Nantucket’s Future Cannot Be Planned By A One-Size-Fits-All State Mandate

To the editor: As Vice Chair of the Nantucket Planning Board, I recognize the urgent need for affordable housing and opportunities for working families to remain on our island. However, the potential outcomes that Massachusetts Question 7 would have on Nantucket have raised serious concerns about Nantucket’s infrastructure, environmental resources, and the ability to manage responsible growth.

While island voters opposed Question 7, the statewide vote is still up in the air. My concern is that some voters wanted this tool to promote more development in our community. That motive is frightening.

Nantucket is not a typical Massachusetts community, and oftentimes, statewide initiatives do not recognize this fact. We are an island with finite land, limited infrastructure, sensitive environmental resources, and extraordinary development pressures. A statewide zoning mandate cannot adequately account for our unique circumstances.

The issue is not whether Nantucket needs thoughtfully planned housing. It does. The issue is whether additional dense development can occur without compromising the island’s long-term sustainability.

If passed, Question 7 will permit qualifying residential lots as small as 5,000 square feet, with 50 feet of frontage, potentially increasing development density while severely limiting local zoning authority. Although access to public water and sewer is required, those connections do not necessarily mean there is sufficient system capacity for this unexpected increase.

Equally concerning is the assumption that smaller lots will automatically create affordable housing. They will not. Given Nantucket’s high real estate values, this is a very concerning tool. It could create a market for Nantucket and off-island speculative builders, leading to more high-end homes with limited benefit to year-round residents.

Our local zoning is not simply an obstacle to development. It is an essential planning tool for protecting neighborhood character, natural resources, public safety, and responsible land use.

If this passes, eligible properties on Nantucket will be subdivided and built upon, without the ability of any local input. Additionally, it is likely those decisions will be largely irreversible. We must pursue housing solutions that genuinely serve our teachers, firefighters, tradespeople, municipal employees, year-round families, and, of course, our seniors.

If passed, the Nantucket Planning Board and PLUS staff will need to undertake a comprehensive assessment of Question 7’s potential impacts, including infrastructure capacity, eligible parcels, environmental consequences, and long-term municipal costs.

I support responsible growth, affordable housing, and the protection of private property rights. But a mandate for growth without adequate infrastructure planning is neither responsible nor sustainable for the island. It is our responsibility to protect Nantucket’s future for generations to come.

As of Thursday night, Massachusetts voters were nearly evenly split over Question 7, so chances are the issue is not going away. A headline in Thursday’s Boston Globe read, “Local should trump everything”, and in that spirit, I intend to write an article in support of the vote taken by islanders this past Tuesday for this year’s Town Meeting (or next year). I hope to have your support in April.

Respectfully,

Joseph Topham
Vice Chair, Nantucket Planning Board