Nantucket debate over S.21 centers on control, representation of island planning body

The Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government heard extended, sometimes heated testimony on S.21, a home‑rule petition that would reshape the Nantucket Planning and Economic Development Commission (NP&EDC) and rename it the Nantucket Regional Planning Commission.

Supporters told the committee the change is needed to correct long‑standing governance and representation problems on Nantucket and to ensure historic preservation, housing and planning interests have direct representation. “This bill passed by nearly 72% of the vote” at a special town meeting, said Hillary Hedges Rayport, the bill’s lead petitioner, referring to the town‑meeting vote and urging the committee to “unlock the power of our regional planning commission through better representation, more inclusivity, and more dynamism.”

Opponents — including current NP&EDC staff and commissioners — said the commission has been engaged in a public reform process and that S.21 was advanced without adequate local collaboration. “This ill advised bill is poorly conceived and disingenuous,” said Abby DeMolina, a NP&EDC member who testified in opposition. NP&EDC deputy director Megan Bridell told the committee the commission’s own proposed changes include some elements similar to S.21 but were developed through dozens of public meetings and would not include elected at‑large seats or nine‑year term limits.

Proponents said the commission’s current makeup — five planning‑board members plus a mix of appointed seats — effectively allows the planning board to dominate long‑range planning, blurring the line between permitting (the planning board’s statutory role) and regional planning. “With an 11‑member commission that includes five planning‑board members … the direction of the commission is dictated by the planning board,” said Anne Duas, a Nantucket resident. Angus McLeod, vice chair of the Nantucket Historical Commission, told the committee the historical commission should have a guaranteed seat on the regional body.

NP&EDC Chair Barry Richter testified he opposed S.21 because, he said, commissioners had already updated the enabling legislation in December 2024 and planned public rollouts; he described the citizen petition as “based upon misinformation, misdirection” and said petitioners declined repeated offers to negotiate. “Near the end of that conversation … I asked … if the commission adopted all of your legislation, would you request town meeting to not adopt your article? … Was told unequivocally by Ms. Rayport … no,” Richter said.

Committee members asked about town‑meeting participation and process. Rayport responded that although Nantucket’s open town meeting can be large, many residents cannot attend and the citizen petition had been used after she said the commission had not implemented promised reforms. DeMolina and Bridell said the commission’s proposal had been delayed only by the petitioner’s decision to file a separate bill, and that the commission planned broader community outreach before seeking legislative change.

No committee vote occurred during the hearing. The committee will decide whether to report the bill out favorably, unfavorably, or send it to study at a later date.

The dispute centers on institutional control and local process: proponents frame S.21 as a corrective to a planning body they say has not delivered consistent long‑range planning; opponents say the commission is already pursuing reform through public meetings and that S.21 short‑circuits that work.

If lawmakers send S.21 forward, they would be changing the membership, selection method and term limits for a long‑standing regional planning agency; if they decline, petitioners may seek alternative local or legislative paths.