Planning Board declines to advance Woodland Drive zoning change amid ADU, sewer and deed-restriction concerns

The Nantucket Planning Board voted 3–2 April 14 to take no action on a proposed zoning change that would move a portion of 13 Woodland Drive from Log 2 into R‑20, after extended debate over sewer availability, deed restrictions and state rules on accessory dwelling units (ADUs).

Developer Stephen Maury told the board he had negotiated a plan to reduce the number of potential dwellings on a five‑acre site from 15 to nine by recording private deed restrictions that would limit the number of buildable lots to nine and, he said, allow a ‘‘flex development’’ later to concentrate lots and provide open space. Maury said his goal remains to create “year‑round housing at attainable pricing,” but that he lacked sewer approval and subsidy from the Affordable Housing Trust, which made an attainably priced plan impractical without a zoning change.

The proposal drew sustained public comment and questions from board members about whether private deed restrictions could prevent future owners from adding units, and whether town or state rules on ADUs would override private limits. Board staff and town counsel told the board that the town may issue building permits for ADUs even where private deed restrictions purport to prohibit them, and that town counsel had advised that deed restrictions are not something the town enforces to deny a permit. Planning staff also relayed that the Sewer Department had given a negative recommendation on extending sewer to the site at this time.

Several neighbors and public speakers urged the board to reject the zoning change. Art Gasparo said a 27,000‑square‑foot Log‑2 parcel should not be quadrupled to a 20,000‑square‑foot zoning and urged the board to ‘‘move not to adopt.’’ Other neighbors said they had not seen a coordinated outreach by the developer and remained concerned about potential density, traffic and septic/bedroom counts.

Supporters, including Maury and several board members, argued the proposed change would produce fewer dwellings than the previously approved subdivision layout and could spread development more uniformly across the five‑acre parcel. Maury said the deed restrictions would be recorded prior to town meeting and that the design would be limited to one dwelling per lot “to the extent legally possible.” He also said, when asked about ADUs, that he would be willing to put private, year‑round occupancy covenants on ADUs but acknowledged town counsel’s position that the town may still be required to issue ADU permits under state law.

After more than an hour of discussion, the board voted 3–2 to “take no action” on the warrant article. Board members making the motion cited unresolved legal and enforcement issues around ADUs, uncertainty about sewer capacity, and substantial neighbor concern. Members who voted to support advancing the article said the developer had made meaningful concessions and that the split zoning anomaly across the lot needed resolution at some level.

The outcome means the zoning change will not carry a positive recommendation from the board to town meeting. If the article is moved on the town meeting floor by a resident, the town‑meeting vote threshold is different; staff reminded the board that a town‑meeting positive motion could be approved by simple majority on floor, depending on procedure. Maury and his team said they will return to the board with further revisions and to continue outreach to neighbors.

Board members and speakers said they wanted clearer answers before moving forward on any change that could affect sewer loads or be complicated by state ADU rules. Maury said he will continue trying to reconcile sewer, affordable‑housing support and recorded restrictions and expects to return for the issue to be revisited in future cycles.