Dawn to Dusk

The question raised this week — whether the Great Harbor Yacht Club is in violation of its Chapter 91 license — is a narrow one. The documents behind that question point to something much broader.

 

GHYC is not unique. It operates under the same legal framework that governs waterfront properties across Nantucket Harbor — a framework that allows private use of the shoreline, but only in exchange for clearly defined public rights.

 

Those rights are not implied. They are written directly into the licenses themselves. And in several cases, they apply to specific, identifiable properties along the harbor.

 

What the Licenses Actually Require

Chapter 91 — Massachusetts’ Public Waterfront Act — governs development on tidelands and waterways. In practice, it functions as a trade: private parties are allowed to build and maintain structures over public trust lands, but only if they preserve public access.

 

A review of active Chapter 91 licenses tied to properties along Old North Wharf, Commercial Wharf, and Washington Street shows that these obligations are explicit and consistent.

 

Across multiple properties, the same requirement appears:

The licensee shall allow the public to pass on foot, for any purpose, from dawn to dusk.
 

This condition applies, among others, to:

• Old North Wharf Trust
  License No. 4110 (commercial docking and boating access)
   

• 21 Commercial Wharf
  License No. 9449 (private wharf property)
   

• 90 Washington Street (Lyle Howland)
  License No. 9804 (private waterfront home with a dock)
  
  In each case, the right to build or maintain structures on the harbor is conditioned on allowing the public to walk along the waterfront.

 

Signage Is Not Optional

Several of these licenses go further, requiring that access be clearly identified.

• At 21 Commercial Wharf (License 9449), the owner is required to
“place and maintain… a public access sign at each property line.”

• At 90 Washington Street (License 9804), the requirement is similar:
public access signage must be installed on both sides of the pier.

These are not aesthetic details. They are part of the regulatory exchange that allows private structures to exist on public tidelands. Beyond access and signage, the licenses impose a third condition that is often overlooked but central to how Chapter 91 functions.
 

From standard license conditions:

Accessways may not be maintained in a way that would
“impede or discourage the free flow of pedestrian movement.”
 

This provision applies broadly, including to additional Old North Wharf licenses such as License No. 3290, which governs commercial docking and harbor use. The implication is clear. Public access must not only exist — it must be usable, visible, and not subtly restricted through design or presentation.

 

Not every waterfront license contains identical language. Some older licenses — such as Sherburne Associates (License No. 298) or Nautican Realty (License No. 6995) — are more limited in scope, focusing primarily on structural elements like piles or bulkheads.

​

But across the properties reviewed — including Old North Wharf, Commercial Wharf, and Washington Street parcels — the broader pattern is consistent:

Public access is not incidental. It is a required condition of private waterfront use.

 

Not Just GHYC

The Nantucket Current’s reporting focused on GHYC, particularly its obligation to provide fuel and other marine services. That issue remains unresolved. But the licenses reviewed here show that the same regulatory framework extends well beyond a single property.

 

Multiple named parcels — including those on Old North Wharf, Commercial Wharf, and Washington Street — carry enforceable obligations tied to public access and use.

 

This aligns with what local officials have already suggested. Former Harbormaster Dave Fronzuto stated that he believes “around half a dozen properties” may not be providing appropriate public access. The documents confirm that such obligations exist across the harbor.

 

The Gap Between Law and Reality

None of these licenses, on their own, prove that any specific property is currently out of compliance.  Signage, access points, and actual conditions determine that.

 

What the documents do establish is that public access is not optional. It is a condition of the license. And yet, in many parts of Nantucket Harbor, those accessways are not widely visible or clearly understood as public.

 

That disconnect — between what is required and what is experienced — is where the issue begins to take shape.

 

A System That Relies on Being Tested

The licenses contain enforcement mechanisms and can be revoked for noncompliance.  But enforcement is largely reactive. As described in the Current’s reporting, action is typically triggered only when a complaint is filed.

 

In practical terms, this creates a system where compliance is not actively verified. It is assumed — unless challenged.

 

The Real Question

The GHYC debate has focused on fuel. The documents suggest a more fundamental question.

 

If specific, named properties along Nantucket Harbor are required — by active state licenses — to provide public access, to mark that access clearly, and to avoid discouraging its use, then the issue is not confined to one property.

 

It is whether those conditions are being met, because if they are, the public should be able to see and use them. And if they are not, then the question is no longer about interpretation, it's about enforcement.