Zoning Board Split On Appeal Of Commercial Event At Residential Home On South Shore Road

The dispute over allegedly commercial events being held at the private home of Surfside Crossing developer Jamie Feeley on South Shore Road continued on Thursday at a Zoning Board of Appeals hearing.

After nearly two hours of testimony, however, the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals finally voted and were split on the issue, meaning no action would be taken against Feeley. 

Feeley's neighbors filed a zoning enforcement request with the town late last year, alleging that he is utilizing the property at 59 South Shore for large-scale commercial events in violation of the town’s zoning code. Those events include several high-profile gatherings in 2024, such as a large wedding in September that was attended by celebrities Beyoncé and Jay-Z, as well as a fundraising event in May for Boston sports radio host Greg Hill’s foundation, where the band Barenaked Ladies played for those in attendance. But when the enforcement request landed on the desk of Nantucket Building Commissioner Paul Murphy, he declined to take any action and stated the activities described by Feeley's neighbors did not violate the town’s zoning bylaw.

Thursday's hearing was the second time the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) had discussed the dispute, and it was highlighted by several tense exchanges, along with testimony from lawyers, neighbors, and Feeley himself.

A motion to overturn the building commissioner's determination, direct him to issue a zoning enforcement order, and require Feeley to cease from using his property as an event space or for any other commercial use finally came to a vote after nearly two hours of discussion. The ZBA members supported that motion on a 3-2 vote, but passage required a supermajority of four members to overturn Murphy's decision, so the motion failed, and his determination was upheld. 

Feeley addressed the ZBA at length, describing the wedding in question as "a learning experience" and stating events of that size were not his family's intended use of the property moving forward. The family's home had only been rented for five weeks over the past three years, Feeley emphasized.

"We want to retain our rights and not be treated differently from any other property owner on the island," Feeley said. "We want to continue to support causes we're aligned with, to gather with friends and family, and connect with the right tenants who we will offer our home to for rent."

Attorney Rick Beaudette, who represented Feeley during the hearing, repeatedly stated that Nantucket's zoning code allows residential property owners to erect large tents for three events per year.

"Everything that they have done on this property is an allowed accessory use under the zoning bylaw," Beaudette said. "This use of the property is not a commercial use, despite the wedding taking place there, despite fundraisers taking place there...There's nowhere in our bylaw that doesn't allow this use."

The people who brought the original complaint against Feeley are Zachary Way residents Holly and Stephen Visco, whose property is located a short distance away from Feeley’s home. They were represented on Thursday by attorney Dan Bailey, who presented a marketing video for Feeley's home that was posted on the Maury People Sothebys International Realty website, which he said clearly showed the intention was to utilize 59 South Shore Road for commercial events.

"This property is very much set up for events, and it's being marketed for events," Bailey said. "It has a fully-wired band set up, a full catering kitchen, and the marketing materials say it's available for any event you have in mind."

"Mr. Feeley and his representatives are trying to make the case that the events at his property are accessory to the single-family residential use," Bailey continued. "Taking all the information together, the marketing materials, the prior events, the activities, the open first floor layout of the house, they are conducive to large gatherings. This is not customary or incidental to a single-family residential use. This use is far different from the typical short-term renting of a house that this board has previously authorized. The board should not permit this commercial use in a residential zoning district. It's highly disruptive to the neighborhood."

The disruption was described by numerous South Shore Road residents who submitted testimony to the ZBA ahead of Thursday's hearing.

"I have provided a recording of the sound check and the concert from our yard, which is listed as .2 miles from 59 South Shore Rd," Tara Riley and Matt Herr wrote to the ZBA, referring to the Greg Hill Foundation event at 59 South Shore Road. "The event was so loudly amplified, so much that upon the closing song, 'If I Had A Million Dollars,' we were able to clearly hear the band sing about how a million dollars wouldn’t go far on Nantucket and probably would not even cover the cost of Mr. Feeley’s truck over the sound system. The picture attached from that wedding event is representative of the scale of events that we fear will continue on our end of the street that include excessively loud music, excessive vehicles parking on the median and destroying the grass, and frequent cars pulling into our driveway to turn around. There seems to be a sense of entitlement that is coupled with a huge disrespect for others coming from the use of 59 South Shore Road."

The dispute over allegedly commercial uses in residential neighborhoods has played out in several other high-profile zoning cases in recent years, including the Ward short-term rental case that is, once again, on appeal to the Massachusetts Land Court.

The Viscos’ attorney specifically mentioned the Ward case in her memo to the ZBA but said the complaint against 59 South Shore Road is most similar to the Lynnfield case, also known as the Styller case. That lawsuit reached the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in 2021 after Alexander Styller, the owner of a home in Lynnfield, Mass., appealed a decision by the local building inspector that prohibited him from offering short-term rentals of his home based on the fact it was located in a residential zoning district. After losing at the local Zoning Board and the Land Court, Styller appealed to the SJC, which also ruled to uphold the building commissioner’s decision. The decision stated: “Short-term rental use of a one-family home is inconsistent with the zoning purpose of the single-residence zoning district in which it is situated, i.e., to preserve the residential character of the neighborhood.”