Nantucket planning commission adopts 13‑member compromise on governance; asks petitioners to confirm support

The Nantucket Planning & Economic Development Commission voted Feb. 17 to forward a compromise version of warrant article 74 to the Finance Committee that would create a 13‑member regional planning commission under a special act.

Under the motion approved by the commission, the panel would include two Planning Board members, five at‑large members (one designated to represent the business community and one elected at large), and sector representatives including a county‑commissioner designee, a conservation commission representative, an affordable‑housing trust representative, a land‑bank representative and a historic‑preservation representative (the historical commission would have first priority to nominate). Members must be Nantucket residents, defined as registered voters or listed on the street list; there would be no term limits.

Brooke Moore, speaking as the Select Board representative on the commission, outlined the motion that commissioners ultimately supported. "We've come a long way," Moore said in presenting the package. The motion included a contingency: if the petitioners for article 75 do not provide a written statement supporting the compromise to the Finance Committee prior to its hearing, the commission said it would ask Finance to support the commission's original article instead.

Commissioners debated multiple fault lines before the vote: whether the commission should have 11 or 13 members, whether the Planning Board should hold two or three seats, whether the Chamber of Commerce should hold a voting seat or be limited to making a recommendation, and how many at‑large seats should be elected versus appointed.

Hillary Rayport, who abstained from the final vote, said she and supporters of the citizen petition view elected seats as a key accountability mechanism because they believe previous appointment practices were politicized. "The appointment process has not gone well," Rayport said, adding that petitioners needed assurance that an elected voice would be maintained.

Others argued the compromise preserved both greater sector representation and access for community voices: Commissioner Dave Iverson said the enlarged 13‑member panel would broaden representation and urged petitioners to accept the package.

The commission's motion also authorized staff to ask the Finance Committee to prepare an amended motion to reflect the agreed compromise and to request that proponents of the rival article 75 withdraw or provide written support. The commission approved the compromise motion by roll call (majority aye; Rayport abstained). The commission also voted to adopt the merged draft language that will be forwarded with the motion.

Next steps: the commission will forward its recommendation and the merged draft language to Finance Committee. Petitioners and members of the public will be able to comment during Finance Committee's public hearings; the special act would then require town‑meeting approval and State action to change the commission's enabling structure.