Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Select Board continues appeal over cattle grates and deer fencing to March 11 after heated public debate
Loading...
Summary
Owners of a Nonantum Avenue property appealed an HDC decision requiring relocation of fencing and removal of cattle grates; owners said they relied on prior town guidance and cited deer damage, while the HDC said it applied established visibility standards. The Select Board continued the hearing to March 11 for further review.
The Select Board continued to March 11 a public appeal by the Schwartz Family Properties Trust of a Historic District Commission (HDC) decision that conditioned approval of perimeter fencing and cattle grates at a Nonantum Avenue property.
Appellant Kurt (Kirk) Fortin and counsel Ryan Douglas told the Select Board they installed fencing and cattle grates after consulting town permitting contacts and to protect vegetative screening the town had previously required during development. They said deer had destroyed mandated plantings, that they spent significant sums replanting, and that cattle grates and deer fencing were an effective, low‑maintenance solution. Douglas argued the HDC’s enforcement is selective and “arbitrary and capricious” because many similar installations on the island have not received the same scrutiny.
HDC chair Steven Welch and HDC staff countered that landscape hardscape features — including certain fences and cattle grates — fall squarely within the commission’s purview when they are visible from publicly traveled ways. HDC staff said the commission viewed the property and applies a complaint‑driven review process; the HDC described its action as consistent with the town’s established practice and the HDC’s solar and landscape guidance.
Public commenters and former HDC members weighed in on both sides. Some residents and landscapers urged clearer, practical standards for deer protection and faster review pathways for applicants and professionals. Others emphasized the HDC’s role in protecting Nantucket’s character and said the commission relies on case‑by‑case visual assessments.
Why it matters: The appeal exposes a broader, recurring conflict on Nantucket between property owners seeking practical deer‑protection measures (including cattle grates and high fences) and the HDC’s mandate to preserve historic character and minimize visibility of certain features from public ways. Commenters called for clearer HDC standards and more predictable processes to avoid costly appeals and litigation.
Board action: The Select Board voted unanimously to continue the public hearing to March 11 to allow members time to review the HDC meeting recording and for parties to supplement the record; the board invited the appellant to submit documentary evidence (including time‑stamped references) and the certified letter the appellant said was sent to HDC staff.
Next steps: The appeal remains open. The board will consider the full record at the continued hearing and may remand, uphold, or overturn the HDC decision based on whether it finds the commission’s process and substantive determination consistent with law and local standards.
