Planning Board backs technical solar and secondary-dwelling edits, takes no action on several citizen zoning and short-term rental articles

The Planning Board on Thursday, Jan. 30, recommended approval of technical changes to the town zoning bylaw that define and place roof- and ground-mounted solar systems as accessory uses and approved a separate correction to the secondary‑dwelling definition, but the board declined to give positive recommendations on several citizen-sponsored zoning articles and a proposal to regulate short-term rentals, opting instead to take no action or continue hearings to give proponents more time to refine proposals.

The solar article, presented by Lauren (planning staff), "in a nutshell" adds new definitions for "solar photovoltaic system," "grid connected solar energy system," "roof mounted solar energy system" and "ground mounted solar energy system" and clarifies that "ground mounted solar, does not count towards ground cover by putting it in the definition of structure," while requiring compliance with normal setbacks. The board voted to give the solar bylaw amendment a positive recommendation; staff said the changes came from a consultant review to codify current practice and reduce ambiguity for applicants.

Why it matters: The solar edits aim to make permitting more transparent and to clarify how ground‑mounted arrays are treated for ground‑cover and setback calculations, which affects homeowners and property developers proposing installations across districts. The secondary‑dwelling amendment corrects a suspected copy‑paste error in the bylaw and removes language that incorrectly tied the secondary‑dwelling definition to ground‑cover rules.

Board action and context - Solar bylaw amendment (definitions, accessory use status for roof/ground systems): board gave a positive recommendation; motion and subsequent roll‑call vote recorded the board members present voting aye. Planning staff said the change would allow roof‑mounted systems to be explicitly allowed as accessory uses in all districts and would list ground‑mounted systems as accessory uses that must meet setback requirements.

- Secondary‑dwelling technical amendment: staff described the change as removing incorrect language that appears to be a past copy/paste error. The board gave a positive recommendation; the motion required and met a two‑thirds recommendation threshold at the Planning Board level.

- Short‑term rentals (citizen article by Fritz McClure): speaker Fritz McClure described his article as "not complicated," explaining it would require 30 days of non‑rental occupancy (not necessarily consecutive) as a baseline owner/non‑rental use and would create an exception for investment properties that commit to a continuous six‑month rental to a single tenant. McClure said enforcement could be handled through voluntary reporting with random audits, akin to an IRS audit model. The board voted to "take no action" on the article and asked staff to draft written comments reflecting the board's position that the community should resolve the issue at Town Meeting. (Board members repeatedly said the board has earlier given a full recommendation to another short‑term rental proposal and did not wish to take two positive positions on the same policy question.)

- Citizen zoning articles for individual properties: multiple privately‑sponsored zoning changes (including a LUG‑1→R20 proposal for properties on Monahansett and nearby streets submitted by the McKay family; an R20→R10 request for 32 Appleton Road; and a LUG‑1→Village Residential proposal on Rachel Drive/South Shore Road) were either continued or the board voted to take no action, directing proponents to pursue neighborhood coordination, possible Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) relief, or additional study. The McKay family and others described family and hardship circumstances — Anne Faniff told the board that "our wells were destroyed by, airport spread PFAS, and the airport is an enterprise account of the town," and the applicants asked for flexibility to keep families living on site.

What the board asked staff to do The board repeatedly asked staff to: (1) work with applicants and neighbors to explore alternatives (including covenant/deed‑restriction instruments and ZBA variance routes where appropriate), (2) draft explanatory comments that will accompany "take no action" recommendations for the Town Meeting warrant and the Finance Committee, and (3) return contested or complex citizen articles for further discussion at a follow‑up meeting (the board continued at least one hearing to the Feb. 10 meeting). Planning staff and town counsel would be consulted on deed‑restriction language when applicants offer to record documents ahead of a warrant vote.

Board members emphasized caution about single‑lot rezoning. Several members said spot rezoning can invite legal challenge and set precedent; they encouraged proponents to pursue neighborhood‑level solutions, ZBA variances, or deed‑restricted year‑round ownership mechanisms before asking the board for a positive recommendation to change district zoning on a single parcel.

Votes at a glance - Solar zoning amendment (definitions; accessory use for roof‑ and ground‑mounted arrays): positive recommendation (roll‑call; board members present voted aye). Requires two‑thirds recommendation. - Secondary‑dwelling technical correction: positive recommendation (roll‑call; board members present voted aye). Requires two‑thirds recommendation. - Short‑term rental proposal (Fritz McClure): take no action (motion carried; board will draft comments and let Town Meeting debate). - McKay family zoning article (LUG‑1→R20, Monahansett area): take no action (motion carried); staff directed to help explore ZBA variance or broader neighborhood approach. - 32 Appleton Road (R20→R10): take no action (motion carried; one board member recorded a nay on the motion to take no action). - Rachel Drive / South Shore Road (LUG‑1→Village Residential, sponsor David Visco): continued to Feb. 10 for further neighborhood outreach and staff follow‑up.

What proponents and public told the board Proponents said the requests were targeted family or workforce housing solutions, often citing a desire for children or employees to remain on Nantucket. Fritz McClure described his short‑term rental article's enforcement framework as voluntary reporting with random audits: "I view it as a voluntary type system with a with random audit," he said. Proponents of single‑lot rezonings urged the board to weigh unique local circumstances; Anne Faniff urged the board to "be a little more... courageous and supporting families who have been drinking PF unknown, PFAS water for years." Applicants and some board members said deed‑restricted year‑round ownership and other new tools the town is developing could offer middle‑path solutions between unrestricted market sales and traditional covenant lots.

What’s next The board scheduled follow‑up and asked staff to draft comments for any "take no action" recommendations to appear on the Town Meeting warrant. Proponents were encouraged to meet with planning staff and the Zoning Board of Appeals where appropriate; the board continued at least one hearing to Feb. 10 and noted upcoming special meetings on Feb. 6 and March 6 for further review and comment finalization.

Ending note: The meeting reflected a broader tension the board described repeatedly — how to help year‑round households and local workers remain on Nantucket without opening the town to single‑lot spot rezonings or legal challenge from state authorities. Board members urged neighborhood coordination, staff collaboration, and careful legal vetting before taking zoning actions that could change long‑term precedent.