Not So Fast On The Latest Short-Term Rental Proposal

To the editor: Before the town rushes to schedule a Special Town Meeting, I have asked town counsel through the town manager for an opinion on these two legal questions. First, must a citizen warrant article that contains a material misrepresentation of fact be presented to the voters for consideration and a vote? Second, can the petition signature of a voter unaware of such misrepresentation be deemed to constitute valid consent?

I ask because a relevant court case in which the town is a party raises these questions. The town has received a citizen’s petition for a Special Town Meeting to amend zoning law changes made and approved by the Attorney General in 2015. This citizen warrant article asserts several times that it is intended to reinsert language it claims, without supporting evidence, was “inadvertently omitted” in 2015. Yet, a very recent ruling in Ward v. Town of Nantucket et al. does not support that claim. In an extensive examination of the legal history of Nantucket’s zoning laws going back to 1972, Land Court Judge Vhay found no sufficient evidence to explain the reasons why voters adopted those changes. Therefore, there is no factual basis to validate that rationale for this article.

In fairness to the voters who signed this petition for a Special Town Meeting on the basis of this rationale, the sponsor of this citizen warrant article should be required to withdraw this petition, and, if he wishes, submit one that makes a fact-based case to the voters for why their proposed legal changes should be adopted.

Pamela Perun