[{"_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",6218538,"mediaKeyId","3627124-76751f41d168c877bd708152c046f66f","parentId",3627124,"title","Committee debates wording for 'responsible' vs. 'participating' parties, flags Planning and Land Use Services phrasing","audioSeconds",305,"startMs",2155000,"endMs",2460000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3627124-76751f41d168c877bd708152c046f66f&start=2155&end=2460","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3627124-76751f41d168c877bd708152c046f66f/thumbnail_2155000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6218538/Nantucket-County/Massachusetts/Committee-debates-wording-for-responsible-vs-participating-parties-flags-Planning-and-Land-Use-Services-phrasing","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6218538-79f721a266027336242d49a0466d98fb/orig.mp4?Expires=1770858246&Signature=M85c8q548KemhgkT6i28loQTInXQaEMvZ~RUCOlJ~weXyA5It0z6cZxdBBwMxSrZ3Xh8jEa4XXBPjEmToG~gAfJmAjPNqUDcryqhAXVeHC-EJBdAgX78A4nX6KdT3~0vffldvzTRtoLLhzrciw2SUv9AOrx4tI3e5JXn3jz86hEWzREltB4VrQmweno26gOstcz8X1AF8pP~h-3SBif9UfrntVmEKvYcGqRXAw0AepSHTb9QKYvYOBGBIJiUPK1wunEnRuC7dlqvtPfPwATHrWY2MI779SkGdXLeRXY3JI0Nid4lfRH7oZgtvqBiVUkqGn5sZadoabtH72hV5zOMEw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Town-County of Nantucket, MA","date","2025-06-03T12:23:44Z","article","The committee discussed how the draft identifies the entities responsible for implementing plan recommendations and whether to list municipal boards as “responsible parties” while non‑municipal groups would be listed as “participating parties.”

Why it matters: the distinction affects clarity about who has regulatory or budgetary authority to act on plan recommendations. Committee members argued that listing an administrative management title such as “Planning and Land Use Services” is potentially misleading because it is a memorandum‑of‑agreement management structure rather than an entity with statutory authority.

Discussion and key points: members said responsible parties should be the municipal bodies with authority (for example, the Select Board, Harbor Master, Planning Board, Conservation Commission, Historic District Commission) and that participating parties should include nonprofits, yacht clubs and other stakeholders. Several members pressed to remove or limit references to “Planning and Land Use Services” in the draft because it is an administrative umbrella and not a decision‑making board; they recommended the draft instead list the specific boards or, where appropriate, note “responsible and participating parties” without consolidating them under an administrative title.

Outcome and next steps: the committee directed staff to remove or minimize references to “Planning and Land Use Services” in the recommendations and to use the clearer pairings “responsible parties” (municipal boards) and “participating parties” (non‑municipal stakeholders). The committee agreed that further detail about specific responsibilities could be worked out by the implementation committee after the plan is finalized.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Harbor Plan Update Committee - 6/2/2025","oneSentenceSummary","Members debated whether the draft should list 'responsible parties' (municipal boards) and 'participating parties' (non‑municipal groups) and recommended removing the phrase 'Planning and Land Use Services' because it describes an administrative management agreement rather than a statutory body.","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},6218544,"Committee keeps draft language supporting regulation of new or expanded private docks, recommends citing zoning bylaw",131,1941000,2072000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3627124-76751f41d168c877bd708152c046f66f&start=1941&end=2072","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3627124-76751f41d168c877bd708152c046f66f/thumbnail_1941000.jpg","/articles/6218544/Nantucket-County/Massachusetts/Committee-keeps-draft-language-supporting-regulation-of-new-or-expanded-private-docks-recommends-citing-zoning-bylaw","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6218544-9aa92e4de4154b88feed98ca0e1fb806/orig.mp4?Expires=1770858246&Signature=T8ene3rZX2UEQLAOLjqzp2Ri1I1kAAXLsyD3JNgmjfuMK1aUqnZy7Sjj~jRBqPN1EJSaR4sN-B-eVAT7w3Y0-dNCNbOYZxsbKbEmLLh6Iz0X~R-kAyv0~JB-vwZwG4prPaL9GTLB4w1NrYu0t8KPgtxMtDhCc4UmACmgulcS710j7fqjS3M77UqMgINiKyDCw-B6lPVWc8GOLz0QP4Yf6gQATR16bFpOjPsWRjE2JUWdK3yKzbyFI96Zy1gnZ~CZ-fmsXxtRGLEQfIsA2kyhnc2XTixfuSKTAgBtVO~LOmx3N920ZOQAScN6~YSNwDyfC0zF3D12XMQnvsmwFt2AHw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Committee members reviewed draft language on docks and piers and agreed to retain an objective that continues to regulate the construction of new docks and expansion of existing private docks, wharves and piers. Staff proposed clarifying the phrasing by tying the draft objective to existing zoning rules.

Why it matters: docks and pier construction affect harbor character, navigation, and environmental review. Committee members recommended explicitly referencing applicable local regulations so the plan expresses support for existing controls without creating conflict with the zoning code.

Discussion and key points: staff suggested rewording the draft to say the committee supports regulating dock construction in accordance with section 13922 of the Nantucket zoning bylaw (the committee discussed the Harbor Overlay District and how the overlay rules allow or disallow docks in particular locations). Members noted that the background materials in the draft already include maps of the Waterfront/Harbor Overlay District and that the plan should continue to show those maps for context.

Outcome: committee directed staff to revise the wording to reference the applicable zoning section and to ensure the harbor overlay map remains in the draft background materials. No formal prohibition beyond existing local law was adopted in this meeting; the plan will reflect support for adherence to the zoning bylaw.","The committee decided to retain language in the draft plan supporting continued regulation of new construction and expansion of private docks, and suggested referencing Nantucket zoning bylaw §13922 and the Harbor Overlay District in the plan.",{"_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},6218549,"Committee recommends clearer maintenance pathway for public access points, calls for improved digital maps",423,1495000,1918000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3627124-76751f41d168c877bd708152c046f66f&start=1495&end=1918","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3627124-76751f41d168c877bd708152c046f66f/thumbnail_1495000.jpg","/articles/6218549/Nantucket-County/Massachusetts/Committee-recommends-clearer-maintenance-pathway-for-public-access-points-calls-for-improved-digital-maps","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6218549-96ffd6713ece8778b220f4ca4b58d7d3/orig.mp4?Expires=1770858246&Signature=mHlmKi33yIqSS9XtgL9hQiuFuhOCAUrFop1i9zhDA7V8NTI19XXUifLQ-pyixH~Z2whsIJ6KMN1UptNmp1KC2tvn~lTmhJ0kzEFO2IAeg5SA01ZTcYuVt4isDze0kC-Cos8yKxPyzm3ebsj4C4U3MJfCyH2unQtvK1khOvribN1PbUg0sAUmS13VeELKEqgI7U4ipnmlrhbR1H-0Q25gw4mBalWspxGUCjklpbBuJ6qjDwyBB~E1V8UPzTfz~vtvmnHHVy0uRFSwSyL4VUXyCyG2t8e4wYwzMu9lzzWLlD1fHsh3mYQyIHPaS3zGXeWNNFq-ml0pAhCbuT3MQb2tUw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Committee members discussed a recommendation in the draft that public access points be retained and maintained for public use and recommended creating clearer operational steps for enforcement and maintenance.

Members suggested that the draft direct residents or complainants to first notify the Department of Public Works (DPW) for enforcement or trimming and that the town’s roads and rights of way advisory body be asked only when legal title or permitting questions arise. The committee noted DPW can respond quickly to physical blockages and that Roads and Rights of Way does not meet frequently and does not have the same operational capacity.

Why it matters: maintaining public access points affects beach and harbor access for residents, visitors and commercial users. Committee members said clearer procedures and a readily accessible digital map of established public access points would make enforcement and public awareness more effective.

Discussion and key points: staff said a map exists in the draft’s background section but needs reformatting for digital availability; the committee asked staff to work with GIS staff to create a more accessible online map. Members described a practical enforcement workflow: call DPW for immediate obstructions; if ownership or permitting is unclear, escalate to Roads and Rights of Way for legal review.

Outcome and next steps: the committee agreed to revise the draft language to explicitly name DPW as the first operational contact for physical obstructions, to preserve notice to Roads and Rights of Way for legal questions, and to commission a digital, publicly available map of access points.","The draft plan asks that public access points be retained and maintained and recommends notifying DPW for enforcement; committee members also flagged the need to create an updated, digital public‑access map.",{"_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},6218554,"Committee sets two‑week deadline to resolve track changes, plans mid‑July public forum",3374,146000,3520000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3627124-76751f41d168c877bd708152c046f66f&start=146&end=3520","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3627124-76751f41d168c877bd708152c046f66f/thumbnail_146000.jpg","/articles/6218554/Nantucket-County/Massachusetts/Committee-sets-twoweek-deadline-to-resolve-track-changes-plans-midJuly-public-forum","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6218554-0b1e0f01e71cf360453c6e81cb756cc9/orig.mp4?Expires=1770858246&Signature=Mn5TkeY6Pjhz~45L9XiQugzUFb6eqTKoD~i9Ft7YDkQUzOVERvD5Vg~Qcsddy7TKxlv9r-60efPmyFRI3pCW16tYanos7AwDdMerk4Qlm7McoBFghN11Ml-pd0psdl5XTMQnXB9T7ihYPQmhkY1aqnHFCvyahe3uFIn-fXFR7jmgVPlgFB~XUQYGPonjB0IqjY51PcAKLvS3oatXb~ccWq~t8F7BnRFV4OGi9jjCoBqmjqKm32YlqOjaEY3f2hsDcJ8XAO1fzwsN7bIyjiS2AmGQC9EbAIqHproZN6l8R9ewtXlRrs4Lf9JttyU8GqRql2H2Q-gbajAChaGICRgjaA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The committee drafting the Nantucket harbor plan set a two‑week timeline for members to review tracked edits in the draft and said it will convene again to accept or discuss outstanding edits before circulating the draft to responsible and participating parties.

At the meeting, staff offered to send both a redlined version and a clean copy of the draft so members could read the plan without edit‑mark distractions. Committee members asked that any substantive disagreements be raised at the next meeting, which the group described as a firm deadline for acceptance of changes in the working draft.

Why it matters: the schedule sets the committee’s path to a public forum on the plan in mid‑July. Committee members emphasized that getting to a stable draft quickly is needed so responsible parties can be notified and asked to review their listed responsibilities before public outreach.

Discussion and key points: several members said they prefer a clean document for ease of reading; others stressed the importance of seeing the tracked changes to verify that prior comments were incorporated. Staff said they would provide both versions and circulate contact names and emails for entities listed as responsible parties so notices could be sent once the committee finalizes language.

Public meeting logistics: the committee discussed holding the final public forum around July 16–17 with options for a daytime session and an evening session or a venue that offers Zoom. The group settled on tentatively planning for July 17 (a Thursday) with the aim of making the meeting accessible to waterfront stakeholders.

Outcome: committee members agreed (direction) to review all tracked changes and to reconvene in two weeks; staff will distribute a clean copy and contact list for responsible/participating parties. No formal vote was recorded on plan approval at this meeting.","The committee agreed to ask members to review all tracked changes in the draft harbor plan and to be prepared to accept or flag changes at the next meeting; staff will circulate a clean copy and the group tentatively scheduled a final public forum in mid‑July.",{"_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},6218558,"Committee proposes raising ferry embarkation fee to $1, ties revenue to harbor improvements",875,609000,1484000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3627124-76751f41d168c877bd708152c046f66f&start=609&end=1484","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3627124-76751f41d168c877bd708152c046f66f/thumbnail_609000.jpg","/articles/6218558/Nantucket-County/Massachusetts/Committee-proposes-raising-ferry-embarkation-fee-to-1-ties-revenue-to-harbor-improvements","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6218558-06a35427c2fed710a330d41666d2b64a/orig.mp4?Expires=1770858246&Signature=Ufn8C0S-maf73zEDZ6VkneUj~glE9NCO9GpiBkbgwIElMieF5wwKbmyFcn1NHnAjQwPBzfj00goFAZc5bynL9v~90ru3jLvK0Q00~MA9c2VplACJ40e7lbIne-D54rGCiG4RYcEwbslalniERG3svi-fFIa3HPQwwcqToFOVZiToUDRgF6cQYsvKWKxdNlKOIaQJw8~j3Ps8XusLBX0U4l3p7g7R~kFMUG8n6IOLLC-zaSyzCgVRxw0DV5fe54EuEtkZeXs0bZR3SHpnIteiLzNUR4B0ra79WpAAE8UHh4U-0eNirt3y-y4uzrj1Iu5dMnkVtyYqqdsOz1-vKHU3mw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A committee drafting the Nantucket harbor plan put forward language recommending that the town increase the ferry embarkation fee from the current 50¢ per passenger to $1 and direct the proceeds to harbor improvements.

The recommendation appears in the draft plan’s administrative section and would ask the town to first advance a warrant article at town meeting to adopt the $1 fee, then work with state legislators and other Cape and Island communities to pursue a higher allowable fee through state law if desired. Committee members said the current statute authorizes a $1 maximum; any proposal above that would require legislative change involving multiple communities.

Why it matters: the change would raise local revenue that committee members expect to target to harbor infrastructure, maintenance and related projects. Several members argued that a clear allocation — for example, “allocated to harbor improvements” or “adjacent waterfront property that furthers harbor goals” — is needed to prevent money being used for unrelated town expenses.

Discussion and key points: committee members debated three linked questions: whether to raise the fee at all, whether to seek the statutory maximum now or pursue a larger regional increase later, and how specifically to limit allowable uses of the revenue. One member said the statute currently permits towns to impose up to $1; members noted other island communities have discussed $2 or $2.50, but that increase would require coordinated action across towns and a change in state law. Another member said the overriding concern is not only the amount but ensuring the town receives and can spend the revenue on harbor needs.

Procedure and next steps: committee members directed staff to keep the recommendation in the draft language and to refine the wording about allowable uses (for example, limiting purchases of land to parcels that further harbor objectives or are adjacent to harbor areas). They agreed to include the $1 recommendation in the version of the draft they circulate to responsible and participating parties ahead of a final public forum in mid‑July. Any change to a fee above $1 would require legislative action and additional coordination, the committee agreed.

No formal municipal action to change the fee was taken at the meeting; the committee’s vote was procedural (to include the recommendation in the draft). Final adoption of any fee requires a town‑meeting warrant article and, for increases above the current statutory cap, legislative amendment.","Members of the committee drafting the Nantucket harbor plan agreed to include a recommendation to raise the ferry embarkation fee from the current 50¢ to $1 and to direct proceeds toward harbor-related projects, while noting higher increases would require multi-town legislation.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee debates wording for 'responsible' vs. 'participating' parties, flags Planning and Land Use Services phrasing

Committee keeps draft language supporting regulation of new or expanded private docks, recommends citing zoning bylaw

Committee recommends clearer maintenance pathway for public access points, calls for improved digital maps

Committee sets two‑week deadline to resolve track changes, plans mid‑July public forum

Committee proposes raising ferry embarkation fee to $1, ties revenue to harbor improvements