Conspiracy?

There is theory afoot that suggests some members of the planning board have an agenda that purports an anti-managed growth platform — specifically, a loosening of our zoning laws.

During a recent NP&EDC meeting, Alvin Topham called chairman Barry Rector a liar and an embarrassment to himself, his profession, the commission and the community of Nantucket — strong words from a man whose six-year reign as chairman of the NP&EDC ended earlier this year when fellow commissioners John McLaughlin, Sylvia Howard, Tim Soverino, Don Visco, Jack Gardner, Michael Glowacki and Barry Rector voted for Rector as new commissioner. Christine Silverstein, Frank Spriggs and Debbie Bennett voted for Topham.

Of the commission’s two other members, Topham was absent, and Linda Williams walked out when the commission did not postpone the election in Topham’s absence.

Hence, the perceived division was re-affirmed.

Some theorists believe that the current political environment reeks of undercurrents of personal vendettas, ulterior motives and back-door agendas — a division within the commission between the pro-growths, managed growth and no-growths.

In our opinion, the facts do not support this theory.

Last week, Planning director Andrew Vorce reiterated to the Board of Selectmen his intent to formulate and implement a “Chapter 41: Section 81D Master Plan. This current push for a master plan appears to be adding fuel to the fire.

A planning board is required to make a master plan for the city or town and then adopt that plan by a majority vote of the board. The hitch is that there is no requirement for a public hearing before their vote.

Several months ago, Topham expressed concern over how the proposed 41-81D master plan became the commission’s top priority “with almost no discussion,” he said.

More than 15 years ago, Topham and Christine Silverstein were both instrumental in the creation of The Nantucket Comprehensive Plan. That 172-page plan, developed over a five-year period, endured over 250 proposals for revisions, and included a list of approximately 400 recommended actions to implement a series of policy recommendations.

Unlike the Comprehensive Community Plan, the 81D master plan would be legally enforceable. It would also provide greater opportunity for the town to tap state and federal funds. And even though some theorists are worried that 81D would not absorb the same immense public input that went into the Comprehensive Plan, Planning Director Andrew Vorce assures everyone that the master plan would ultimately become the product of what the people of Nantucket want.

“There will be public hearings,” said Vorce this week. “It will be an interactive process.” Vorce also noted that the Comprehensive Plan, and all of the exhausting work that went into it, will not be scrapped. Rather, the board plans to use the plan as the framework for the master plan.

“We will be adding to it, and defining the more conceptual aspects of it,” said Vorce, who noted that in order for a master plan to have any teeth, it must be more specific than what is already contained in the comprehensive plan.

Many Massachusetts towns have recently adopted community development master plans, including Newburyport, Gloucester, Beverly, Peabody, Merrimac and West Newbury. Master plans should be the result of community-wide input and participation. They can be a powerful tool for articulating and meeting smart growth objectives.

Smart planning fosters sustainable communities by preserving and enhancing a community's character through managed development. Ecological health, neighborhood livability, transportation choices and thriving downtowns are the result of this. While growth and sprawl can be synonymous, sprawl connotes unplanned, residential and commercial development that does not take advantage of pre-existing transportation or physical infrastructures.

We commend Vorce for taking the lead on implementation of a master plan. Though not required, we trust that in the spirit of Nantucket tradition, Vorce and the Planning Board will stand by their commitment to ensure that our master plan is indeed a product of the people, and not political bickering.