In Support Of Article 1, The Latest Short-Term Rental Proposal

To the editor: For better or worse, I’ve been involved in the short-term rental (STR) debate since day one, and I would like to offer another perspective on Article One, and on two zoning issues in particular.

First, the Land Court ruling in the Ward and Keith cases. It is true that the judge has ruled that short-term rental as a principal use is not allowed in the R1 and ROH. He also opined that it may be allowed as a subordinate or customarily incidental use.

But it is important not to overinterpret either the meaning of that ruling or of the pending ZBA decision in response to the ruling. The ZBA decision will be pertinent only to the two properties in question and the use as it occurred on those properties. It will not create new bylaws, nor will it protect others that rent short-term. Don’t be lured into a false sense of security.

Another issue that is surrounded by misinformation, and sometimes contrived outrage, is the question of whether Article One will offer sufficient zoning protection in restraining STRs. Sometimes this issue involves a debate over “A” or “Y” in our zoning use chart.

“A” stands for accessory. That would include anything that is less than the principal use. In our zoning, this is an amorphous concept that is poorly defined and nearly impossible to enforce. Not a way to regulate a 130-million-dollar industry that affects all who live on this island.

An unlimited “Y,” or yes, would also be undesirable. That would allow all STRs at all times.

However, the “Y” in Article One is different. It creates in zoning a new category of rental, Nantucket Vacation Rental, which allows only those STRs that comply with carefully crafted restrictions and regulations.

The “Y” in Article One is well-defined and enforceable. It regulates in a way that makes investment-only rentals an unattractive proposition. At the same time, it protects property owners’ right to rent in the traditional Nantucket way.

Article one represents a true compromise. Is it perfect? No. Does it make everyone happy? No. Is it the best opportunity to regulate STRs in a meaningful way? Yes.

The opinions above are mine and not those of any boards I serve on.

David Iverson

Editor's note: David Iverson is the chair of the Nantucket Planning Board