Planning Board Gets First Look At Draft Master Plan For Nantucket

After years of work, a draft of Nantucket’s new master plan is available for review. The town of Nantucket is accepting public comment on the plan until October 15th.

Perhaps the most notable portion of the master plan, developed by the consulting firm Barrett Planning Group, is the implementation plan, which details strategies for meeting the goals Nantucket’s planners have set.

Major recommendations include reducing potential buildout in ecologically sensitive areas, a zoning audit and bylaw update intended to make the island’s regulations easier to understand, streamlining land use decisions, exploring further use of artificial intelligence for government work, expanding the island’s arts and culture offerings, creating a buy local program to support island businesses, expanding the town’s communications department, and creating an impound lot for parking violations.

One cluster of recommendations relates to the Historic District Commission. A primary area of community pushback against the housing production plan, also developed by Barrett Planning Group, was the recommendation to open up the special act governing the HDC and make changes to the legislation that enables it. That recommendation reappears in the master plan, which asks the town to “consider changes to the Special Act legislation such as separate historic district commissions for different areas of town, administrative or staff level reviews, or exempting common items from full Historic District Commission review.”

The plan’s housing recommendations are also noteworthy. One is to “provide fee waivers, expedited approvals, and other available cost offsets to create, preserve, and protect year-round restricted housing.” Others push for increased deed restriction programs, the town’s long-sought real estate transfer fee, further municipal employee housing, and special housing for people with cognitive or physical disabilities.

The first housing recommendation in the list is to “require year-round housing restrictions as a condition of approving discretionary special permits and granting other regulatory waivers.” This change to the Planning Board’s established practice would reduce the Planning Board’s discretionary authority in favor of pushing for more affordable housing units.

The plan expresses worries about funding for coastal resilience projects, a common source of concern among some island officials in recent months. Recommendations related to coastal resilience include the creation of funding mechanisms specifically for coastal resilience projects, further public-private partnerships in the area, and a review of the Conservation Commission’s regulations.

Other recommendations include educational programs, better town communication, more modeling and assessments, additional plans, further use of the town’s geographic information systems, discouraging personal cars and encouraging public transit, connections between pedestrian and bike paths, and an effort to “explore revenue capture from unauthorized use of Town Seal.”

Key issues identified in the plan include funding coastal resilience projects, water quality, traffic and mobility, civic infrastructure, zoning and land use, the permitting process, planning, housing, historic preservation, the partnership between the town and the Land Bank, sustaining a year-round local economy, and public expectations. Most of these concerns are familiar to island residents, such as PFAS in private wells, congestion in key transportation corridors, an unwieldy and poorly understood zoning code, a many-layered and difficult-to-navigate permitting system, and the ever-present housing crisis that looms over nearly every other local issue.

Some concerns, including those related to the planning process, zoning, and infrastructure, are also mentioned in previous reports compiled by Barrett Planning Group, such as the town’s housing production plan.

The plan also says that the state of the town’s municipal buildings is largely unsatisfactory and calls for centralizing Nantucket’s local government and the implementation of the town’s other various plans.

The plan calls out the high level of tension and combativeness on Nantucket, recommending a civil discourse program to combat the “lack of trust” and “fomentation of discord” on the island.

“An obvious divide exists between the community’s expectations for their government and the capacity and resources available for staff to address them,” the report reads in part. “There appears to be insufficient public understanding of the unique demands placed on a one-town island with multiple levels of government under one roof. Unfortunately, this can create tension between Town staff and their constituents and contribute to feelings of burnout…a dedicated forum for higher-level discussions can help steer Nantucket towards the future its residents and dedicated staff desire while alleviating the pressure on individual applications, projects, or other smaller decision-making processes.”

The process by which the master plan was drafted, especially how long that process has taken, has itself been a source of some community tension. Now, the focus may begin to shift from the process to the actual substance of the plan itself.

The plan can be read in full here.