On Split Vote, FinCom Declines To Endorse Short-Term Rental Compromise Bylaw

The Finance Committee will not endorse the compromise short-term rental zoning bylaw drafted by a Select Board-appointed subcommittee, voting 4-3 to break with the positive recommendations from the Planning Board and Select Board.

“To me, it is a taking of property rights,” Finance Committee member Rob Giacchetti said. “I think we've lost the forest for the trees and I don't think it's going to do anything to solve the quote, unquote problem.”

Giachetti was joined in his opposition by Jeremy Bloomer, Joanna Roche, and Peter Schaeffer—a former member of the Short Term Rental Work Group. Chair Denice Kronau, Jill Vieth, and Joseph Wright voted to recommend the article. Stephen Maury was recused because of his role on the subcommittee, and the final member of the Committee, Chris Glowacki, was absent.

“I think we've forgotten why we're here,” Wright said. "There is a feeling on Nantucket that there are too many short-term rentals. There are just too many, too much, and we'd like to have some control.”

Kronau and Vieth were more muted in their support.

“This is not my favorite article, I'm not dying to vote for this,” Vieth said. “But I'm going to vote for this. Begrudgingly, but I'm going to vote for this.”

The compromise bylaw would limit STR operators to renting buildings on a single lot and ban STRs in tertiary dwellings, affordable housing, workforce housing, and covenant housing. Short-term rental operators currently renting dwelling units on multiple lots would have eight years to comply with the new law. It would also limit STR operators to eight changes of occupancy during July and August. New STR operators would be limited to three changes of occupancy in July and August for five years, at which point they would be allowed eight. If passed, the bylaw would go into effect on July 1st, 2025.

Kronau and Vieth both highlighted the lengthy drafting process and the amount of compromise necessary to get any zoning bylaw passed at Town Meeting—a feat that requires two-thirds support from the voters. Proponents of short-term rental (STR) zoning bylaws have long argued that, while everyone will dislike certain portions of any proposal, voters should be willing to give up some of their preferences to form a broad coalition. But so far, no STR zoning bylaw has passed Town Meeting, with proponents stymied by joint opposition from those most in favor of leaving STRs unrestricted and those most in favor of strict regulations.

Confusion over the impacts and wording of articles has also hampered legislative efforts. Several Finance Committee members suggested that one of the primary reasons for their vote not to endorse the article was confusion.

“We make this all more complicated than we need to,” Schaeffer said. “This is way too wordy, it's way too confusing, and it's not going to get passed. Certainly not with two-thirds.”

“I think this is incredibly confusing,” Roche agreed.

Not everyone on the Committee was convinced.

“It's pretty straightforward,” Kronau said. “If I can summarize it, someone else can probably summarize it better than me.”

Other Finance Committee members, including Bloomer and Giachetti, voiced concerns that the compromise article could have major economic ramifications for the island.

The Committee voted unanimously to join the Planning Board in recommending Town Meeting not adopt any other short-term rental (STR) related articles, leaving them without any positive STR motions, which could potentially open the door for yet another year with no regulation at all. Without any bylaws regulating STRs, the legality of any particular STR will have to be determined by the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). The ZBA looks set to rule that a pair of island STRs do qualify as accessory use and are legal under current law, but that does not create a general law for the island. And of course, any ZBA decision can always be appealed.

“I think it's a fair assumption to make that…there will be an appeal,” Town Counsel John Giorgio said, speaking of the cases currently before the ZBA. “You're going to be in this for quite a while.”