Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Nantucket ZBA weighs citizen bylaw (Article 63) to tighten oversight of undersized lots
Loading...
Summary
At its April 9 meeting the Town of Nantucket Zoning Board of Appeals discussed Article 63 (a citizen warrant article referencing M.G.L. c.41, §81L) intended to increase zoning oversight of lots created by subdivision; board members praised the intent but warned the draft could increase variance requests and legal uncertainty, and chose to offer comments rather than endorse the article.
The Town of Nantucket Zoning Board of Appeals spent the bulk of its April 9 meeting discussing a citizen warrant article (Article 63) proposed by petitioner Emily Molden to change how lots created under M.G.L. c.41, §81L are treated for zoning purposes.
Molden told the board the article’s principal aim is “to have more zoning oversight on these lots,” noting the Planning Board has endorsed the proposal and that town counsel prepared a memo addressing technical questions. Planning staff said recent case law has clarified that lots created by subdivision do not automatically vest buildability, which the article is intended to reflect.
Several board members said they support the article’s intent but raised detailed objections to the current draft. One longtime member said the change could prompt more applicants to seek ZBA relief to “confirm the buildability” of newly created undersized lots, effectively shifting many decisions into the variance process. That member added the board has historically been reluctant to grant variances under Massachusetts law and questioned whether the hardship standard could be met in many cases.
Attorney Sarah Elgers, who said she would be conflicted on this matter, criticized the way the article is written and its legal analysis. “I’m really disappointed in the way that this was written, and I don’t necessarily agree with the analysis that’s been given by town council,” she said, warning the draft could create confusion and lead to litigation unless clarified.
Planning staff (Megan Trudell) and the petitioner reiterated that the proposal is intended to keep existing pre-1955 structures allowable while preventing the routine conversion or redevelopment of undersized lots into new dwelling units without meaningful review. Trudell noted the draft places the special-permit review under the proper bylaw section and that town counsel’s memo took the position that a variance would not necessarily be required for some outcomes.
Board members discussed concrete local examples (Pleasant Street, Pulpus Road) in which accessory structures such as garages sit on very small parcels. Members asked whether conversions from garage to dwelling would trigger ZBA review, how shared ground-cover calculations would operate between split lots, and whether the proposed language would leave the town in a period of legal ambiguity for lots currently in process.
Faced with divergent views—support for the policy aim but concern about drafting, precedent and litigation risk—the board did not take a formal endorsement vote. Instead, a board member proposed drafting a diplomatic comment to the proponent and Planning Board summarizing ZBA concerns and suggested clarifications. The petitioner said she will continue outreach and is open to amendments on the Town Meeting floor if needed. The article will be considered at Town Meeting on May 14, 2026.
The board’s discussion underscores the tension between creating more local oversight of small lots and ensuring clear, administrable rules that do not shift routine development into a burdensome variance process. The ZBA will not vote to endorse the article at this time but will pass along its feedback to the petitioner and Planning Board before Town Meeting.
