Nantucket residents ask planning board to let two long‑held homes split into separately owned deed‑restricted lots

Nantucket Planning Board · December 26, 2024

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Peter McKay and family asked the Planning Board to rezone a 40,000‑sq‑ft LUG1 parcel to R20 so the two existing houses can be sold separately under strict deed restrictions; board expressed spot‑zoning concerns and continued the article to Jan. 30 for staff‑drafted deed‑restriction language and technical fixes.

Peter McKay told the Planning Board on Jan. 9 that he and his brother have lived on the same 40,000‑square‑foot property for nearly 40 years and want to subdivide it so each house can be separately owned while preventing new development. McKay said the family is seeking ‘‘individual ownership’’ and emphasized the split would not change the number of houses on the land.

The board’s discussion focused on legal and technical limits: staff warned of a potential spot‑zoning challenge that could draw Attorney General review, and planning staff asked for a detailed survey, a specific deed‑restriction draft and clarity about ground‑cover impacts. Staff also flagged a cut‑and‑paste error in the warrant text (a CTEC/CTech reference) that the applicant must correct.

Board members and neighbors debated options that would reduce legal risk while achieving the family’s goal — for example, expanding any article to include adjacent lots, seeking a Zoning Board of Appeals variance, or using a tightly worded year‑round deed restriction coupled with the town’s new deed‑restriction program. The board voted to continue the McKay article to Jan. 30 to allow the sponsor to work with staff on a recordable deed restriction, site survey information and clean warrant language.

Next steps: proponents will submit the deed‑restriction language and any site plans requested by staff ahead of the Jan. 30 meeting so the board and public can assess the proposal’s legal vulnerability and potential community effects.