Shenanigans At The Zoning Board Of Appeals

To the editor: The ZBA is struggling mightily with how to justify the unjustifiable: calling a rental where rented days outnumber owner-occupied days by more than double an accessory use of the property.

The real estate industry-dominated ZBA is attempting to write a new legal standard for rentals that would count the days a building is not occupied as “residential” use by the owner. However, while the members were mulling over how they could justify the use of this clearly contrived definition at their August 19^th meeting, town counsel George Pucci threw a monkey wrench into the works: he wondered whether those vacant days would count if the house was closed down for the winter and the owner never came. Susan McCarthy said: “Can I interrupt for a minute, George, because I think that goes down a rabbit hole…”

Of course, they don’t want to go down that rabbit hole. The logical answer to the question would not comport with what they want to do. The judge in the case is likely to rule on appeal that the ZBA’s “vacant days” rationale to establish residential use has no legal basis. Such a discussion would strengthen the judge’s rationale.

These shenanigans by the ZBA are merely the latest installment in the planning establishment’s multi-year effort to get around our 50-year-old zoning bylaw through contrived definitions that have cost and will continue to cost Nantucket taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees. The dictionary is clear, ZBA. VACANT means: "empty, not occupied."

While the ZBA discussions may seem like part of a series “How to circumvent Nantucket zoning rules”, this is a very serious matter for the island.

Stay tuned. They are going to try again on September 12th, and then again on September 17th.

Anne Dewez
5 Mill Street