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

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.