Stalemate: All Four Short-Term Rental Proposals Defeated By Town Meeting Voters

The island's stalemate on short-term rentals continues.

All four proposals related to vacation rentals were defeated Monday during Nantucket's Annual Town Meeting, with hundreds of voters in attendance at Nantucket High School's Mary P. Walker Auditorium. It marked the sixth straight Town Meeting in which island residents have been unable to resolve the most difficult questions surrounding short-term rentals on Nantucket: how to incorporate them into the zoning code.

In many ways, the deliberations on Monday played out similarly to the debates of the past five years on Town Meeting floor. On one side, short-term rentals are viewed as a longstanding pillar of the island tourist economy that provides essential lodging for visitors and represents a huge tax revenue source for the town budget. On the other side are island residents who believe short-term rentals disrupt residential neighborhoods with “mini-hotels,” and exacerbate the island’s housing crisis by converting year-round homes into rentals and driving up prices.

Despite short-term rentals being a century-old tradition on the island, they are not expressly allowed in Nantucket's zoning code, a situation that has prompted some residents to sue their neighbors for operating a short-term rental in a residential neighborhood, claiming they are an illegal commercial use.

With a pending court decision on one of those lawsuits looming over the Town Meeting debate - and the prospect of a Boston judge deciding the issue for the island if voters were once again unable to reach a consensus - there was added urgency to bring the long-running feud to a resolution.

Caroline Baltzer's citizen petition, Article 66, was the latest attempt to codify short-term rentals as an allowed use in the zoning code. Similar warrant articles had previously been defeated five times at Town Meetings since 2021 - the most recent of which had failed to earn a majority in September 2024.

"The short-term rental topic is the 21st-century white whale for Nantucket," Baltzer said. "It has been very hard on the community, and I hope that I have written an article that will answer what will help our community settle this in a way that everyone can be happy with...Having no (short-term rental) zoning bylaw in our code has cost the community a lot. It's cost lawsuits, a judge's rebuke, community division, an era of confusion, distraction from more important things, and it's brought community bullying instead of the old Nantucket way: neighborliness."

In her presentation, Baltzer emphasized that Article 66 was the only way to end the neighbor versus neighbor lawsuits and put Nantucket's short-term rentals on a sound legal standing. She called on town counsel John Giorgio to explain the legal predicament with the pending court case, and whether he believed Article 66 was the best proposal to address the situation.

"It is in the best interests of the town - it’s actually imperative - that you solve this problem locally," Giorgio said ahead of the vote on Article 66. "Meaning here at Town Meeting. If you don’t, as I've said before, you’re leaving it in the hands of a judge in Boston to make this decision for you. That comes with a substantial amount of risk to the town, to homeowners, both seasonal and year-round residents. We can go another four years trying to figure this out, but you don’t have that much time."

Penny Dey, owner of Atlantic East Real Estate and a past president of the Nantucket Association of Real Estate Brokers, was among those who offered forceful statements in support of Baltzer's Article 66.

"We are clearly living in an age of grievance," Dey said. "Short-term rentals have been blamed for everything on Nantucket except erosion. They've been blamed for traffic, overcrowding, lack of affordable housing, and even challenges in getting dinner reservations. Nantucket's economy for over 150 years has relied heavily on tourism, with a longstanding tradition of vacationers visiting the island. With no large-scale hotels or resorts, over 90 percent of visitors stay in private homes...It is a fundamental property ownership right to rent your home responsibly, and it's reckless not to safeguard that right for future generations."

But it wasn't enough. While Baltzer's Article 66 earned a strong majority, it failed to reach the necessary two-thirds majority required for zoning amendments.

The final vote was:

• Yes: 468
• No: 321

The necessary two-thirds majority threshold was 526 votes.

While the results for Baltzer's proposal showed that such a zoning amendment had gained support since last September's Special Town Meeting, opponents once again mounted a successful campaign to prevent short-term rentals from becoming an allowed use in all residential zoning districts.

"Tonight brings us to another showdown between two very different visions of a small island facing a very challenging future," said island resident Charity Benz. "Those who support Article 66, a retread of last year's failed Article 59, are obsessed with monetizing Nantucket. However, those who have seen the impact of the transaction economy on Nantucket over the years have a very different perspective. Too much more of everything is simply unsustainable for the island itself and for the taxpayers who are being asked to subsidize its further exploitation. So let's be completely honest, Article 66 is not so much about lawsuits, or about resurrecting the Nantucket of 100 years ago, or Mr. Rodgers. It is about opening up the entire island to short-term rentals as a primary use in every dwelling."

Emily Molden, the executive director of the Nantucket Land & Water Council, was the individual who called Article 66 for debate, and she emphasized her belief that short-term rentals drive overdevelopment and tax the island's resources.

"Our concerns and this opposition centers around the continued conversion of properties being used solely as short-term rentals," Molden said. "We see properties that are purchased and repurposed for primarily rental purposes, and it incentivizes more intense redevelopment. Properties are maximized with buildings, bedrooms, and amenities intended to meet the expectations of prospective renters. This type of development will certainly maximize the return on investment as a rental property, but it also comes at a cumulative cost to our island. It results in decreased open space and habitat within neighborhoods, it can escalate the intensity of use, and puts increasing pressure on the island's resources."

What does the defeat of Article 66 mean for vacationers and short-term rental operators? While properties will continue to be rented - and the town and state will still collect taxes on them - Nantucket's short-term rentals will remain in legal limbo because they are not expressly allowed in the zoning code. And Massachusetts Land Court judge Michael Vhay is likely to decide the issue for the island in the near future when he rules on the ongoing appeal of Cathy Ward’s lawsuit against the town and her neighbors.

After deciding on Baltzer's Article 66, Town Meeting voters turned their attention to two proposals that aimed to restrict short-term rentals as an accessory use.

Retired attorney and former Planning Board member Fritz McClure’s Article 67 proposed to codify short-term rentals as an accessory use, requiring that they be occupied by the owner (or their friends and family) for at least one day more than they are rented on a short-term basis.

"I sponsored Article 67 because I believe the regulation of short-term rentals needs to be addressed in our zoning bylaw, and I think a majority of island residents agree," McClure said. "Article 67 places some restrictions on an owner's ability to use their property for short-term rental income. It includes a combination that acknowledges the seasonal nature of our economy and the long history of rentals by homeowners."

McClure described it as a "simplified version" of Article 2 from the September 2024 Special Town Meeting, which earned the support of 55 percent of those who voted but failed to cross the two-thirds majority threshold.

On Monday, however, it quickly became clear that support for such a zoning amendment had waned over the past eight months. Several speakers raised concerns about enforcing the requirements contained within McClure's proposal.

"How are we going to enforce the occupancy requirements?" asked Debbie Dilworth, the former town assessor and now a real estate broker. "As someone who managed the residential (tax) exemption and the qualifications for 28 years, that was not easy to do. What these articles, 67 and 68, are proposing - are you going to have to have a Gladys Kravitz on every corner? How are people going to keep track? You'll have to have an entire fleet of people go around and watch."

After several efforts to amend Article 68 were defeated, the warrant article was overwhelmingly rejected. The final vote was:

• Yes: 243

• No: 492

Patsy Wright's Article 68 represented a similar proposal, presented as a general bylaw. It would have required short-term rentals to be “occupied by the owner at least 30 non-consecutive days per calendar year; provided, however, that such short-term rental use is allowed for a maximum of one day less than total number of days that the Lot is occupied by the Owner.”

Wright described her proposal as "pure common sense."

"It is easy, simple, uncomplicated, and something that we cannot only all live with, but it's something I think we can be proud of," Wright said. "It seeks to enhance the quality of life for our residents. To be crystal clear, I'm not against short-term renting. I support neighbors renting their homes in the Nantucket tradition. I have rented my home in this tradition for years. However, commercial, investor-focused short-term rentals are ruining the very fabric of our community. "

After a brief debate in which town counsel John Giorgio raised doubts about the legality of Wright's article, it was defeated by a similarly overwhelming margin:

• Yes: 181

• No: 477

The fourth and final short-term rental proposal considered at the Town Meeting, Article 69, was sponsored by Matthew Peel and would have mandated the town to collect and publish data about short-term rentals on the island over the next three years to facilitate a more informed debate on the subject. Beyond just collecting data, Peel’s article would have restricted short-term rental operators to renting for 70 days a year and established a cap of 1,350 STRs on-island for the duration of the study.

"I understand the magic and wonder that is Nantucket, and I want to preserve that for my children," Peel said. "I ask you today to vote yes on a reasonable and fair set of regulations."

But Peel's proposal was defeated by an even wider margin than the previous two accessory use articles. The final vote was:

• Yes: 82

• No: 490

As former Select Board member Bob DeCosta put it during the debate: "This is getting ridiculous. How many years in a row have we been in here having the same argument? We just need to move on."