[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6061941,"mediaKeyId","3280896-818f6ea3a0a061409e2c8a502b9f4947","parentId",3280896,"title","Planning board continues Easy Street restaurant seating plan after safety, trash concerns","audioSeconds",6982,"startMs",3774000,"endMs",10756000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3280896-818f6ea3a0a061409e2c8a502b9f4947&start=3774&end=10756","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3280896-818f6ea3a0a061409e2c8a502b9f4947/thumbnail_3774000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6061941/Nantucket-County/Massachusetts/Planning-board-continues-Easy-Street-restaurant-seating-plan-after-safety-trash-concerns","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6061941-b7475e8ef78ae156ed1a5d635b67a635/orig.mp4?Expires=1771155539&Signature=Yz51~BlBJIdwPnKu7Sre1uZdXWJqla4iBJ6j-l0DodtXGf8t5ctFIp9o3Mx3o9AO7zzKUxms2SU~50RRl6a~rlrHALYnkbp8MvZvR38jKIYB5WBQicG68TplOiYYgkEUQtu9iNmmINVH5Wg3opUloQ-3~cA7K9mCZTnH5CDbG8WONraUXEbhvW4dkg8eEnxuhQEDwrJNRuFkanlMbqdIPIQyVk8NsRuak~QQqN14OClsBVgjoS8xgZnfeycENWiYGfxOJR2MBEdxvRN31doOiM3tFO7gJ4H3Rln9RldNDW8bo5JAQby2YBizwJJ2VYAwi7Kzf8b3xUM7EbsDg3lXlQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Town-County of Nantucket, MA","date","2025-05-13T11:51:33Z","article","The Nantucket Planning Board on May 12 continued a request by the owners of a restaurant at 30 Easy Street to expand seating to 200 total seats, saying the plan lacked needed details on outdoor seating placement, trash handling and deliveries.

Board members said the proposal, which would raise the restaurant’s previously permitted 153 seats toward 200, presented safety and operational problems because proposed outdoor tables abut congested pedestrian routes near the Steamship Authority terminal. “This is too much seating, and it’s not going to work with all the other things at play,” Planning Board member Barry said during the meeting.

Why it matters: The restaurant sits at a congested intersection used by steamship passengers, pedestrians with luggage, delivery trucks and existing downtown traffic. Board members said adding dozens of outdoor tables without a clear plan for dumpsters, deliveries and patron queuing would increase conflict at an already busy spot.

What the applicant presented: Kenneth Gullickson, representing the applicant, showed new plans that added a low fence/picket option and flexible seating layouts. He told the board the sidewalks on Easy Street and the Steamboat Wharf side provide a 4–6-foot buffer between dining and the roadway and said deliveries historically occur from Easy Street. “We submitted, at the request of the board, a management plan… but we’d rather not be locked into it,” Gullickson said, asking for flexibility in operations.

Board concerns and required follow-ups: Members repeatedly flagged three problems:
- Trash and recycling: The plan did not place required dumpsters or show where daily refuse would be staged for pick-up. Arthur Reed, an online commenter, reminded the board that the zoning bylaw prohibits ad-hoc loading zones in the central business district and urged that the trash plan be explicit and agreed with the hauler. The board asked the applicant to obtain and submit the hauler’s acceptance of any proposed dumpster location.
- Deliveries and loading: Board members asked the applicant to explain how commercial deliveries would be handled without blocking sidewalks or the narrow adjacent streets. Planning staff and a board member noted loading typically happens from the designated town loading zones rather than in front of individual businesses, and asked that the management plan specify where and when deliveries will be made.
- Pedestrian safety and queuing: With heavy foot traffic and frequent luggage-carrying passengers nearby, the board asked for a specific queuing plan so waiting patrons do not obstruct public sidewalks or the Steamship Authority access.

Seats and layout: The applicant’s diagram showed about 82 proposed outdoor seats; board members noted prior permitted outdoor seating for the property was about 40 and requested the applicant revert to that earlier count as a starting point. “If you produce this plan, I think staff can give it the nod as long as it doesn’t feel unsafe,” Planning Board alternate Abby said.

Next steps: The board voted to continue the item to the May 15 meeting and directed the applicant to provide: a revised, less-intensive outdoor seating plan (no seating on the Easy Street side except for a small number of high-top waiting surfaces against the building), a written trash/dumpster plan signed by the hauler, a delivery and loading plan, a patron-queuing plan, and a short description of any sidewalk/entry repairs the applicant will make adjacent to their property. The board also requested a review of performance after the season (suggested March), so operations can be re-evaluated.

What the board said: “We need a trash plan, we need a delivery plan, and we need a new seating plan with no seating on Easy Street except for the couple of high tops,” Chair (acting) told the applicant; several members emphasized that consistency across downtown businesses was important if enforcement becomes necessary.

Where it stands: The continuation gives the applicant an opportunity to submit the operational details the board requested. If the applicant meets the board’s conditions, the board said it may consider a modified outdoor seat total and an administrative sign-off by staff; if not, further hearing time will be needed.

Speakers quoted: Kenneth Gullickson, applicant’s representative; Barry, Planning Board member; Abby, Planning Board alternate; Arthur Reed, public commenter; Megan (Meg), planning staff.

Ending: The board left the record open for the materials and scheduled a follow-up at the next regular meeting; members said they would consider limited outdoor seating sooner if the applicant submits the requested details promptly.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Nantucket Planning Board - May 12, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Nantucket Planning Board on May 12 continued a requested expansion of outdoor seating at 30 Easy Street after finding the application lacked required trash, delivery and pedestrian-safety plans.","taxTitle","Nantucket County, Massachusetts","taxId",61456,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6061920,"Planning board declines rear‑lot conversion for Fairgrounds Road property; denies release of lots",5347,7276000,12623000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3280896-818f6ea3a0a061409e2c8a502b9f4947&start=7276&end=12623","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3280896-818f6ea3a0a061409e2c8a502b9f4947/thumbnail_7276000.jpg","/articles/6061920/Nantucket-County/Massachusetts/Planning-board-declines-rearlot-conversion-for-Fairgrounds-Road-property-denies-release-of-lots","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6061920-6b36634ff34a813b75e4ddb35329aa6d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771155539&Signature=f3Ue-3VWEUVM0d8wJrV7VFZ5hU904LsWPKIG-nceCp-6gvCD3PLVRD~IhydFP0kRh1VFz4zlMAYUVeF1QKPjUZXo1Ei41IFwSsc30VUjAzdyEJBJt0ajvgK6dt6DC~wk4nEjSmMClFrW7ePqxxbdieArVxgwDPmprXPfPaH7q-uck5D29IPAUxriXPofS1HY6T9BMismcj~WPE9BvbyMpfWCiV2dHOh-5e6WfmBMr31eBXp7DfLNIB5UoAaLy-m2dpYa98xcRcZZPBXe9ZOZ8wiTxNloNOpeN-0SN8bzk5Sw1PxnnPXijLMRWpR2PS-gbhcB4Z9H~LU6eW~CaqCEHg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Nantucket Planning Board on May 12 declined a requested rear‑lot special permit for a reconfiguration of lots at the John Murray property on Fairgrounds Road and later voted to deny releasing two related lots from an earlier permit.

What happened: The applicant sought to convert existing subdivision approvals into a three‑lot layout (creating a new rear lot). After public comment and deliberation the board took a roll call on the rear‑lot special permit and failed to reach the needed four‑member majority: the vote was three in favor and two opposed, so the special permit did not pass.

Public and legal concerns: Several commenters and the Nantucket Land & Water Council urged the board to consider whether a rear‑lot conversion could be supported given prior definitive subdivision approvals that included waivers and a lot line that bisected an existing dwelling. The Council’s representative said a plain‑reading of the bylaw and prior conditions suggested the conversion was not eligible and offered a legal opinion for the record.

Board action on related item: Because the rear‑lot special permit failed, the board followed staff advice and then voted to deny the applicant’s request to release two lots from the prior special permit conditions (a procedural action necessary to permit the three‑lot reconfiguration). That motion passed.

Why it matters: The decision keeps the existing permit structure intact and preserves the status quo for the property. The discussion highlighted legal questions about when definitive subdivision approvals that relied on waivers can later be reconfigured through rear‑lot rules.

Quote: Planning staff cautioned the board that the rear‑lot provision requires the board to confirm eligibility under local zoning and that “you need to dispose of the other request to release these lots” if the rear‑lot permit is denied.

Ending: The board denied the rear‑lot special permit (no majority) and then denied the release of the two lots from the earlier special permit. The applicant may pursue alternate routes, but the current approvals and conditions remain in place.","The board voted down a rear‑lot special permit and rejected a requested release of two lots for a three‑lot reconfiguration at 71–75 Fairgrounds Road, after legal and procedural objections were raised by the public and split votes among members.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6061926,"Board approves second‑dwelling application in R10L; members call for policy discussion on ADUs",192,3877000,4069000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3280896-818f6ea3a0a061409e2c8a502b9f4947&start=3877&end=4069","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3280896-818f6ea3a0a061409e2c8a502b9f4947/thumbnail_3877000.jpg","/articles/6061926/Nantucket-County/Massachusetts/Board-approves-seconddwelling-application-in-R10L-members-call-for-policy-discussion-on-ADUs","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6061926-d8220eb89f7e7dc2dd110312f7ed6e3c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771155539&Signature=eTCR2zZ2yoldfnA8yXknH9St0J9~MWn69eVwEq-6xi9514F9MckpTVSgD6LkgU7VQBFLhcDeZ3pE7Ab8yZcwV79K~2OvAow4qlmboHrJAgnwvJTSCDyTRWs82--BsgITSQwQUytRhubExFP2QP2fjD3~7eUkwamFT0yFQD9zOFIv4FLndNw4TLoQvHqvI6ZCFeP76f-Ch0ckfRVKcZY7H-yOFS0XG4rLjflTtbga~PuB~xEYHkAOeZcPkezCZifraa2ui2S8b~8YEFQzbzT1Lx~JfEmjkfAvtUhQXUcG4zCQIgGOqW1Q7Hn6kELupiKimwvPjprvd2Dged1DdMriww__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Nantucket Planning Board on May 12 approved a special‑permit application for a second dwelling in the R10L district but used the discussion to flag broader concerns about the island’s recent changes to accessory dwelling unit rules and their effect on neighborhood character.

Application and vote: The applicant sought a special permit to add a second dwelling on an R10L lot. After public comment and discussion, the board voted to approve the application with the staff’s findings and conditions; the motion passed unanimously.

Why it matters: Several board members and residents said this application illustrated the first time the town had to implement newly approved ADU rules in an established neighborhood. Board members worried the combination of by‑right ADUs and approved second dwellings could materially increase year‑round occupancy and traffic in quiet residential areas.

Key concerns and staff advice: Board members urged the planning office to schedule a focused meeting to examine how ADUs (by right) and special‑permit second dwellings interact with the R‑districts. Planning staff said they were preparing options, including special‑permit provisions that might require larger ADU sizes or other site controls where appropriate. “This is the first application where the rubber meets the road with the new ADUs,” one board member said, urging public outreach to affected neighborhoods.

Applicant perspective: The applicant’s representative and the project team presented the site plan, explained the design and said the submission met bylaw criteria for the second‑dwelling special permit. Planning staff recommended approval subject to findings and standard conditions.

Public comment: No members of the public registered substantive objections during the hearing, though several board members noted that residents in similar neighborhoods should be invited to participate in the upcoming policy discussion.

Next steps: The board approved the special permit as presented and directed staff to schedule a near‑term meeting to refine how ADUs will be integrated into district regulations and how the town will communicate changes to affected neighborhoods.

Quote: “This is the first application where we’ve really seen this interaction… the public needs to be aware,” a board member said, urging a follow‑up board meeting on ADU integration.

Ending: The application was approved under existing rules; the board asked staff to convene a dedicated session to consider zoning adjustments and public outreach before additional similar applications are decided.","The Planning Board approved a second‑dwelling application in the R10L district but signaled the need for a separate board discussion about how by‑right accessory dwelling units and second dwellings should interact across the neighborhood.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6061931,"Board gives nonbinding approval to 11 Pinecrest preliminary subdivision; asks staff to pursue roadway and pedestrian options",1007,315000,1322000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3280896-818f6ea3a0a061409e2c8a502b9f4947&start=315&end=1322","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3280896-818f6ea3a0a061409e2c8a502b9f4947/thumbnail_315000.jpg","/articles/6061931/Nantucket-County/Massachusetts/Board-gives-nonbinding-approval-to-11-Pinecrest-preliminary-subdivision-asks-staff-to-pursue-roadway-and-pedestrian-options","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6061931-c8a612e9c37ffd453368fdd48561779f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771155539&Signature=Spf3rZvptBSdzJB-oIAVZBOVliPXOAz85tTmnPZMOGF58jVyhTx2AqG6qYMX7X6F5K5tXg~6WLftlJodeVrg3H77dlAqeEx5vVr~wdLfeh2j02OhRM5XtUdsm9pQma0ffD~FI5PYu2~1ALI8VGBvuEYplKNsdKe0mlj92D-wP5CrrT2lp7b3Ps7ZWADOGOip-~Gdp9F9Rr5ag61d9FSpY0LB4DvYv75dbAfMRusOe1iWjgwx1UTPF9OZvoaFvLCEHSEkmxL1Oc4TbKn68VMrgWK8EZXSkx4e1sqVktWeUCTWDTKv-ugYeAUODODp-JBoM86QHNFG-VuJSnRKOtc86w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Nantucket Planning Board on May 12 provided preliminary, nonbinding feedback and authorized staff to draft a letter to the applicant for an eight‑lot subdivision at 11 Pinecrest (also accessed from Marion Drive). The board and staff focused on roadway design, pedestrian connections and parking implications.

What the applicant proposed: Dan Malloy, engineer for the applicant, described the site as roughly a 45,000‑square‑foot parcel in the R‑5 district (5,000‑square‑foot minimum lot size). The plan showed eight lots served by a cul‑de‑sac largely accessed from Mary Ann (Marion) Drive, and the applicant proposed a 16‑foot paved roadway with Cape Cod berms; the applicant said roadway dimensions draw on recent approvals nearby.

Board and staff discussion: Board members asked whether off‑site improvements would be required near Mary Ann and Old South Road and whether pedestrian or emergency connections to Pinecrest should be considered. Planning staff and transportation staff noted the plan is preliminary and additional roadway review will follow; staff said applicants should expect to contribute to improvements where appropriate and noted the board has recently suggested a $2,500 contribution per structure as a guideline for off‑site improvements.

Pinecrest access and future connections: Pinecrest is currently a common‑drive easement rather than a public road, and the board discussed whether an easement for pedestrian or emergency access would be appropriate in a future definitive plan. Planning staff said the Pinecrest conversion to a county layout is a long‑term process, but recommended reserving a potential future pedestrian connection rather than guaranteeing a vehicular cut‑through. “Consideration for a minimum future pedestrian connection… is something the board should take under consideration,” a staff member said.

Other concerns: Board members asked applicants to ensure adequate on‑site parking given nearby street‑parking problems, to consider sidewalks in the lollipop cul‑de‑sac and to think about year‑round housing and deed‑restriction opportunities to improve attainability. One board member noted the new inclusionary zoning would not apply to this proposal.

Outcome and next steps: The board authorized staff to draft a nonbinding advisory letter reflecting the board’s comments and to sign it on the chair’s behalf; the preliminary plan was approved as nonbinding advice to guide the applicant toward a definitive submission. The applicant will return with a definitive plan addressing staff comments and the board’s concerns about roadway width, sidewalks and potential emergency/pedestrian connections.

Quote: “Because we’re in the preliminary phase… everything’s on the table,” the applicant’s representative said. “We want the board’s feedback before the definitive plan.”

Ending: The board’s action carried as a nonbinding step; staff will work with the applicant and transportation staff on roadway width, potential sidewalk and conditions the board identified for the definitive plan.","The Planning Board reviewed a preliminary plan for an eight‑lot subdivision at 11 Pinecrest (also fronting Marion Drive), gave nonbinding feedback and authorized staff to draft a letter with recommended items including roadway width, possible sidewalk, and consideration of future pedestrian connections to Pinecrest.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6061936,"Planning board approves Sankaty Head Golf Club dormitory to house seasonal employees",725,2999000,3724000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3280896-818f6ea3a0a061409e2c8a502b9f4947&start=2999&end=3724","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3280896-818f6ea3a0a061409e2c8a502b9f4947/thumbnail_2999000.jpg","/articles/6061936/Nantucket-County/Massachusetts/Planning-board-approves-Sankaty-Head-Golf-Club-dormitory-to-house-seasonal-employees","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6061936-c33d383441df9277e757076424206a60/orig.mp4?Expires=1771155539&Signature=LOU6DjCX8uHSC08RMGyg61RCKR84jyHmw3-Ge75r4hI7B-k835UY4ZALWtWmIKhDVKOP~5~QXZJnTDLyZu1foDd27iSOfFd9bqc~e~o~mlrD1o3Szh9b12Sj-8YATbRrvVPpjF-3Bqsdw-eOD23wRLFnRgyM2R7Idxg4Is17nke2eoLzsB0EfeX-aXrDfTXg~aLB7obKjhI-f3Q12X5BDbmGaZpCNUr2ibxpGtJFpSfFThb153r5Cp1MqlChKq-nUanIBeOdtSQudCqCYVwA6NKxrHWFKagmwubRTFZR23Wb-nDp7XwLWhFzFW-eSLf6A5RczTEm3zWO5xM5sLfDwA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Nantucket Planning Board on May 12 unanimously approved a Major Commercial Development (MCD) special permit allowing Sankaty Head Golf Club to build a 12‑unit, one‑and‑a‑half story dormitory for seasonal employees on its property on Sankaty Road.

Why it matters: The island has a persistent shortage of seasonal and year‑round rental housing for hospitality and grounds staff. The club said the dormitory would centralize employee housing on the 27‑acre site and reduce worker commute trips from town.

Applicant presentation: Kevin Dale, counsel for Sankaty Head Golf Club, told the board the site has been part of a multi‑year planning effort to provide housing for the club’s seasonal staff. “Ten of the units would be constructed and finished, and the two units in the basement would be left unfinished but used in the future if needed,” Dale said. He asked the board to waive three parking spaces out of the 12 normally required, saying many occupants will not have cars and the site already has nearby parking used for employee housing approved earlier.

Board discussion: Board members praised the proposal’s housing focus and noted that the site is buffered from the main roads and served by existing transit connections. One member said bus service stops nearby, reducing the need for onsite parking. Planning staff confirmed the project would place utilities underground, install a septic system sized to the dormitory, and meet other site‑plan recommendations from town consultants.

Public comment: An abutter, Kevin Worley of 80 Sankaty Road, asked whether the dormitory was the last housing project planned on the parcel and whether single‑family houses nearby would revert to single‑family occupancy rather than short‑term rentals. Dale replied that the dormitory would “provide almost all of the housing needs for employees” and that the club is not planning additional major housing projects in the near term. He also confirmed existing single‑family houses on separate parcels would remain separately owned and that the club’s intent is to maintain the current usage.

Board action: Planning Board members voted to approve the MCD special permit with the findings and staff conditions, including recommended engineering comments. The board also accepted the applicant’s request to waive three parking spaces based on the nature of the use and existing on‑site parking availability.

Next steps: The applicant must finalize engineering items and coordinate with town staff on site improvements and septic design before building permits are issued. The board’s approval allows the club to move from planning into the permitting and construction phase.

Quote: “This new dormitory would put us just about where we want to be,” counsel Kevin Dale said, adding it offers “new, clean, safe” housing for seasonal staff.

Ending: The unanimous vote reflected the board’s view that the dormitory advances the town’s practical need for employee housing, while requiring standard engineering follow‑up before construction begins.","The board granted a Major Commercial Development special permit for Sankaty Head Golf Club to build a 12‑unit employee dormitory on Sankaty Road, citing the club’s long‑range housing plan and a finding that the project helps address seasonal housing needs.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning board continues Easy Street restaurant seating plan after safety, trash concerns

Planning board declines rear‑lot conversion for Fairgrounds Road property; denies release of lots

Board approves second‑dwelling application in R10L; members call for policy discussion on ADUs

Board gives nonbinding approval to 11 Pinecrest preliminary subdivision; asks staff to pursue roadway and pedestrian options

Planning board approves Sankaty Head Golf Club dormitory to house seasonal employees