This Battle Could Have Been Avoided

To the editor: There have been many letters to the editor from people who run mini-hotels in residential districts, most of whom appear on Nantucket Together’s website. They make a lot of money from these businesses and are focused on that, not the neighbors or the neighborhood or the burdens placed on housing, infrastructure and environment by the proliferation of short-term rentals (STRs).

Some have suggested that articles 67 and 68 are unconstitutional. That is ridiculous and false. These articles have an owner’s occupancy requirement which any owner can elect to meet. These articles aren’t concerned about who owns the property; they are focused on how the property is used. If the property really is a home and not a business, it won’t be hard to meet the owner’s occupancy requirement of articles 67 and 68, which are very liberal. These provisions set a minimum owner occupancy for the purpose of establishing a principal residence. Remember, the Land Court has already ruled that STR cannot be the principal use. West Tisbury adopted a bylaw with an owner’s occupancy requirement which was quickly approved by the Attorney General.

There have been a lot of comments about neighbor v. neighbor lawsuits, and some have blamed this on me. My answer is that the Town has refused to enforce the zoning bylaw, leaving neighbors no choice. Can anyone imagine where we would be right now on the STR issue without the lawsuit? As I mentioned, the Land Court has ruled that STR cannot be the principal use of a single-family dwelling in a residential district. Incredibly, the town and the ZBA are ignoring the Land Court and refusing to shut down a full-time STR in Monomoy, wasting more taxpayer money because the town will lose. No one hates litigation more than me. The system is broken and many can’t afford their day in court. That said, I am glad that ACK Now has supported Cathy Ward in her desire for zoning enforcement against the real estate industrial complex, which we now know includes some members of town boards and committees. Yes, this is a zoning case, but I have come to realize that there is a lot more at stake, such as affordable and available housing, and the island’s infrastructure, public services, and environment. I am not a crusader, but this fight has morphed into a fight for the year-round community, which is the heart and soul of Nantucket.

Soon, the Land Court will rule on accessory use STRs. I have no idea how it will rule in Ward 2, but it likely will give Nantucket some clarity on the parameters of accessory use STRs. It could uphold the ZBA’s blessing of the Grapes' STR use, or it could rule that the quantitative and qualitative impacts of the Grapes’ rentals are such that they are not incidental or accessory, and therefore, unlawful.

The town and many lawyers and real estate people have said full-time STRs are legal from the very beginning. Does anyone remember when town counsel reported on the Styller decision at a joint Select/Planning Board meeting five years ago? Andrew Vorce and Dawn Holdgate immediately said, “We have to fix zoning.” They have tried five times since and got rejected on each attempt.

Nantucket residents want the protections afforded by residential zoning. We know this because 70 percent of voters favor restrictions on STRs according to an Emerson College survey we commissioned last year. In addition, another Emerson College survey we commissioned this year found that two-thirds (67 percent) of residents think STRs reduce the number of year-round rentals and that nearly two-thirds (64 percent) think that STR investors drive up housing prices.

Residents also understand that there are various knock-on impacts from STRs since the average occupancy of an STR is eight, versus three for a year-round or seasonal home, according to the Short-Term Rental Work Group data. This was confirmed in our survey last year which found that residents believe that STRs stress our infrastructure at 64 percent, environment at 63 percent, and public services at 60 percent.

This long battle could have been avoided. The town knew that zoning was a big problem five years ago. After failing to change zoning, the town could have been proactive and proposed accessory use regulations for voters to consider. Instead, they just ignored the Styller case and the zoning bylaw in the hope that the issue would go away, failing to appreciate that this fight is about the future of the year-round community.

Sincerely,
Peter McCausland

Editor's note: Mr. McCausland is the founder of ACK Now