voices: the community speaks of Nantucket and GHYC

David Wiley
68 Union Street,
Nantucket, MA

May 27, 2004

Nantucket Historic District Commission
37 Washington Street
Nantucket, MA 02554

Dear Board Members and Staff,

The following comments are in response to the applications presented to your Board by the proposed Great Harbor Yacht Club. Generally speaking the following guidelines apply to all applications.

  1. Great Harbor Yacht Club is a Major Commercial Development, which has swelled to encompass a total land of almost 3.5 acres. This project is before the Nantucket Planning Board, and the Nantucket Conservation Commission. To date the Town has handled this application by the various boards as though we were three separate islands. I would hope that for the benefit of the island as a whole the complete application would be submitted to this Board. There are many drastic changes to the use and overall architectural feel of this area of Town. All interests that can be protected by this Board should be considered and applied where possible.
  2. The project is in the OHD as defined by Building with Nantucket in Mind and therefore all details should be per Appendix G (page 181 of the BWNM).
  3. The "Goals for Construction in the Old Town of Nantucket" see page 9 of BWNM.
    4. " 3. To preserve the integrity of the historic buildings that physically express the history of the island; to encourage faithful maintenance and accurate restorations of historic structures; to ensure that all additions to or alterations of historic buildings are compatible with the original building."
    "4. To make certain all new buildings are compatible with the buildings adjacent to them and contribute to the overall harmony of the street; to encourage new buildings that, while reflecting the traditions and character of historic buildings, are in themselves high quality designs for the area."
    "5. To encourage new development adjacent to town to continue the traditions and fabric of the town, particularly with regards to its historic pattern, scale. streetside building alignment and pedestrian details."
  4. Page 58 of BWNM provides a map of the Nantucket Core Historic District.
  5. Page 66, Typical Pedestrian Scale, last paragraph "Any new construction in the town should be of a scale compatible with that of adjacent buildings. Also the scale of spaces between buildings should be carefully considered.
  6. Windows and doors should be true divided light, with plank frame or similar details as existed. The whole town of Nantucket is built surrounded by water and the applicant should not be allowed to plead a hardship. The majority of Commercial property in the OHD has true dived light wood windows which is clearly required by the Commission.
  7. All plans submitted to this Board are stamped "HDC SUBMISSION NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION" . It is a requirement of this board to review the CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS and not some level prior to that which will be change for Building Permit Application. In fact Two copies of the HDC APPROVED PLANS need to be submitted to the BUILDING DEPARTMENT for a permit.

Clubhouse

  1. I believe that Linda Williams was incorrect when she stated that this building is no taller that the other buildings on the site. Please pay close attention to the four structures when you view. You will notice that the center building of the three connected on Washington Street Extension may be 30' however all others are of lower ridge lines.
  2. The building that currently occupies most of the site of this new Clubhouse is 50' x 120'. The new building is 55'- 90' x 245'. Not in any way in keeping with current massing, scale or historic pattern. This is an overall increase of aprox 6,000 sf of space to over 20,000 sf of space or more than three time the current structure.
  3. Flat roof in not allowed nor can I find a reference in BWNM to its historic precedent.
  4. No photo's of existing structures being replaced have been submitted with this file to allow the board to compare the project when reviewing the plans and they might be helpful. Photo included.
  5. No plans were submitted which indicate site grading, retaining walls, landscape features, or paving surfaces for review or approval.
  6. Please review site lighting since this location has a very high visibility and impact on the harbor and neighborhood.
  7. Plans indicate a final ridge height in excess of 30' and to my knowledge this board has in the past been very aware and mindful of the Zoning Bylaw, especially with the presence of the Zoning Board Administrator on this board.
  8. The first floor elevation for the structure is elevation 12.2 almost 5' above existing grade. I understand that this is a V zone and therefore requires a finish floor (TOP OF SLAB AT 10'-0") THE REASON THE DEVELOPER IS AT ELEVVATION 12.2' IS TO USE WOOD FRAME CONSTRUCTION AND MECHANICALS BELOW THE FLOOR. COULD YOU IMAGINE THE STEAMSHIP OFFICE BEING BUILT 5" ABOVE THE PIER THAT IT IS ON? I suggest that a slab on grade like the SSA would be more appropriate scale and still 3 feet above existing. Another suggestion would be to move the waterside 1/3 of this building towards the road and out of the V Zone. Which would then require a floor elevation of 9'.
  9. No dumpster area, air-handling units-condensers are indicated, I believe early conversations mentioned the roof area, which should be a concern to this board and defined, on the approval.

Poolhouse

  1. Application doesn't match plans submitted. Plans are incorrect if 3' of fill is being added on North and East. Application also states that 3'-0" of foundation is exposed not shown on plans.
  2. No photos showing what currently exist is included in this file.
  3. Second floor deck does not meet guidelines.
  4. No plans were submitted which indicate site grading, retaining walls, landscape features, or paving surfaces for review or approval.
  5. The proposed structure will form a larger street massing that currently exists and totally eliminate public water views as mentioned at the Nantucket Conservation Commission.
  6. Commissioner John McLaughlin was correct when he raised the question about the shingles going to the ground. This application is incorrectly drawn, as are all others with this regard.
  7. The first floor elevation of this structure is 10.2 which is almost 4' above the street, required floor elevation is 9' based on FEMA. This structure could employ barricades such as were used at Henrys on Broad street and retain its Street character, scale and pedestrian relationships.

Pool

  1. This application is incomplete. The difference between existing and proposed grade is left blank. The site plan for the project indicates a finish pool deck of elevation 8.0. The existing grades in this area range from elevation 6.0 to 7.0 or 2' to 3' of added fill.
  2. Pool deck are indicated on plans with a total area of 64 x 94 again application is incomplete and no reference is made of this proposed elevated area.
  3. Fencing required has not be indicated or defined and is required by law.
  4. No plans were submitted which indicate site grading, retaining walls, landscape features, or paving surfaces for review or approval.
  5. This application is of large concern to the abbutters since if a pool of this size is lighted it can forever change the night sky of this waterfront . There are no pools in this area. I am concerned that a half-acre pool will change this waterfront forever.
  6. I CAN FIND NO REQUIREMENT THAT A SWIMMING POOL NEEDS TO BE AT ELEVATION 8' AND SUGGEST THAT THIS BE CONSIDERED AT GRADE. IN A STORM EVENT I CAN NOT SEE DAMAGE OCCURING TO THIS STRUCTURE BY WATER.

Sports Barn/ Marina Building

  1. On the application the existing to proposed grade is incorrect per site plan submitted.
  2. Main roof pitch (4/12) does not meet OHD guidelines.
  3. I assume the applicant will present that the walled street faade exists across the street and therefore should be allowed here. The building street edge on the west side of the street exists and should be adhered to. As proposed the project would total 112'-6" of new structure on west side of street and 60 of new structure on the east = 172'-6" compared to existing single mass on east only = 136. The new structures are also massed to have ridgelines parallel to the road and therefore their impact to the street is much enlarged, unlike the existing simple street gable facing structures.
  4. This structure is replacing and existing dirt lot that is used to store boats in the winter months see pictures. It has no structures on it at this time.
  5. The 10,153 sf ground cover will be 10 or less from the closest abutter whose structure is 1,800 sf of ground cover. This is not inkeeping with the surrounding area or size and scale of this well established neighborhood.
  6. At the planning Board the developer has represented that the Grey Lady Marine facility will be moving to Arrowhead Drive, and in fact had a 1,600 sf structure to provide minimal simple one day repairs. Now it seems that the valet boats rack once eliminated will be installed in a 5,000+ sf building on site. If the rack must exist they should remain where they are or be put at the GLM on Arrowhead Drive. This type structure for interior boat rack storage doesn't exist in the OHD and is more appropriate by design and scale at the new GLM.
  7. Sports Barn floor elevation is at 9.0 where similar methods to Poolhouse could be used at grade, therefore lowering ridge by 2-3'.
  8. Marina Building is at elevation 6.8' a few inches above grade, this proves comments relative to Sports Barn and Poolhouse being at grade with engineered buildings.

Parking lot behind above building

  1. This site is the current location of the former Ramos home at 11 Salt Marsh Way. A residential use that exists in a historic neighborhood, my house dates back to 1840's as do some of my neighbors, this in town area is being cleared of homes for the addition of a parking lot. I believe that this in direct conflict with BWNM and should be discouraged.
  2. Please reference the fact that this is a MCD and requires increased buffer areas and detailed planting plans. I would expect given past experiences with this board that you would review and approve all landscape features, planting plans, site lighting, retaining walls and fencing.
  3. The new use of the Sports Barn/Marina Building will be accessed from and current dead end gravel road, which is to be paved and widened, in terms of the surround area the boatyard has always existed on the water side of this street not this new location. Perhaps not a matter of your jurisdiction but this use will have a negative impact on all abutters by both uses.

Please pay close attention to the photos presented by the Developer; they combine Hulbert Ave, Monomy, Steamboat Wharf and the Wauwinet House, which are four distinct areas, all of which are not part of this neighborhood context. I apologize for the length of this letter but felt these were important issues that needed to be raised. Thank you for your time with this application.

Sincerely,


David Wiley


Attached photos of existing site conditions for your reference. (1-25)


Return to list of all letters