Nantucket Has Lots Of Bylaws. But Are They Enforced?

Weak enforcement is one of the most commonly cited causes of nearly every contentious issue on Nantucket, from concerns surrounding short-term rentals to the illegal use of lawn fertilizer, and from the proliferation of McMansions to the rash of dangerous e-bike accidents in recent years. Over the last eight months, the Current has tracked dozens of bylaw violations, spoken with numerous public officials, investigated a number of ongoing lawsuits, and ultimately filed a public records request in an attempt to understand just how deep the problem goes—and if anything can be done to solve it.

The answer to these questions is complicated, messy, and difficult to pin down.

Last August, as Nantucket languished in drought conditions that have yet to subside and the town recovered from a nearly catastrophic municipal water pump failure, one Nantucket property owner took a rather lax approach to the crisis. Instead of working to conserve water and protect the island’s fragile aquifer, he told Water Department director Mark Willett he would rather just write a check, pay the fine, and be done with it.

“We had a gentleman, and I'm not going to name names, who said, 'just fine me, I’ll write a check,’” Willett said. “I said 'thank you for being part of the community'.”

Ultimately, no one was ever fined for violating the mandatory water-use restrictions over the summer.

This comment, while unusually direct, represents one of the most stubborn and widespread problems facing Nantucket’s local government: it is remarkably difficult to enforce the Town’s numerous well-intentioned rules, regulations, and bylaws. Even when they are enforced, the punishments are often so minor that violators have almost no incentive to follow the law.

“Enforcement is one of the town’s greatest challenges,” Nantucket Land and Water Council Executive Director Emily Molden told the Current.

On and off the record, numerous town employees, elected and appointed officials, political advocates, and non-profit leaders say the same thing.

The enforcement problem has left existing short-term rental regulations underused and routinely hamstrings proposals for further regulation. It has also handicaped efforts to reduce fertilizer use on island, enabled a string of dangerous e-bike accidents, empowered alleged violations of zoning and land use bylaws, weakened a wide array of regulations aimed at combatting environmental degradation and climate change, and is alleged to be one major reasons for the pattern of “demolition by neglect,” where property owners allow historic buildings to deteriorate to the point that they can be legally demolished.

A detailed review of Nantucket’s existing enforcement strategies conducted by the Current revealed three primary problems. First, a lack of enforcement personnel and understaffed municipal departments leaves the town unable to identify many violations. Second, when a violation is identified, violators often avoid consequences for years—or even dodge them entirely. Third, even when violators do have to face consequences, they are often trivial and easy to chalk up to the cost of doing business on Nantucket.

The practice known as demolition by neglect offers a unique look at all three issues.

Last August 18th, demolition began on 12 Atlantic Avenue, a 125-year-old home that was formerly part of Nantucket’s historic New Guinea neighborhood, home to many of Nantucket’s Black and Cape Verdean residents in the 18th and 19th centuries. The demolition was approved by the Nantucket Building Commissioner and never went through the Historic District Commission (HDC).

Demolishing a 125-year-old house on Nantucket isn’t usually so simple. But once a house has fallen into such disrepair that it cannot be salvaged, demolition gets much easier. Sometimes, homeowners intentionally allow their houses to deteriorate so they can gain approval to knock them down. This is demolition by neglect. In theory, Nantucket’s minimum maintenance bylaw is intended to stop that.

Adopted by the town in 2004, the bylaw requires the owners of contributing historic structures to take “at least the minimum steps necessary to prevent the deterioration" of foundations, exterior walls, roofs, chimneys, and support structures.

So why doesn’t it work?

First, violations of the minimum maintenance bylaw are often not reported until it’s too late. For example, by the time the owners of an old Nantucket Electric Company building sought permission from the HDC to demolish the historic structure located at 10 New Whale Street last year, it had already begun to literally disintegrate, allowing the property owners to argue it couldn’t be saved. Decades of neglect left the building cracked and crumbling before the HDC ever ruled on its fate. At that point, any fines levied for violation of the bylaw wouldn’t save the building.

The members of the HDC don’t drive around the island cataloguing potential instances of demolition by neglect. No one does. Multiple members of the HDC have reiterated to the Current and in public meetings that the bylaw can only be properly enforced if citizens raise the alarm when they see a building falling into disrepair—much easier said than done.

“There isn’t a facility within town government for there to be an HDC person with a little siren and a light on top of their car to find these structures,” HDC chair Stephen Welch said. “This is a community response. The HDC staff respond on a complaint-basis to neglect.”

It’s a problem the HDC faces often. In 2022, after approving a building at 43 Kendrick Street that commissioners initially called “frightening,” the HDC members found themselves second-guessing their own decision. They said the applicant had led them to believe the building wouldn’t be visible, but no one actually checked. And when the neighbors complained, the HDC found that the reality they saw on the ground didn’t match the plans they had received.

“Clearly, the reason I brought this up is the whole idea of applicants coming in and saying ‘this won’t be visible from a public way’ and we take it on faith,” HDC vice chair Ray Pohl said at the time. “And in large part, we do that because we have such a heavy agenda, and that doesn’t seem to be getting any shorter. If we have to go out and research every application that we have in front of us, we’d be here until the cows come home.”

More recently, the HDC has claimed that its reliance on complaint-based enforcement is one of the reasons that there are so many unpermitted cattle grates and deer fences around the island, an issue at the center of an ongoing appeal of a decision to block one particular fence.

The same problem applies to many other bylaws. Natural Resources Director Jeff Carlson has argued for years that this is a big part of the reason that Nantucket has struggled to curb the flow of harmful nitrogen into the island’s harbors, which environmental leaders say has devastated the local eelgrass population and weakened the already fragile scallop fishery. Laws exist to regulate fertilizer, one of the main culprits, but they are almost never enforced.

“I think the town and really all of us could have done a better job to date in dealing with [fertilizer],” Carlson said. “It’s something that we need to do better on.”

Facing the futility of enforcement, Carlson has advocated extensively for a cultural shift, one that leads to landscapers and homeowners alike deciding not to use fertilizer by choice.

“[Regulation] will not work, again, if the people that live here, and the residents that are here, and the people that own properties, and the people that do landscaping, are not willing to participate,” Carlson said. “We can develop programs until we're blue in the face, and roll them out, but the last thing that anyone wants is to have the big bad town telling you what you can do on your own property.”

Select Board member and former Board of Health chair Malcolm MacNab has made similar comments about the island’s fertilizer regulations, pointing out how enormously difficult they would be to enforce in practice.

“We have fertilizer regulations. Well, you can’t go on people’s property. We often make regulations that make us feel good, but then we can't [enforce them],” he said.

And it’s not just fertilizer. Health Director Roque Miramontes has been clear in a number of meetings that he doesn’t feel the Health Department should be responsible for existing and proposed regulations governing large gatherings and short-term rental bylaws, in large part because his department simply does not have the staff to identify violations and fine violators.

“I do not believe currently that the regulations as they're written are enforceable,” Health Director Roque Miramontes said at a joint meeting of the Select Board and Board of Health. “I do not believe currently that, at least from the Health Department's perspective, that we would be able to provide appropriate enforcement for the regulations.”

Multiple members of the Board of Health echoed his comments, both in the meeting and later to the Current.

The Conservation Commission, too, lacks the personnel and the legal authority to keep watch over the whole island. After violators clear-cut a property at 14 Plover Lane in violation of local conservation regulations last year, the commissioners struggled with how to prevent them from doing it again. They settled on a deed restriction, but if the property owners decide to violate the deed restriction, the Conservation Commission can’t physically prevent them from doing so. After all, it’s not like anyone is watching.

“We got into this whole thing with them doing something that there was language in laws saying ‘hey, don’t do this,’” Conservation Commission member RJ Turcotte said. “We’re essentially just adding to the language that tells them not to do what they did.”

This is an issue that plagues the Commission.

“There's plenty of things that probably no one ever finds out about because they're hidden,” Conservation Commission chair Seth Engelbourg told the Current. “We do rely mostly on the public and private citizens mentioning 'hey, I think there's a violation.’”

The Select Board has decided to take up an effort to tighten Nantucket’s noise bylaws, backing an effort to restrict the hours that loud construction is allowed across the island. The change significantly simplifies the regulatory regime, and will need voter approval at Annual Town Meeting before it can go into effect. But at one Select Board meeting, numerous commenters pointed out that the existing bylaws are already being violated. Changing the hours, in Turcotte’s words, adds to the language telling people not to do what they are already doing. A more robust solution remains elusive.

Across the island, violations of zoning codes, planning permits, historic district regulations and conservation laws continue. No one knows for sure where they are happening or how to find them. But even when violations are identified on time, enforcement is no sure thing.

When instances of demolition by neglect are reported to the HDC, that’s no guarantee a fine will follow. Representatives of the HDC declined to provide a list of violations in response to a public records request filed by the Current, meaning that it is impossible to know how often the bylaw has been enforced, but a number of cases have fizzled.

Neither the Planning Board nor the Zoning Board of Appeals keeps a list of violations, and several members of town staff failed to answer questions about who, if anyone, might track violators of planning permits or zoning regulations. Miramontes estimated it would take over 100 hours of staff labor for the Health Department to list the enforcement actions taken in just the last five years, as the department does not keep track of such information.

All of this suggests a town-wide enforcement regime that is not tracking how often local regulations are enforced, when enforcement actions are taken, or what the outcomes of those actions are.

Such a holistic approach, however, is probably unfair. One reason it is so difficult to respond when violations are noticed is that there is no single enforcement body on Nantucket. Instead, enforcement is spread across a handful of departments and dozens of personnel. Some bylaws are enforced by the Natural Resources Department, some by the Health Department, some by the local police. Some are enforced by highly specialized town employees, like Lighting Enforcement Officer Marcus Silverstein, who doubles as the island’s zoning compliance coordinator.

One board that does keep track of violations is the Conservation Commission. As of September, they had issued 31 enforcements since 2020, including seven along Baxter Road, home to the controversial Sconset Beach Preservation Fund geotube erosion control project. The geotube installation itself is a study in the struggles of Nantucket’s regulatory regime. Despite the numerous violations alleged against the Sconset Beach Preservation Fund and an actual order for removal, the geotubes remain on the bluff, and it doesn’t seem likely they will be removed any time soon. In fact, the town has partnered with the Sconset Beach Preservation Fund on a proposed expansion of the array.

Recently, a portion of the geotube installation collapsed. The Sconset Beach Preservation Fund alleges that the failure was the result of vandalism. It may be the closest anyone on Nantucket ever comes to actually enforcing the removal order against the geotubes.

Rainbow Motors, an automotive repair shop on Old South Road, is a good example of how long enforcement can take. In 2018, a limited liability company now managed by Kim Glowacki received a special permit for a major commercial development for Rainbow Motors. The permit came with a number of conditions, including a limit on the number of cars the company could display and rules about where repairs and parking could take place. The town alleges that Rainbow Motors has not complied with those conditions.

In 2019, the town issued an order for compliance. In 2025, the town filed a lawsuit in Nantucket Superior Court alleging that Rainbow Motors is still not in compliance with its permit. That lawsuit remains pending today. Multiple town personnel declined to comment, citing the active litigation.

Sometimes, though, a fine is issued, appeals are exhausted, and the property owner has to pay. That’s what happened with 12 Atlantic Avenue. But the fine was only $600, a sum so small it could be considered a rounding error. Even with no structure, the land 12 Atlantic Avenue sat on alone is almost certainly worth over a million dollars. This gives homeowners perverse incentives: they can treat the $600 fine like a fee, and it will hardly scratch their bottom line when they turn around and sell the freshly-cleared land, or build an expensive house on top of it.

When a historic cottage in Madaket was demolished without a permit last month, the town levied a fine. This wasn’t a case of demolition by neglect, and the homeowners did not have permission to knock down the cottage. The fine was $1,500. That’s less than two-tenths of one percent of what the property owners paid for the land.

“It's not a deterrent when the land values and home values are what they are,” said Mary Bergman, executive director of the Nantucket Preservation Trust.

At one Planning Board meeting, Planning Board member Hillary Hedges Rayport asked what would happen if a local developer subject to an ongoing enforcement action kept violating the zoning bylaw.

“We could fine them,” Planning Director Leslie Snell said. “Typically, that’s not very effective.”

In some ways, this may be the most vexing problem facing enforcement on Nantucket. It is also the issue the town has the least control over.

Massachusetts law sets hard caps on many of the fines Nantucket is empowered to level against violators. In many cases, that limit is $300 per offense unless a special state law says otherwise, with each day the offense is continued considered a separate offense.

“[Towns] may, except as herein provided, affix penalties for breaches thereof not exceeding three hundred dollars for each offense, which shall enure to the town or to such uses as it may direct,” a portion of the relevant Massachusetts General Law reads.

Many feel that $300 isn’t enough to deter violators. And in many cases, fines are even smaller.

Last August, on the day of the Boston Pops concert at Jetties Beach - one of the busiest days of the summer - the Robert B. Our corporation shut down a portion of Surfside Road with no warning to address a water main issue. The company didn’t have a permit, and the town had no idea they planned to close the road. Some traffic was diverted through the hospital parking lot, prompting calls to the local police, while First Way and Hooper Farm Road became parking lots of traffic.

For closing down one of the island’s busiest roads in the middle of the summer, the company received a warning, and wasn’t fined. But even if they had been fined, the maximum penalty would have been $200. Nothing the town could have done would have raised the penalty any higher.

Often, changing these laws to allow heftier fines more suited to Nantucket in 2025 would require state-level action that doesn’t seem likely. Without that action, the town’s hands are tied. Even if they hired dozens of enforcement personnel, stuck with every possible enforcement action through the inevitable legal quagmires, and issued the maximum penalties allowed under Massachusetts laws, it might not be enough to deter many violators.

There are exceptions. Fines for short-term rental violations can reach $5,000, if the town is ever able to settle on an enforcement body. The Conservation Commission is empowered to assess penalties of up to $25,000, though it rarely does.

“We have a lot of ability. We have a lot of tools in the toolbox for enforcement,” Engelbourg said. “The Conservation Commission, in terms of regulatory boards on Nantucket, has the most resources, or at least the most tools in our toolkit, for dealing with enforcement.”

Despite this, even some of the more severe cases before the Commission have resulted in comparatively smaller penalties. The penalty levied against 14 Plover Lane's owner was only $11,100, even though Engelbourg called it the most egregious violation he had ever encountered.

Bergman, the executive director of the Nantucket Preservation Trust, emphasized that the town should consider updating its penalties for illegal demolitions and perhaps look to the town of Swampscott, Mass, where the penalty is a fine of up to 10 percent of the property value.

But solutions are elusive. Hiring more personnel is expensive, and it’s not clear that the funds brought in from enforcement orders would offset the costs of their salaries.

“Is it worth putting 20 people on [enforcement] to enforce [bylaws] or not?” MacNab asked. “I’m not sure.”

Even if the understaffing issue was resolved, determined violators would still be able to tie up cases in the courts for years, straining the town’s already stretched resources and incurring heavy costs on taxpayers.

And then there’s the limits imposed by local and state law. Fines of $200, $300, or even $11,000 are a small price to pay for many of Nantucket’s wealthier residents and more established companies.

“At the end of the day, is there a financial impact? I guess it depends on how much money you have,” Engelbourg said.

In the end, Carlson may be right. Perhaps the only way to effectively enforce Nantucket’s regulations is to rely, instead, on a cultural shift, spurred on by education and effective communication.

It’s one thing to pay a fine. It’s another to bear the scorn of your neighbors.