Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Bylaw Reform topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Town debate over zoning loophole that treats pre‑existing nonconforming lots; amendment fails and main motion does not reach required two‑thirds
Summary
Citizens debated a citizen‑sponsored amendment to the zoning bylaw that would remove a 2012 provision granting automatic pre‑existing nonconforming rights to newly created small lots; amendment to delay effective date failed and the main motion did not secure the required two‑thirds vote.
A citizen‑sponsored article sought to amend Chapter 139 of the Town of Nantucket zoning bylaw to remove language added in 2012 that, proponents said, grants buildability and ground cover rights automatically to newly created nonconforming lots stemming from the pre‑existing structures provision in state subdivision law. The article led to extended debate between residents, preservation groups, planning staff and attorneys.
Proponent Emily Molden told Town Meeting the 2012 language was unique in Massachusetts and had enabled ‘‘undersized’’ lots and redevelopment that increases impervious surface, strains infrastructure, and incentivizes demolition of historic structures. She asked voters to require that changes to such newly created lots be subject to a special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals rather than receiving automatic nonconforming build rights. "This just doesn't make sense to do so," Molden said in her presentation.
Opponents, including attorney Arthur Reed speaking from personal practice experience, urged caution and further study. Reed warned that prior reliance on the current bylaw and uncertainty about the status of previously divided lots could burden owners and the ZBA, and he suggested returning with clarified language. Preservation and historic groups — the Nantucket Preservation Trust and the Nantucket Historical Commission — publicly supported the amendment, citing threats to historic streetscapes. The Planning Board also worked with the proponent and ultimately gave unanimous support.
Town Meeting considered an amendment that would delay the effective date until July 1, 2026. That amendment failed in a recorded vote (yes 205, no 536). The main motion removing the 2012 language was then put to vote; the moderator reported it did not achieve the two‑thirds majority required for that zoning amendment and therefore was not adopted.
Speakers repeatedly raised process questions (which subdivisions the amendment would affect, grandfathering concerns for previously divided lots) and legal risk. Several experienced local practitioners and planning staff urged careful drafting and further study before making a broad change to the zoning bylaw. The Planning Department and town counsel were cited repeatedly for background research that informed both the proponent and opponents.
Because the motion did not reach the required supermajority, the current zoning language remains in place. Proponents and several town boards recommended further study and clarified drafting before bringing forward any future amendments.
