voices: the community speaks of Nantucket and GHYC

CONCERNED CITIZENS AND FRIENDS OF THE
UNION STREET/WASHINGTON STREET EXTENSION NEIGHBORHOOD

c/o Robert Paterson - 70 Union Street and
Jim Nettles, 64 Union Street, Nantucket MA. 02554

June 17, 2004

VIA FACSIMILE

Town of Nantucket Planning Board
Donald Visco, Chairman
Frank Sprigs, Vice Chairman
Joanne Holdgate
Sylvia Howard
John McLaughlin
Barry Rector

1 East Chestnut Street
Nantucket MA 02554

Re: Great Harbor Yacht Club

Dear Planning Board Members:

On behalf of Concerned Citizens and Friends of the Union Street/Washington Street Extension Neighborhood, we look forward to speaking with you again on June 28. We continue to be surprised by what appears to be a complete failure to address the pleas for help from abutters. You have heard from Mr. Nettles, and most recently Mrs. Paterson as well as others.

The area where this MCD is proposed to be built is a long established RC area. Obviously, one by one, the existing residences will be eliminated or rendered uninhabitable because of noise, traffic, parking, lights, etc. and the result will be a neighborhood, partially residential, being overwhelmed by major commercial development. The Planning Board exists, in part, to see to it that such wholesale changes are avoided.

We have taken from your web site a document, 21 pages in length, titled REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDELINES FOR MAJOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS -- Town Of Nantucket Planning Board -- Amendments Through October 13, 1987.

1) Section 139-11, D (3) requires the Nantucket Planning Board to . . . "adopt design guidelines for major commercial developments . . ."

2) These guidelines are limited to MCDs outside of Town

3) As you well know, the Planning Board has not developed such Guidelines for an MCD within the Town of Nantucket

4) It is logical to assume that guidelines for MCDs outside of Town would apply as strongly if not even more strongly to an MCD proposed for in Town (or, one may also assume that the absence of guidelines for an in Town MCD is the result of an assumption that a MCD would never be approved for a location in Town.)

5) The Submission Requirements for MCDs require, as an absolute first priority (Section I, 1.), an identification of all abutters. One can conclude that the interests of the abutters was and should continue to be of utmost importance to this Planning Board.

6) The Submission Requirements, (Section I, 4. D.) also require that the application shall include the name and address of the record owner. As we have stated numerous times, this application does not.

7) The Guidelines, (Section III, 1.) state, " By requiring that siting of buildings toward the front of the site, the community is making the statement that its buildings are a more important part of the Town's fabric than its automobiles." We should discuss where the 'front of the building' is located. Also, we continue to have questions about traffic and parking which we will raise at your next meeting.

8) The Guidelines, (Section III, 3.) also state, " Open space and planting should also be used to buffer adjacent non-commercial neighborhoods. . . .the Town may require greater than minimum setbacks and more extensive planting, berming and fencing where an adjacent use, or potential use, needs to be protected."

9) Section 139-11, F. advises that you, the Planning Board, have the right to impose conditions and makes the following suggestion as (2) "require structures, access streets, and interior ways open to the public, parking and loading facilities, outdoor recreational facilities, and utilities to be laid out in a manner which is safe, consistent with sound planning practice and which preserves the integrity of adjacent uses and neighborhoods, including the requirement that open areas be placed as suitable buffers to conflicting adjacent uses and structures." (emphasis added.)

10) On a related note, Section 139-11 G. requires that the tract of land on which the proposed GHYC will be located shall have 30% of the land as open area free from impervious surfaces (such as parking lots), and

11) The Guidelines, (Section III, 4.) advises " . . . Nantucket would prefer to see buildings in a commercial development broken up into smaller masses rather than see large monolithic structures" (emphasis added).

Our Citizens Group does not believe that the proposed GHYC plans conform with either the guidelines or the statutory requirements cited above. Also, contrary to Ms. Alger's comments at the last meeting, we believe there are many questions which continue to be unanswered about this application and plan.

We look forward to discussing these and other issues on June 28.

Very truly yours,

Read K. McCaffrey