Nantucket's Environmental Advocate

The NLWC has once again reviewed the Warrant for the May 3, 2025 Annual Town Meeting and offers recommendations and comments on articles which could affect the island’s unique and valuable natural resources. Please CLICK THE LINK for our 2025 ATM Recommendation Sheet . This will be published in the 4/24 edition of the Inquirer & Mirror and will also be available at the entrance to Town Meeting. Join Us and Vote the Environment First! Saturday, May 3rd at 8:30am in the Mary P. Walker Auditorium of the Nantucket High School.

The Nantucket Land & Water Council (NLWC) has joined over a dozen Nantucket residents including members of the Nantucket Coastal Conservancy, property owners in Quidnet, and the Greenhill Family, in filing a Request for a Superseding Order of Conditions (SOC) with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. The Nantucket Conservation Commission voted on March 20, 2025 to issue a positive Order of Conditions (OOC) for the geotube expansion project as jointly proposed by SBPF and the Town of Nantucket (TON). As is the case with all wetland permits, this equates to the issuance of two independent OOCs, one under the MA Wetlands Protection Act, and one under the Nantucket Wetlands Bylaw. The Request by the NLWC and the Resident’s Group for an SOC is a formal process seeking the Department of Environmental Protection to issue an SOC denying or curtailing the proposed projec t in order to defend those coastal wetland resources that are protected under the MA Wetlands Protection Act. The NLWC’s opposition to the geotube expansion project is based on a number of factors. F irst and foremost, the NLWC does not believe the project as conditioned satisfies the performance standards in the MA Wetland regulations. NLWC’s consultant along with the Greenhill family’s coastal engineering consultant, utilized SBPF’s own monitoring data to demonstrate that the existing geotubes have clearly damaged the surrounding public beaches (at times eliminating a walkable beach in front of the structure) and accelerated erosion of the coastal banks to the North. The existing stretch of geotubes remain out of compliance with their prior permit as issued by the Conservation Commission due to SBPF’s failure to provide the required mitigation sand since 2016. This violation of SBPF’s permit resulted in a removal order which was upheld by Superior Court and is still outstanding. “We are honored to join with our partners, the NLWC, to take action to protect and preserve Nantucket’s beaches, especially our public ones,” said Burton Spruce Balkind, President of the Nantucket Coastal Conservancy. “The evidence submitted to the Conservation Commission during the public hearing was undeniable: the existing geotubes are degrading, and will eventually destroy the fronting beach. The same will happen with the expanded geotubes.” Over the course of the 15-month public hearing process, the NLWC submitted 7 written comment letters in conjunction with their coastal engineering consultant, Trey Ruthven of Sustainable Coastal Solutions, and collectively made many public comments in opposition to this project. While the NLWC recognizes and appreciates the permit condition requiring SBPF to contribute 105,465 cubic yards of sand to make up for the existing deficit, they have been given up to ten years in which to do so, while the permit itself will be valid for just five years. The NLWC also attests that the mitigation requirements conditioned in this permit for the new geotubes will not be adequate to mitigate the project's long-term impacts. “Respectfully, the Town’s partner, SBPF, who will be responsible for this massive volume of mitigation has a very poor track record of providing it, and as the record shows, once these geotubes are installed, they are very difficult to remove despite conditions in permits, escrow accounts, court orders, and agreements with the Town. We have been here before,” said Emily Molden, Executive Director of the Nantucket Land & Water Council. Additionally, there is a logical alternative for the Town to address its liability and protect the public’s interest along Baxter Road that the NLWC supports. The NLWC advocates that the Town should proceed with the Baxter Road Alternative Access Plan (which has been completed and can be constructed within 3 years), and in the meantime, temporarily maintain and mitigate the existing geotubes with the addition of softer coir installations in adjacent areas as needed. This plan will allow for the ongoing protection of residents' access and utilities, as well as access to, and parking for the Lighthouse. “It does not make sense to simultaneously retreat, through construction of the Alternative Access Plan, and armor the bank, through expansion of the geotubes,” said Molden. NLWC’s Board Chair Lucy Leske added, "As Nantucket's environmental protection and advocacy organization, NLWC believes that this project is allowing selective private interests to supercede the best interest of all Nantucket citizens and our environmental resources, while at the same time turning nearly a mile of beach into a giant construction project for the next decade, distracting us from the true need to move the road." The NLWC and co-appellants in the Resident’s Group also raise a number of critical procedural issues with the issuance of the OOC including the lack of sufficient site plans. The Conservation Commission accepted the submission of plans dated October 26, 2022 which do not accurately reflect existing conditions in such a dynamic area. These plans also lack the stamp of a Professional Engineer registered to conduct business in the Commonwealth. They also contend that s everal additional state permits were required before an OOC should have been issued, i ncluding a Notice of Project Change with Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) and a Chapter 91 License, which is required because the NOI plans show work that would have to occur below the Mean High Water (MHW) mark. The community will have its own opportunity to weigh in on the Town’s commitment to this project at Annual Town Meeting (ATM) in May. Town Meeting’s vote will be necessary to allow the issuance of a license to SBPF to construct this project on the Town-owned beach below the bluff because of a citizen’s article originally submitted by Catherine Flanagan Stover at ATM in 2012. The project cannot proceed without a positive vote (permission) from Town Meeting. The Select Board is seeking that permission through the adoption of Article #81 at ATM on Saturday, May 3. The NLWC and NCC are urging citizens to vote NO on this article.

Nantucket Community Can Vote NO at Upcoming Annual Town Meeting

Location: Nantucket Island Hours: 25-35 hours per week Compensation: $22 per hour

The remand hearing for Surfside Crossing’s 156 unit 40B development is ongoing before Nantucket’s ZBA, and the deadline for the public hearing has been extended to February 21st . Last fall when the remand hearing began, the NLWC hired two professionals to assist us with reviewing the current plans for the 18 condo buildings and onsite development . One of our consultants, Sean Reardon, is a professional engineer who has worked with a number of ZBAs across the state assisting as their peer review engineer on 40B projects. The second, Scott Horsley, is a renowned water quality specialist who has helped us take a closer look at the implications of the proposed development on the island’s groundwater and public drinking water supply. They discovered some critical issues with the project’s design that have raised major concerns with the ZBA . What Reardon and Horsley’s reviews have brought to light about the proposal is a lack of compliance with the state’s Stormwater Management Standards as well as the MA Drinking Water Regulations and an important provision in Nantucket’s Zoning Bylaw governing development within our Wellhead Protection District. Almost the entire 13.5 acre Surfside site lies within this environmentally sensitive area . The Wellhead Protection District was established to protect the region of our aquifer that contributes to the public water supply wells (this region is also called a Zone II region). The bylaw provision sets a standard that only up to 15% of a property within the Zone II can be developed as impervious surfaces unless it can be demonstrated that at least 95% of the stormwater is properly recharged into the aquifer AND there will be no degradation to groundwater quality. I mpervious surfaces typically include things like parking lots, roadways, and buildings, where precipitation is impeded from naturally infiltrating into the ground . Instead it runs off the surface carrying pollutants or contaminants with it. The aggregate amount of impervious surfaces proposed by project developers is three-and-a-half times (3.5x) the limit imposed by the Drinking Water regulations and the Nantucket bylaw. Modern stormwater infrastructure can do a great job of managing flooding by infiltrating run off into the ground, but without proper pre-treatment many of these contaminants are carried directly into our groundwater as the natural filtration provided by vegetation and organic soils have been eliminated. To date, the developers have made no attempt to address these critical issues and have only responded with attempts to justify their lack of compliance with this standard based on a lack of proper enforcement at other sites within our Zone II on the island. The scale of this project and magnitude of disturbance, clearing 13 acres of natural vegetation and converting 6.48 acres (52% of the site) to impervious surfaces, warrants more effort than simply relying on what others have gotten away with elsewhere. As Nantucket continues to develop throughout the mid-island area, much of which is within our Zone II, it is critical that we take better care to ensure that these developments do not cumulatively degrade our public drinking water supply, and implement the state and local standards for managing impervious surfaces and stormwater properly. We will continue to advocate against the proposed project, which fails to meet state standards for stormwater management and does not adequately prevent the pollution of our public water supply. We encourage all community members to participate in the public hearing and raise any concerns you have about the project with the Zoning Board of Appeals. The ZBA is scheduled to hear this matter on Feb 3, from 1pm - 4 pm, on Feb 4, from 11 am - 2 pm, and on February 19, from 1 pm - 4 pm. Our submission to the ZBA on these issues can be found here. The ZBA’s entire Surfside Crossing packet as of 01/24/25 can be found here: https://www.nantucket-ma.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_01242025-14728?html=true .

The Conservation Commission recently signaled their likely approval of a positive permit for the geotube expansion project proposed jointly by SBPF and the Town of Nantucket. As data collected by project consultants indicates, the geotubes are detrimental to the environment, increasing the erosion on surrounding beaches. The NLWC takes the strong position that there are much more appropriate and less harmful alternatives, especially given that the Town’s engineers have determined the relocation of Baxter Road can be completed by 2027. The fact is that the existing stretch of geotubes remain out of compliance with the current permit issued by the Conservation Commission due to SBPF’s failure to provide the required mitigation sand. It has been demonstrated by two independent coastal engineering experts that the failure to contribute the required mitigation (a sand deficit now well over 100,000 cubic yards) has already resulted in significant damage to the Town-owned coastal beach as well as privately owned properties to the north. This includes existing and increased future risk to the Lighthouse property. This violation of SBPF’s permit resulted in a removal order which was upheld by Superior Court, and is still outstanding. The Draft Order Of Conditions, which the Commission is currently deliberating, includes a finding (#17) that states this new permit will replace the removal order. However, the Draft OOC does not contain any specific information on how SBPF and the Town, as co-applicants, will be required to account for the immense and growing deficit of sand. We have asked the Commission to specifically discuss this matter at their next public hearing (scheduled for January 15th). If a positive OOC is issued, and a requirement to contribute the missing volume of sand is not clarified, SBPF will be rewarded with an expansion of the geotubes that they have failed to maintain in compliance with their current permit. Environmental permitting that considers negative impacts to natural resources always follows the premise of first avoiding adverse impacts, if those impacts cannot be avoided they must be minimized, and if adverse impacts cannot be avoided or minimized they must be mitigated. The entire permitting process is broken if an applicant is allowed to negatively impact multiple resource areas in such a significant way without mitigating those impacts. The mitigation conditioned in the previous permit was determined with SBPF’s own data, supported by MA DEP, and agreed to by SBPF. In the meantime SBPF and the Town are proposing to quadruple the size of this project. If the Conservation Commission does not condition this permit to require the addition of adequate mitigation sand to account for the full deficit, it will be the most egregious violation of a wetlands permit I have ever seen in my two decades of reviewing hundreds of projects. The Commission should not be complicit in its lack of enforcement. This would set a precedent that is simply unconscionable for a regulatory entity. We are looking to the Conservation Commission to ensure that this does not happen. As a co-applicant, the Town will ultimately also be responsible for the implementation and enforcement of this permit. As owners of the coastal beach and bank that has already been damaged by the existing installation, they should also be insisting that the full deficit of sand be provided by SBPF prior to new construction. The Town should also ensure that they are not ultimately left with the liability for providing this sand which was the prior responsibility of SBPF. Town Administration and the Select Board (as co-applicants), and the Conservation Commission as our regulatory authority must set the right example and precedent and follow through on appropriate enforcement of the geotubes that already exist before allowing any more to be constructed. Should they fail to do so, the damage to our coastal environment and resources will be irreparable. Emily Molden Executive Director, Nantucket Land & Water Council The next Conservation Commission Public Hearing on the proposed geotube expansion is Wednesday, January 15th 10:00am-12:00pm in the Trailer at 131 Pleasant Street.

At this September’s Special Town Meeting, the Nantucket Land and Water Council once more encouraged Nantucket residents to vote for the environment by following its recommendations on many of the articles. This year’s Special Town Meeting saw debates continue over matters including short-term rentals (STRs) and zoning changes. The NLWC is pleased to report that nearly all of its recommendations were seen to fruition by Nantucket voters. In the STR world, voters faced multiple competing proposals to regulate short-term rentals. Article 1, supported by the Select Board, aimed to legalize short-term rentals in all residential districts with limited restrictions. However, concerns about workarounds for the restrictions it did propose and ongoing investor incentives led to its defeat, with 472 votes against and 416 in favor. While the article proposed to impose a limit of one STR per person, an individual would still have the ability to set up any number of other legal entities (in the form of LLCs, trusts, etc) on their own or in partnership with others with each as the owner of separate STRs. As a result, this important provision would not have held water. Article 2, proposed by Charity Benz and Nantucket Neighborhoods First (NNF), took a more restrictive approach, allowing short-term rentals only as an Accessory Use, requiring property owners to live in their homes more than they rent them. Nantucket Waterkeeper RJ Turcotte read a statement by NLWC president Lucy Leske in support of this article. While Article 2 didn’t pass, it gained significant support, receiving 478 votes in favor and 394 opposed, exceeding 55% approval but falling short of the two-thirds majority needed. The strong backing for Article 2 reflects growing concern over the impact of short-term rentals on Nantucket’s environment and community. Article 5, which the Nantucket Land and Water Council (NLWC) supported, was successfully passed. This amendment clarified and strengthened restrictions against corporate ownership of STRs. Zoning changes which would have resulted in significant subdivision potential, as well as proposals for Town Sewer were also proposed in Articles 11,12,13 and 14 which affected 44 Skyline Drive, and 13/13A Woodland Ave. These changes were not supported by the NLWC because of the significant change in density they would have facilitated in addition to concerns around surrounding infrastructure impacts. The proponents of the articles presented all of them at Town Meeting as key elements in larger plans for affordable housing developments. However, the proponents of the articles did not clearly present their plans for the properties in advance of Town Meeting leaving many questions. This uncertainty and the degree of density proposed for these locations resulted in strong defeat across the board. Town Meeting also voted strongly in favor of Article 16 which once again proposed to implement specific changes to the constitution of the Nantucket Planning & Economic Development Commission with the intention of creating a more dynamic and diverse planning commission to help the island navigate many of the bigger picture challenges we are facing. Many thanks to all of our residents who came out to the Special Town Meeting to engage in these discussions and to vote!

Dear Members and Friends, As you likely know, Nantucket’s 2024 Special Town Meeting is being held this coming Tuesday, September 17th at 5:00pm in the Nantucket High School Auditorium . If you are a Nantucket registered voter, we are writing to ask that you join us on Tuesday and help us vote for the future health of Nantucket’s environment and community . The Nantucket Land & Water Council’s 2024 STM Recommendations can be found on our website (HERE) and will be available in paper form at the entrance to Town Meeting. The Nantucket Land and Water Council (NLWC) has been working to preserve the health of Nantucket’s environment and community through the protection of our land and water resources since 1974. We accomplish this through research, education and advocacy. We are and have been the island’s trusted environmental advocate for over 50 years. Today we are writing to provide you with our position and recommendations for Tuesday’s Special Town Meeting in regard to the Short-Term Rental articles. The NLWC has observed that the rise of the commercial short-term rental (STR) industry contributes to and incentivizes an intense (re)development of properties on Nantucket designed to deliver the highest rate of return. This is often accomplished by maximizing properties with buildings, bedrooms and amenities intended to meet the expectations of prospective occupants. This decreases open space and habitat in neighborhoods, escalates the intensity of use, and puts increasing pressure on the island’s resources jeopardizing the health of our drinking water, ponds and harbors, and our shared infrastructure such as solid waste and storm-water management, water and sewer. While this type of development and the intensity of use that it facilitates will certainly maximize the return on an investment, it comes at a severe cost to our island. The Nantucket Land & Water Council is not opposed to all STRs. We support regulation that is consistent with Nantucket’s local tradition of residents renting their homes. NLWC opposes STRs for purely commercial or investment purposes. Our priority is to eliminate or reduce the pressure and incentive to turn our limited resource of homes into businesses that profit individuals and/or corporate entities while at the same time cumulatively harming the long-term health of our environment and community. This year’s Special Town Meeting Warrant contains several articles relevant to Short-Term Rental regulations. NLWC recommends a YES Vote on Article 2 as it upholds Nantucket year round and seasonal residents’ ability to short term rent their homes while limiting existing and disincentivizing new investor ownership of STRs. The other articles will not accomplish this priority. The NLWC has worked with the proponent of Article 2 on a Positive Motion (as Article 2 was not supported by the Planning Board or Finance Committee), to be presented on the floor of Town Meeting. The NLWC supports this Article 2 Positive Motion as presented HERE which makes several amendments to the original article simplifying its provisions and accomplishing the following goals: Allow short term rentals as an Accessory Use to the Principal Use of a property as a residence. It also clarifies Accessory Use of STRs as simply renting a property for at least one day less than it is used as a residence. Require owners or their immediate family members to utilize the property for at least 30 days (need not be consecutive) in a calendar year. Allow for the short term rental of only one property per owner at a time and only one dwelling on the property at a time. This article has been reviewed by the Town Moderator and approved as “within the scope” of the original article. As drafted these provisions will support and clarify the language that currently exists in our Zoning Bylaw, and will allow the use of short term rentals year round while reducing investor incentives and intensity of use. The NLWC does not support Articles 1, 3 or 4 (see comments in NLWC Recommendations below). While Article 1 appears to limit the number of STRs that a person can have, it establishes a clear loophole for a person to set up multiple different legal entities to own and utilize multiple properties as STRs. It does not require the property to ever be used as a residence by the owner, and the limits on STRs for new owners are not enough to disincentivize investor ownership. The NLWC recommends a NO Vote on Article 1. Nantucket has come to measure economic success in terms of each year being bigger and better than the last. This type of growth is not sustainable and it is critical that we implement measures to manage our growth in a way that ensures a viable future for the island we all love. If maintaining a healthy environment, community and quality of life on Nantucket is important to you, please join us and attend the Special Town Meeting on September 17th and Vote YES for the Positive Motion on Article 2. Your vote is extremely important and your vote matters. Many articles have been decided on fewer than 10 votes and some by a single vote. Please encourage your family and friends to attend and vote too! – Emily Molden and All of Us at NLWC

2024 Special Town Meeting – Tuesday, September 17th at 5:00 PM Nantucket High School Auditorium Nantucket’s community depends on the vitality of its sustainable natural resources. Vote Environment First >