Finance Committee votes not to adopt warrant article seeking eminent domain for 3579 South Shore Road

The Nantucket Finance Committee voted unanimously Jan. 28 not to adopt a citizen warrant article that would have authorized the town to take 3579 South Shore Road (Surfside Crossing) by eminent domain.

Denise, finance committee chair, opened discussion of Article 100 in the adopted warrant for the 2025 annual town meeting and explained that petitioner Miss Perry had asked for the warrant article to authorize a taking of the Surfside Crossing parcel; Miss Perry was not present at the meeting.

John, town counsel, told the committee that even if town meeting approved both a two-thirds vote to authorize eminent domain and an appropriation for land damages, “this is only an authorization for the select board to act. Town meeting cannot compel the select board to take the land by eminent domain. They can only authorize it.” He outlined additional procedural and fiscal steps the town would need, including a professional appraisal to establish fair market value, an appropriation of funds to pay land damages, and a borrowing measure contingent on a Proposition 2 1/2 debt-exclusion ballot question and special election.

John cautioned the committee about legal risk, citing Massachusetts case law in the context of 40B housing projects. He described a precedent the town should consider — a case referenced in the meeting as Burlington Desert Ridge Development v. Burlington and related Pheasant Ridge decisions — in which a court found a taking invalid because it appeared to be a pretext to stop a 40B project. John said that, in that precedent, the court invalidated the taking and that the town could face similar litigation here.

Counsel for the property owner, Mister Hafferty, urged the committee to recommend against adoption. He warned that a taking “would be an act of bad faith for the select board to actually, follow through on a vote and take my client's property via eminent domain,” and he noted that the Pheasant Ridge case included not only invalidation of the taking but also an award of damages against the town.

Committee member Peter said the committee should consider fiscal and planning implications, noting that the nursing home site mentioned in discussion is already owned by the town and that acquiring the Surfside Crossing parcel would add cost to existing large capital projects. Peter also questioned whether proposed uses such as playing fields would alleviate the traffic and noise concerns raised by the petitioner.

After discussion, Jill moved and Joanna seconded a motion not to adopt Article 100. The committee took a roll-call vote: Joe, Steven, Jill, Peter, Rob, Joanna, Denise and Jeremy all voted aye. The motion carried unanimously.

The committee’s recommendation not to adopt will be recorded for the annual town meeting. Town counsel and the property owner’s attorney stressed lingering legal and financial risks if the town pursues an eminent-domain taking; the committee’s vote means it will not forward a positive recommendation for the article to town meeting.