Surfside Crossing Should Be Denied

To the editor: Surfside Crossing development is back before the Board of Appeals this week because Nantucket Superior Court judge agreed with Nantucket Tipping Point and Nantucket Land & Water Council that this was an “entirely new project” never seen by any of Nantucket’s many boards or its citizens. And now the developer is trying to bypass what the Court has ordered.

This development should be denied by the Board of Appeals because Affordable housing should work both for the community and the future homeowners. Public safety should be paramount, rather than dismissed or pursued only to some minimum that a developer can legally get away with.

There is substantial evidence demonstrating that this is a failed development, and is unsafe for the public, future homeowners of the proposed complex, and the surrounding community, including the following:

A. Developer Jamie Feeley testified at the Housing Appeals Committee on cross examination that there would be 500 individuals occupying the proposed development, and that the Board has never considered this project with only one entrance access.

B. Testimony of Diane Coombs: “I comment here concerning the non-compliance of the current version of the proposed Surfside Crossing development project . . . with the Historic District Commission Act… and with Nantucket’s Historic District Commission Bylaw … and the projects harmful impact on its residential neighbors and abutters. The non-compliance cannot be resolved without significant alterations to the size, density and configuration of the proposed project”.

C. Testimony of David Fronzuto: “It is my professional opinion that the proposed Surfside Crossing project as currently configured and presented by the developer presents very substantial emergency response – and therefore public safety – risks to the residents of the South Shore Road neighborhood ... In my professional opinion in the field of emergency management, a residential project of the size, density and configuration of that proposed should not be constructed at the location proposed…”.

D. Testimony of Jack Weinhold: “Because our property directly abuts and our well lies just feet from the Project Site, and due to the groundwater flow and permeability of the sandy soils, any contamination on or released from the Project Site or into its groundwater would flow into our property and contaminate our well. “Because we are a direct abutter to the Project Site and our house is just 21 feet from its property line, our property would be especially jeopardized by any fire at the proposed development”. “From the [Nantucket] Fire Chief’s testimony I understand that due to its size and design, the Project presents very serious firefighting access problems for his department and that, because of that and Nantucket’ s windy conditions and the neighborhood flammable vegetation, ... the proposed Project “creates a serious public safety concern.”

E. Testimony of Jaques Zimecki: “Even in ordinary conditions, the Project would greatly exacerbate traffic congestion for us. During the summer months, cars routinely back up along South Shore Road from the intersection with Surfside Road, and along Surfside and Fairgrounds Road, …That congestion would be multiplied by the addition of the contemplated 291 Project resident vehicles – as well as other visitor, delivery and service vehicles all entering and existing the Project Site through a single driveway just south of the South Shore Road – Surfside Road intersection”.

F. Testimony of Bruce Perry: “[Nantucket] Fire Chief Murphy has concluded that “It is the position of the Fire Department that the proposed design and size of the buildings in relation to the size of the lot and location of the site provide inadequate fire access, creating a serious public safety concern”… “I am very familiar with the vegetation at and in the immediate area of the applicant’s proposed project and with the implications of such vegetation for fighting fires … this vegetation is some of the most combustible and volatile vegetation in New England” … “ the predominance of such vegetation in the immediately surrounding area, including on parts of the immediately abutting residential properties to its south, the density of the proposed development, the close proximity of the abutters’ homes, and the strong prevailing winds present a very substantial risk of fire spread “…”it is my professional opinion that the presence of the Project would foreseeably prevent Nantucket authorities from successfully fighting a significant fire at or near the Site…”

G. The Nantucket Fire Chief testified that the conditions and circumstances of Nantucket required modifications to the plans for the safety of the occupants of the proposed development because of equipment issues of an aerial ladder and manpower resources, but the SSX developer’s hired expert on fire safety dismissed the need to even look at those special Nantucket conditions: “There is no requirement in 527 CMR 1.00, 780 CMR, the Nantucket Zoning Bylaws or the Subdivision Rules and Regulations, requiring access by aerial ladder to any portion of a building, thus this question was not analyzed ” Testimony of Souza.

Nantucket can do better than this unsafe development.

See you all at the hearing,

Meghan Perry

(This letter is a summary of a letter filed by Resident’s counsel with the ZBA, the full text of which is available at NantucketTippingPoint.org).