Nine Reasons To Deny Surfside Crossing

To the editor: Reasons to deny Surfside Crossing:

1) Failure to comply with stormwater standards: The developer has failed to comply with stormwater standards, thus creating a threat to the Town’s sole source aquifer and the neighbors’ private well. Nantucket Tipping Point witness Kristen Mello (Chemist and PFAS expert) testified: ”It is not possible to condition the changes required to prevent the chemical contamination that would result from this proposed project. It is therefore also my opinion that this permit application must be denied in order to protect the public and private drinking water supply."

2) Lack of fire safety: The design is unsafe for Nantucket. Our local concerns in addition to being 30 miles out to sea prove this project is a real danger to the community. Whether or not the design meets the state’s Fire Code, those responsible for safety say they cannot maintain the safety of the public. This is a valid local concern, and is the basis for the ZBA to issues a denial.

3) Lack of second entrance: The Police and Fire Chief want this secondary access for public safety reasons, not just for fire access, but for the residents and the public having two means of access for escaping from a fire or other major emergency. The Letter from SSX says that since there isn’t a law on a piece of paper requiring such safety, they are not going to make any effort to provide it. The ZBA’s responsibility here is to identify local concerns and local needs, to require a safe project, not a death trap.

4) Lack of adequate water supply to fight fires at the project site: Nantucket Tipping Point has submitted the transcript from the Wannacomet Water department director, where he acknowledged that PFAS pollution plume is approaching the town’s wellfield, so he is limiting the pumping from some of the town’s drinking water wells. This means that while there is on paper the capacity to handle the volume of water needed at a fire at the proposed development, in doing so pumping will pull the PFAS contamination plume towards the town’s well leading to possible further contamination. The water director has stated the Veranda House fire required 850,000 gallons of water to combat the fire, but at a reduced pressure according to the Firefighters present during the Fire. Although the current Fire Chief now says there was no water issue, the current Fire Chief was nowhere near Nantucket for the Veranda House fire. SSX contains 19 Veranda House sized buildings. Pumping like that would further draw PFAS into the town’s aquifer, creating forever problem island wide. The water director is proposing to put a treatment plant on the water coming out of one well, but the problem is not the water coming out of one well, the problem is the water moving underground to recharge the water being pumped, has PFAS in it, and that goes into the aquifer untreated. The Water Company is saying that contamination by PFAS of the shallow wells doesn’t affect the rest of the aquifer that relies on deeper aquifer. The Water Company position is wrong, the deep aquifer is recharged by the shallow aquifer, they are connected not separate. As stated in the report done by Bristol Engineering “the shallow aquifer serves as a source of recharge to the deeper aquifer from which the balance of the Water Company wells draw."

5) Unsafe traffic impact due to project modification: Over a thousand new vehicles trips from the development onto surrounding roads that have the highest crash/injury rates on Nantucket, without a safe pedestrian access for occupants and their children to Surfside Road.

6) Drinking water wells setback requirements violated: Developer’s plans violate Board of Health requirements for setbacks, which work to keep developer’s pollution causing facilities away from abutters drinking water. The failure to comply violates the law and endangers abutters, creating serious threats of harm to public health.

7) The developer’s misuse of the town’s property interests: The developer was caught making private use of a publicly owned sewer easement with construction inconsistent with that easement.

8) Failure to comply with the Nantucket Historic Districts Act: The project is inconsistent with the Historic District Act and must be completely reconfigured. The Select Board report includes similar HDC comments and the board is in receipt of a report from the HDC itself. Noncompliance with the Act threatens a fundamental aspect of the economic welfare of the Island, and interferes with preservation of a National historical landmark.

9) Still no sewer solution. The Town wants one solution for the of handling sewage from the project, while the developer has not agreed to the town’s position.

The developer has said they are going to HAC if the ZBA seeks any changes to its “design to the minimum standard” development. Do we really want a development that provides housing built to the minimum standards? Is it really housing no matter the cost to our community? Is that the kind of community we are?

Economic profit should never outweigh the health, safety, welfare and the environment of our entire community.

Meghan Perry