Nantucket finance committee backs Planning Board on broad zoning package ahead of Town Meeting
Loading...
Summary
At its Feb. 12 meeting the Nantucket Finance Committee unanimously supported the Planning Board's recommendations on a package of zoning articles, including a FEMA-driven floodplain update to preserve flood-insurance eligibility, state-aligned accessory-dwelling rule changes and several rezonings; the articles now move to Town Meeting.
The Nantucket Finance Committee on Feb. 12 voted unanimously to support the Planning Board's recommendations on a broad package of zoning articles to be considered at the 2026 Town Meeting.
The omnibus motion, moved by Chris Kowacki and seconded by Martin Vaccaro, covered a lengthy list of articles (including Nos. 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 and a cluster of articles numbered through 63). The committee recorded aye votes from Chris Kowacki, Martin Vaccaro, Peter Schafer, Jeremy (last name not specified in the transcript), Joe Wright and Joe Beat.
The package includes a technical but consequential update to floodplain-related zoning (Article 42) intended to keep local rules aligned with Federal Emergency Management Agency standards so property owners can continue to obtain flood insurance. "If we do not, people will not be able to obtain flood insurance," a planning staff presenter told the committee. The staff said the change does not alter what uses are allowed in any district but does revise local code to match FEMA requirements and state guidance.
Another major component adjusts local housing rules to conform with recent state changes. Article 44 updates the definition of "attainable housing" from 240% to 250% of area median income (AMI) in line with the Seasonal Communities Act and the Affordable Homes Act. Dylan Machamp, the town's deputy housing director, described AMI as a federally set standard and said, "the area median income for a family of 4 at a 100% area median income is about $163,000," noting that 240% is roughly $392,000 under current figures.
A cluster of articles (47'54) will replace older local accessory-dwelling and gross-floor-area definitions with state-mandated language and update the use charts. Planning staff said the changes remove dated categories (such as "garage apartment" and "tertiary dwelling"), clarify bedroom and density limits, and make the protected-use ADU the prevailing standard where required by state law. Staff emphasized that the changes aim to retain the town's existing density controls while removing ambiguities in interpretation.
On preexisting nonconforming lots, staff proposed narrowing automatic expansion rights for newly created lots that relied on the statutory provision allowing divisions of parcels with preexisting structures. Under the proposed amendment, any expansion of structures on such newly created lots would require a special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals, triggering abutter notice. Planning staff and the committee framed this change as designed to prevent unexpected buildability and preserve the underlying district's density limits.
The package also includes several rezonings and site-specific changes. Staff described ongoing efforts to phase out the RC district, and recommended moving properties such as the Galley and the Cliffside Beach Club into Commercial Neighborhood (CN) or other commercial districts to match existing uses. Article 56, for property known as Toscana, was recommended to move from RC2 to CMI; staff said the property owner supports that change.
Several items were deferred or taken "no action" at the Planning Board level and will be revisited later. For example, the Bartlett Farm article was taken no action after further discussion and staff said they will work with the property owner to refile a revised article in a future year.
What the vote means next: the Finance Committee's endorsement sends the Planning Board's recommendations forward for consideration at Town Meeting, where voters will decide whether to adopt the zoning revisions. The committee noted that specific articles can still be pulled at Town Meeting for separate discussion, and committee members retained the option to oppose or support individual articles at that stage.
Votes at a glance: the committee supported Planning Board recommendations on Articles 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62 and 63 via a single omnibus motion; the motion passed on a recorded unanimous voice vote by the members present.
Next steps: the articles will appear on the Town Meeting warrant. Planning staff said they will prepare summary materials and a short video to help explain the more technical changes to voters.
