HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 19 23 TOWN AREA PLAN WORK GROUP 2023 JU -8 AM t: 11
Meeting of May 19,2023,at 4:00 pm by Zoom
FINAL AND APPROVED MINUTES
Attending: Mary Anne Easley,Marsha Fader, Regen Horchow,Alison King, Mary Longacre, Mickey
Rowland, and Henry Terry.
Absent: Lee Saperstein.
Attendance was verified by a roll call; there was a quorum at all times. The meeting was recorded and
can be viewed at the following address:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZnKBhG7hSc&I ist=PL49sKgry7VAhF3 WZ8xvh3sdHgJEvCabR
6&index=24.
1. Call to Order.
Chair Henry Terry called the meeting to order at 4:01 pm. Mary Longacre reviewed the rules on remote-
attendance meetings, which have been amended recently, and said also that this meeting would be
recorded. Henry Terry called the roll, live,and confirmed the reported attendance.
2. Agenda Approval.
Henry Terry asked for approval of the agenda; Regen Horchow moved approval, Mary Anne Easley
seconded,and it was approved unanimously.
3. Minutes Approval.
Mary Anne Easley moved approval of the minutes of the meeting of May 2, 2023,which was seconded
by Regen Horchow,and the motion passed unanimously.
4. Public and Member Comments.
There were no members of the public present, hence no public comments. Henry Terry noted that the
July meeting of the Work Group falls on July 4,2023, and asked if we should cancel that meeting. Mary
Anne Easley moved to cancel it, Regen Horchow seconded it, and the motion was approved
unanimously.
5. Discussion of Area Plan.
Henry Terry invited Mary Anne Easley to present her draft report on Land Use;the draft and subsequent
inserted comments is appended to these minutes. For information and ease in discussion, Mary
Longacre read down the list of topics and sub-group members,which can be found also at the end of
these minutes. Mary Anne Easley noted that her very first draft had been circulated some time ago and
had been annotated by Secretary Lee Saperstein with helpful information. This time, she said that she
would like to break the draft into small pieces with the intention of getting member comments on each
that could, with editing, lead to a semi-finished draft. To assist the conversation, Mary Longacre posted
the draft that had been circulated earlier. Mary Anne Easley began by saying that former member, Liz
Almodobar, had served a year or so ago on another work group and was most helpful in the initial
writing of this one. Marsha Fader asked if the Master Plan requirement for land use could be read.
While Mary Anne Easley looked for the specific wording, Marsha Fader found her copy of
Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 41, Section 81D and read the following.
"Land Use Plan: identifies present land use and designates the proposed distribution, location,
and inter-relationship of public and private land uses. This element shall relate the proposed
standards of population density and building intensity to the capacity of land available or planned
facilities and services. A land use plan map illustrating the land use policies of the municipality
shall be included." (quotation taken from the Master Plan Summary provided to us by PLUS
personnel.)
Mary Anne Easley began by saying that a vision statement made a lot of sense to her, so the first
segment of the draft land-use plan was a vision for land use in the Town Area. Visitors to Nantucket are
attracted by the historic nature of the Town Area and are most likely to stay within its boundary. Her
idea of a vision,therefore, is to protect the historic nature of the Town Area. Mickey Rowland said that
he liked the sense of the vision but that the words"historic nature" are not actually in her draft. She
agreed that these words should be added to the vision statement.
Mary Anne Easley then went on to say that zoning is the mechanism by which planning is made real.
Some time ago, Deputy Planning Director, Leslie Snell, gave a presentation on zoning in the Town Area.
She said that the goal was to phase out R-1 zoning in the area in favor of R-5. Although most of the
Town Area is Residential Old Historic,there are properties toward the edge of the Area that are R-1.
She also noted that the Residential Old Historic District does not coincide exactly with the Old Historic
District and that rectifying this should be studied. Mary Anne Easley suggested that supporting this
move would be the wise way to go. Marsha Fader asked if we could include a statement of why this
move was being made and why we would support it. It was noted that re-zoning would require a
property-by-property analysis of impact. The move to match the Residential Old Historic, ROH, zoning
district with the Old Historic District, OHD,overlay also led to a question of purpose. Mickey Rowland
noted that the OHD overlay is larger than the ROH and includes the downtown and harbor areas;the
latter extends to Brant Point. Mickey Rowland pointed out, also,that those properties in the OHD but
not in the ROH are zoned R-1 (or soon to be R-5),which has more restrictive land use controls for
setback and ground cover than does the ROH. He suggested that, before we endorse the change,the
work group should be comfortable with the change and its consequences. He went on to explain that the
Historic District Commission, HDC, looks at properties in the OHD more deeply and thus the OHD is an
HDC construct and is not zoning. Mary Longacre then shared the use chart from the Town's zoning
bylaw.
Mary Longacre suggested that the Planning Department would like to hear from the work group its
opinion on harmonizing the two boundaries(OHD and ROH). Ultimately, it will be the Planning
Department that decides the preferred steps to take. For illustration, Mickey Rowland put the OHD map
on the screen. Mary Anne Easley asked if she should do a census of properties in the OHD and not in
the ROH and it was thought that this would be worthwhile. A comparison of OHD and ROH showed
that the two largest disparities were along Easton Street on Brant Point and the Woodbury subdivision.
Mickey Rowland suggested that,while not historic in the sense of building age, each of these areas holds
a lot of history, which is why the HDC includes them in the OHD. He added that he would not like to
see the OHD made smaller,which meant that an acceptable harmonization would expand the ROH.
Generally speaking, Mary Longacre said that there was not a problem for her in having two different
boundaries and Mickey Rowland agreed. Minor adjustments, however, based on an examination of
individual properties might be in order. Marsha Fader agreed, also, and suggested that there may be a
substantial number of historic structures outside of the OHD boundary and, therefore,that boundary
should be expanded. Mary Longacre thought that our discussion would be helped by seeing a map with
the three boundaries on it: OHD, ROH, and Town Area. Subjectively, she felt that the Town Area most
coincided with the OHD, minus, of course,the downtown and the waterfront.
Mary Anne Easley agreed that she was amenable to taking an inventory of affected properties,creating a
table of properties defined by zoning,ROH and R-1,and by historic designation, OHD, but that she
would need a lot of help. Marsha Fader added that details would help reinforce our conclusions and that
a lot of help would be given. A flowing conversation arrived at the two-part conclusion that an
inventory of houses not in both districts would be useful but that it should not happen before we get
additional guidance from the Planning Department on their attitude toward harmonization. Marsha
Fader, who is working on the Housing report,asked about the impact of harmonization of properties in
the Town Area. She said that she had received information from Nathan Porter,the GIS Coordinator,
that there are 1758 parcels in the Town Area Plan, of which 1531 are residential, and 53 are developable.
The conversation shifted toward the question of desirability of adding more housing in the Town Area
and included issues of second houses on small lots. There is an obvious link between the sub-group
issues of housing and land-use. Regen Horchow asked if there was any plan to encourage part-time
residents to rent their homes when they were absent. Mary Longacre pointed out that this was a question
in the survey and it generated more questions than answers: how to obtain legal help, how to obtain
valid references for potential renters, etc. Marsha Fader noted that the responses were generally
favorable to adding housing, i.e., apartments or second dwellings, but most respondents said that they
would need help and advice, e.g., legal, or financial support to winterize their dwellings.
Mary Anne Easley then moved onto the next item in her draft report, which is"Commercial/Mixed-Use
Properties," for which she said that there were a number of these historically but that current zoning does
not permit them now. She suggests that the work group recommend the use of special permits to allow
commercial enterprises to re-open on their historical sites. With general assent given to this suggestion,
she moved on to the issue of ground cover. For clarification she and Mickey Rowland provided the
details: ROH=40 percent ground cover and R-1 allows only 30 percent. R-5 also allows 40 percent but
requires a 10-ft front setback. PLUS intends to replace R-1 as much as possible with R-5.
The next element in her plan is building height,which is currently limited to 30 feet in the ROH. The
Madaket Village zone allows only 25 feet and the `Sconset small-area plan seeks a height of 24 feet. She
asked if we wished to recommend any change from 30 feet. Mickey Rowland said that from the vantage
of his time on the Historic Structures Advisory Board, 30 feet is appropriate because small building lots
would not allow the increased ground cover needed to maintain the same interior area with a reduced
height. Mary Longacre noted that the prevailing architecture in Madaket was of lower heights and that is
zone, Village Residential, VR,was defined to maintain that appearance. She felt, similarly to Mickey
Rowland,that 30 feet was appropriate for the Town Area.
Originally,there was no call to change the statement in the section on"Pools and Spas." Mickey
Rowland reminded the group that, although pools were not allowed in the ROH, small spas were so
allowed. The issue is that they are outside and noises made by bathers can be heard readily by
neighbors. Noise is controlled by a separate segment of the town code and is not a zoning issue. The
work group did not amend the draft statement on pools. [In the recent Annual Town Meeting,Article 39
passed and re-defined hot tubs/spas, small pools,and large pools according to their area and depth.
Permission for these features is still controlled by zoning and shown in the Use Chart. ATM articles 54
and 54, also on pools, did not pass. Inserted by Lee Saperstein, Secretary]
With respect to the section on"Lot Setbacks", Mary Anne Easley asked Mickey Rowland if the work
group should expand on his concern that many building projects are adding side additions to historic
structures so as to save back yards for private use and that this practice is changing the nature of historic
houses. The traditional place for additions was to the rear of the existing structure. It was agreed that,
while this was a practice not supported by the work group, it belongs to the Historic District
Commission. Mary Anne Easley will amend the draft to note the concern while acknowledging that the
work group was not recommending changes to the side setback provisions in zoning.
The next topic discussed was"Installed Heavy Equipment" and the control of noise from swimming pool
filter pumps, air conditioners, and generators. Chapter 101, "Noise", of the Town's code does limit
noise from air conditioners and pool equipment but does not include generators. The work group
members agreed that a maximum sound-pressure level (noise limit)should be applied to generators and
that the code emphasize the use of low-noise equipment.
Mary Anne Easley then spoke of the significance of wetlands to Nantucket and the fact that there are
many such areas in the Town Area. She believed that the work group should indicate its support for
enforcement of wetland rules. Mary Longacre added that wetlands and any changes proposed to them
are monitored by the Conservation Commission. Mary Anne Easley agreed but noted that there have
been land-use disputes in the Town Area over wetlands and that our support was warranted;there was
agreement to this idea and to the proposed statement.
The final topic on the "Land Use"draft was a strong note of support for the work of the Historic District
Commission, inasmuch as they are the monitors of the OHD. She noted that Mickey Rowland had a
potential edit; he replied that he liked the proposed statement but that it should be made stronger,
particularly for the Town Area district, by adding a word or phrase for"strict enforcement of historic
districts." The discussion then moved into"Building with Nantucket in Mind," which serves to guide
architectural design and building to conform with HDC principles. Mickey Rowland acknowledged that
this is a very valuable document but that it may need to be brought up to date. Concern was expressed
that"Building with Nantucket in Mind" is a set of guidelines and is not a regulation. Additionally, there
is concern that the HDC has not followed its guidance with a lot of recent construction in the OHD. In
support of HDC preservation efforts, it was suggested that the HDC participate in regular training
sessions with specialists who have preservation credentials. Upon reflection, it was deemed best to
emphasize strict enforcement and an up-dated version of"Building with Nantucket in Mind."
Mary Anne Easley finished by saying that the tasks that are yet needed are to inventory the commercial
enterprises that are in the Town Area;to identify properties that are in the area but not in the ROH, and
to identify properties that are in the OHD but not in the ROH. Mary Longacre committed to reviewing
her annotation of the draft statement and then to send it to the members [the annotated version is
appended to these minutes]. In a brief review of the edits,Marsha Fader said that the vision statement
should emphasize the protection of the historic nature of the Town Area. Tourism is important and may
stay in the statement but it should not be the dominant concern of the vision.
In preparation for adjournment,Henry Terry asked Mary Anne Easley if she would return the edited
draft for a review at the next meeting. He also asked Marsha Fader and Mickey Rowland if they would
be ready with a draft of the"Housing" section of the plan. They said that they would be ready.
6. Adjourn.
Mickey Rowland moved adjournment, Marsha Fader seconded, and approval was unanimous. The
meeting was adjourned at 5:06 pm
The next scheduled meeting is Tuesday,June 6,2023, at 4:00 pm. This meeting will be by Zoom.
For reference: Subcommittee composition.
2. Land Use: Liz Almodobar and Mary Anne Easley 02/19/2022
3. Housing: Marsha Fader and Mickey Rowland 12/07/2021
4. Economic Development: Alison King and Mary Longacre 05/20/2021
5.Natural and Cultural Resources: Liz Almodobar and Marsha Fader 12/07/2021
6. Open Space and Recreation Plan: Mary Anne Easley and Henry Terry 03/17/2023
7. Services and Facilities: Regen Horchow and Mickey Rowland 12/07/2021
8. Circulation; Mary Longacre and Lee Saperstein 07/05/2021
Lee W. Saperstein, Secretary, saperste@mst.edu
Land Use Plan (DRAFT)
Related topics for presentation/discussion
at TAP Work Group May 19, 2023 meeting
Vision
Our vision with regard to land use in the Town area: To protect the tourism
industry which is essential to the island's economic well-being, it is vitally
important to maintain the attractiveness of the residential area adjacent to
downtown. This area, more than any other part of the island, needs to be
protected for future generations of residents and visitors. Include historic character
De-emphasize tourism in the vision
Zoning
PLUS plans to eliminate R-1 zoning and reassess all affected properties
individually. We encourage this plan. Add why R1 is being eliminated
Preserve the historic character of this residential area; align OHD and
ROHD properties. These changes require town meeting approval.
Determine whether aligning OHD & ROH is desired on a property by property basis
Commercial/mixed used properties
We may want to recommend allowing special permits in the ROH for the
operation of commercial enterprises that existed historically in Town but
don't currently exist.
Ground cover
Has already been reduced from 50% to 40%.
Building height
Do we want to recommend a height restriction? Sconset suggests 24 feet
in their area plan, Madaket 25 feet.
Pools and spas
Pools and spas are not allowed in ROH. Not considered a structure and
therefore not included in ground cover (although Sconset suggested pools
should be considered part of ground cover). Both are allowed in other
areas but restrictions apply.
Lot setbacks
Mickey mentioned a troubling trend with current building on smaller
lots where owners are adding to the sides of theirs houses when
there is no room in the back for an addition. This changes the
historic character of the dwelling.
Installed heavy equipment
Some guidelines should be established to limit the noise created by
installed equipment such as condensers, pool equipment,
generators. The building code could set maximum enforceable noise
levels for stationary equipment. Recommend best available low-
noise equipment should be required in the area.
Wetlands
Although wetlands are the purview of the Commonwealth, we
encourage our Natural Resources department to enforce state
regulations to monitor and preserve those within our area, as well as
the rest of the island, for the sake of environmental and community
health.
Historic District Commission
The mission of the HDC is especially relevant to our area. We
encourage active support of the HDC and its efforts to preserve the
historic character of this area as well as the rest of Nantucket.
HDC should strictly enforce the design guidelines in our area.
Building with Nantucket in Mind should be updated
Next step: Create a catalog of businesses in our area.