Planners critique revisions to the 'Sconset Area Plan
PLANNING
BY PETER B. BRACE INDEPENDENT WRITER
Over the last year, the Siasconset Area Plan Committee has worked to conform its plan to the state-mandated 41-81D Master Plan.

"I think what they're talking about is people having lunch. People get dropped off for lunch [and] at the same time, everybody is jamming in to get their muffin. I don't think that needs to be taken out completely. That is something that has been going on for quite some time and that is something that has a way of working itself out." - Planning Commissioner Nat Lowell, explaining that 'Sconseters judge traffic congestion on how packed the area around the 'Sconset Market gets during the summer.

The 41-81D Master Plan, an edict within Chapter 41, Section 81D of Massachusetts General Laws, requires all of the Commonwealth's 350 municipalities to produce master plans that follow state guidelines grounded in nine elements, and include: Goals & Policies, Land Use, Housing, Economic Development, Circulation, Natural and Cultural Resources, Open Space, Services and Facilities and Implementation. In February, the 'Sconset Area Plan Committee completed an adaptation of its original work, and last week the Nantucket Planning & Economic Development Commission offered its critique.

"I think this plan is much more of a planning document than what they had submitted before," said senior planner Leslie Woodson. "What they had submitted before read more like a magazine article. They have reformatted it and cut out a lot of information."

Originally approved by the NP&EDC on April 5, 2004, the Siasconset Area Plan incorporated the goals and recommendations of 11 subcommittees that sought to fix, without governmental oversight, Siasconset's emergency preparedness, communications, beach preservation, land preservation, water, traffic and safety, public transportation, peace and quiet, affordable housing, and wastewater problems.

The Siasconset Area Plan Committee also wanted to make several zoning changes, including the creation of a 'Sconset-Residential-10 zone that would reduce the minimum lot size from 20,000 to 10,000 square feet and increase setbacks for most properties on Main Street, and others on Chapel and New Siasconset streets, Grand Avenue, Bunker Road and Morey Lane. Town Meeting voters in April 2004 adopted Article 25, allowing this zoning bylaw amendment.

The SAP committee also wanted to add four architectural guidelines to the Historic District Commission's purview that would protect certain distinctively 'Sconset building designs and compel HDC applicants to match new projects with the height of existing eaves and ridge lengths in 'Sconset. Neither of those goals became reality, but they are now listed under the Housing category of the 41-81D Master Plan rewrite. The SAP recommends studying five different architectural neighborhoods in 'Sconset in an effort to preserve the unique character of each.

"I have to admit that this iteration of the plan is significantly better; I'm really pleased with what they've accomplished so far," said NP&EDC Chairman Barry Rector, who added that the committee needed to simplify some of the language in its revised plan, such as the phrase "eloquent evidence" at the bottom of the first paragraph of the Goals & Policies section.

Rector also shared concerns with Planning Commissioner Linda Williams about changing zoning in small areas of 'Sconset, and questioned the committee's quantification of traffic congestion in Section 8.1. Planning Commissioner Nat Lowell, explained to Rector that 'Sconseters judge traffic congestion on how packed the area around the 'Sconset Market gets during the summer.

"I think what they're talking about is people having lunch," said Lowell. "People get dropped off for lunch [and] at the same time, everybody is jamming in to get their muffin. I don't think that needs to be taken out completely. That is something that has been going on for quite some time and that is something that has a way of working itself out."

Still, Lowell hinted that this area plan was softer in its goals and recommendations than other area plans completed to date - not necessarily a bad thing in his mind.

"I just read through this, and it's a lot of fluff and fluff is a good thing for a fluffy place, and 'Sconset is a fluffy place," said Lowell. "Fluff is okay. We've got fluff on the South Shore."

Armed with the comments the commissioners made at the Oct. 1 meeting, Woodson will advise SAP on what the NP&EDC wants changed in its revised area plan.

"We can ask them to take a harder look at it and give us a more specific proposal," Planning Director Andrew

Vorce told the commission. I