April 4, all we could do is to layover the existing plan over this plan.
Toole — That is why we thought that would be ready for this meeting and ideally another extension. He thought we were
getting close on the site plan. We like the 92 -unit plan though there seems to be some disagreement on specifics.
McCarthy — We are wasting everyone's time asking for information again, which we asked for at the last hearing.
Feeley — It has been a year. At the last hearing, we indicated we would analyze your thoughts and might or might not
come back with a revised plan. Before the workshop started, we stated we were willing to give it a shot.
Botticelli — But you were comfortable with the 92 -unit plan, otherwise why propose it.
Feeley —Thematically, we have deleted condo units but would have to add more cottages. If the duplex lots were single-
family lots, that would be 88 units.
Toole — Asked if the Board could craft a comprehensive permit based on what information they have.
Pucci — He doesn't think so; he doesn't understand the argument about not providing further information on the 92 -unit
plan. If the applicant doesn't complete the engineering, you don't know this is the bottom-line plan. You have people on
board with the 92 -unit site plan so should flesh it out to prove it all fits and works. An unfortunate fall back, if you insist
on going forward with a plan with sufficient detail, the 100 -unit plan, the move forward on it; that would be unfortunate.
Page 5 of 8
ZBA Minutes for -March 26, 2019, adopted Apr. 11
Marchant — The only alternative here that makes any sense is to present the 9? -unit plan with the information ar.
waivers required on that plan; that will save time. In the future, it will allow you to draft a decision more efficientl-.. Ii :h:=
ends up at HAC, we have a good base to begin with. You don't have to draft a decision on a plan you reall:: don't dine.
You like the basic structure of the 92 -unit plan; he doesn't understand why the applicant won't work with sou on r.. I e
Board should tell them right now what additional information you need to see and do a decision on this plan.
Koseatac — Asked if HAC would require the basis for the denial.
Marchant — There's a distinction between denying the permit and granting the permit with conditions. Yoa rht
approve this plan with conditions; instead of arguing here, the applicant makes the argument at I- -C.
Pucci — If the applicant agrees to provide this plan with sufficient information to act on the plan and waivers, go frjr-.; r
on that. If they refuse, the option is to go forward on the 100-unti plan, identify what information •,ou have and
needed to make a decision on that. His experience -with 11-yC, denials for lack of sufficient information puts H_:C _. the
position of being the permitting authority- and they usually rule in favor of the applicant.
Feeley —The 92 -unit plan is not our favorite; we looked at it as a good -faith plan to come to agreement. %,:-e prefer . e
100 -unit plan, which meets our target. We think the 92 -unit plan is reducing the project to below what Vve think is
If we can all get behind the 92 -unit plan, tell us what we need.
Toole — There is consensus to speak to the 92 -unit plan; we need to see a reasonable revel of information to see a
works. We can't get totally behind it without all the information. We need: architectural plans for all buildings:
of exterior building materials: unit square footage for all homes and units; parking; identification of affordable L tits ;',o,. -
plans with room dimensions, confirmation that building designs satisfy building code requirements-, -which buildi_�-
sprinklers systems; table showing allocation of affordable units for each condo and cottages.- a table showing pc-centa e
of total habitable square footage-, engineering plans, i.e. sewer, water, and drainage.
Feeley — Stamped architectural plans is beyond what's required.
Antonietti — Read the posted Town of Nantucket comprehensive permit requiremen-s for architectural
require the architects stamp.
Toole —a`t'e need a narrative explanation along with graphics clarifying proposed patios and terraces; landscape p for
all structures and the overall site and the buffer areas; storage shed elevation; reasonable accessibilin- accomrroda1_11)rs;
outline building specifications explaining differences in equipment and appliances between market and affordal,'c ,,r•.<_:
updated recreation building drawings; governance documents; explanation who is responsible for sewer privilege fee- for
affordable units; waivers needed for the 92 -unit plan-, and trash, lighting, etc.
Taaffe — About the 92 -unit plan, he is sensing an unwillingness from the developers to present anything regarding
units. Ile feels they were going through the motions, so they could tell the H-yC they tried to work with the ZB_=_.
Feeley — He went to the workshop in good faith to find common ground with the Board. As a result of the sho�s-
we ended up with 92 -units, that is our threshold. The 88 -unit plan is a different design that changes the 4 -module condos
to single family or duplex. The difference between the 88 and 92 is those duplexes. Explained the proposed pr:ce ,
for the various marketable units.
Toole — If the applicant does plans based on the minimum they feel they can do, at least we have the infor2a*.��� o
make an informed decision. Asked if they are going to do new plans for the 92 units.
Feeley — Our intention was to close today. If the Board wants to schedule another meeting between novo- and
based upon the 92-umt plan, he thinks it's worth scheduling another meeting.
Toole — Ile's good with saying the Board likes the concept of the 92 -unit plan: we --ant the information.
McCarthy — Questions whether or not this board would be able to close at the next hearing if the-, haver.`- In
opportunity to discuss the plans. She doesn't think that provides the Board enough time to review the mformauon.
Pucci — Once it's worked about among Don Bracken and David Gray and Reston and Sampson, the Board •.;-" need
time to discuss any issues. You are being faced with an impossible time frame; several things need to happen: neez'
answer if they are going to provide sufficient information on 92-umt plan and contemplate at least another hcannt
session within the current timeline and that all information on the 100 -unit plan is provided so that if the Board ns iorcc-d-
you can make a decision. There is a recommendation in the January proposal for a gravin- line.
Mondani — We were lulled into thinking we were moving forward and suddenly we are jammed up -.;-nth • _ a
decision within two weeks-, to him that is bad faith.
McCarthy — She can't understand why it has been so hard to get the necessary information on the project.
Toole — The critical issue has been the site plan because we had not come to a consensus. -There is a consensa=
concept of the 92 -unit plan is something we want to proceed with.
Feeley —'Phis has been coming for a while, can we agree on a program; the answer continues to be -e aren't a Z—t here
yet. The term good faith keeps coming up; regarding the septic, 'fir. Bracken and I met with David Gra•.- and
Sampson and were told we could run a force main; we have planned on that. We just got an email that ackno-;:le#e- -.::e
were told a force main was viable. We've been tn-ing to get answers for a long time on sewer.
Pucci — The January 25, 2019 proposal from NX;eston and Sampson is for a gravin- main, which is consistent ;
Planning. That has been provided and it is time for them to respond to that: you -will need public hearing time to
the Board to address issues and the applicant to respond to Weston and Sampson's proposal. Weston and Sarrpsoc sent
an itemized list of information they need on the latest proposal. If they are not going to agree to provide-e��_�ae
Page 6 of 8
ZBA :Minutes for March 26, 2019, adopted Apr. 11
information on the 92-unit plan, get on the record now that whatever information is needed on the 100-unit plan is
provided and the Board should be ready to act on it if April 4 remains the closing date.
McCarthy — You want us to agree on the 92-unit and we are willing to get behind the concept, but we can't make a
decision on the program without the information. At the last meeting, we thought we were working with the 92-unit plan.
Feeley — Our goal from the beginning has been to work with the board but this has been a long time.
Botticelli — We have asked for longer extensions, but we only got a little bit at a time like 2-weeks at a time.
Toole — Some extensions have been unrealistic in that no one could put the information together in that time. We must
have the information. We aren't trying to elongate the process, we want the information on a reasonable site plan to be
able to move forward.
Thayer — He feels the applicant has a program they have stuck with; they been unwilling to listen to what the
Board and the public wants. The buildings proposed are too big for this site, for this Island, at this time. The applicant
could make the 92-unit plan happen in a minute by reducing the year-round units.
Bamber — He has asked that with the 154 lots on file that are paying taxes, if this project would go ahead of those people
if there isn't enough room in the sewer treatment plant. The landfill is contaminating wells and sludge is being trucked to
the landfill. Approving this will destroy this Island.
L.Derensis — At the last hearing, she read the letter that ZBA had been asking for from the Applicants' lawyer and found
a few things in it that were troubling to her; the letter states that there is no way to back up a guarantee for middle
income. If they really want to help the middle income, they could make the affordable units 50%. When she hears about
the proposed price points, she can't understand how a duplex could be worth $TNI and the cottages S2.5\I and yet they
claim they can't make any money. The property was purchased for $4M; if they stuck with what was legally allowed to go
in there, they would make an enormous profit. Asked to see the financials.
Toole — The way the 40B law is written, the applicant doesn't need to show their financials until there is a condition they
feel makes it uneconomic. That should be done during the public hearing, but we don't have time. He finds it difficult to
assimilate all the permutations we've looked at. Going down this road is a mistake; they are going to alienate the
community and be tied up possibly- for years in some process. He thinks it's wiser to come up with a program that is more
agreeable.
McCarthy — We have said repeatedly in different ways we can get behind this plan, but we need information with which
to make a decision. If the applicant doesn't like that decision, they can appeal it.
Feeley — The intention was to close tonight; asked if they want another meeting on the fourth, he will talk with his
partner.
Pucci — If you have a meeting on April 01, you would have to close or have another extension. It was an ill considered
position to come in tonight and ask the Board to close on the 100-unit plan. Even on that plan, it wasn't a reasonable
expectation to close it. Asked for a reasonable extension to early- \lay that allows time for Jtr. Bracken to work with Mr.
Gray and Weston and Sampson and Mr. Pucci and provide an engineering plan. He cautions the Board about allowing
H.-1C to become the permitting agency; however, the HAC process is not as favorable to an applicant as one might think.
There is the potential of their ruling being appealed to Superior Court. It doesn't make sense for an applicant to force a
decision and push the project into that process. Respectfully suggests an extension to early flay and key up some hearing
dates.
Botticelli — Feels the Board needs at least two more meetings.
Feeley — Asked for a 5-minute break to call his partner.
(02:35:37 to 02:47:00)
Reade — We reiterate that we believe you have all the information necessary- to act on the 100-unit plan based upon the
submission at the March 11 meeting. We do not agree to an extension.
Toole — We have the room on April 4 or sooner. We do not believe we have all the information. He's been through the
Est and it is now on the applicant to provide the information we need.
Botticelli — Asked that the requirements for a CP application be emailed to the Board members.
Antonietti — It is posted on the Town website for all to be able to access. She will forward.
Toole — We will have to do all the review in one meeting. We have this room reserved for 4 p.m.
Discussion about time and dates for another hearing.
Mondani — Give them 48 hours to get us everything. Asked what happens if we approve an incomplete application.
Pucci — They haven't provided the required level of information the Board has asked of them.
Toole — As a courtesy to the Board, put all the information in one packet.
Reade — We expect and submit a reorganized and compilation of the same material.
Koseatac — Asked that if the applicant thinks the information has already been submitted, asked that a note be made of
when to compare to the minutes and the meeting.
Toole — Friday, March 29 is available.
McCarthy — It shows a willingness of the Board to do what has to be done to come to a decision. This process is a
collaborative process and it has felt adversarial the whole time.
Mondani — We should have a full draft of the master plan and homeowners' association (HOA) documents.
Page 7 of 8
7_BA'\Iinutes for :March 26, 2019, adopted _'�pr. 11
Marchant —The full homeowners plan would normally be in the decision. They should provide a Harr : e t do cr.i,e
the process by which common costs will be allocated between the HOA and the funding.
Toole — If that information has been submitted, it should be in lids in -bo% tomorrow.
Discussion about the time to start the meeting.
Stockman — .-\sked if it is true the Board is being forced to review the 10() -unit plan and if they can make
the plan that will bring it closer to what the Board wants.
Toole — Yes, everything is open for discussion. The information will be posted to the website.
\lotion Motion to Continue to Friday, March 29, 2019 at 4:30 p.m. at 4 Fairgrounds Road Community- Room.
Thayer) (seconded by: Botticelli)
Vote Carried unanimously
ADJOURNMENT
Motion to Adjourn at 8:40 p.m. (made by: ) (seconded by:) Carried
Submitted by:
1 crl'Y L. Norton
Page 8 of 8