Chilmark voters will decide Monday whether to adopt a bylaw that regulates very large houses.
Ray Ewing

Big House Bylaw Set for a Vote at Chilmark Annual Town Meeting

<p>How to preserve the rural character of Chilmark while planning for the future: the question is expected to take center stage when voters consider a proposed bylaw to regulate house size at their annual town meeting Monday night.</p> <p>After a few years of annual town meetings that were quiet and largely routine, the Chilmark warrant is packed with weighty issues this year, including an $8.1 million operating budget, up nearly five per cent over last year, largely due to increased education costs.</p>

How to preserve the rural character of Chilmark while planning for the future: the question is expected to take center stage when voters consider a proposed bylaw to regulate house size at their annual town meeting Monday night.

After a few years of annual town meetings that were quiet and largely routine, the Chilmark warrant is packed with weighty issues this year, including an $8.1 million operating budget, up nearly five per cent over last year, largely due to increased education costs.

The meeting begins at 7:30 p.m. at the Chilmark Community Center. Moderator Everett Poole will preside over the session; there are 32 articles on the warrant.

If voters agree, Chilmark will be the only Island town to have a bylaw that directly addresses house size. The proposed big house bylaw marks the end of nearly a year and a half of work by the town planning board and a subcommittee made up of volunteers to develop new building guidelines. The public debate has been wide-ranging and at times emotional as town residents, builders and planners from across the Island contributed to the discussion of how best to tackle the issue of super-sized houses.

The proposed bylaw calls for creating a ratio of building size to land area, with a special permit required from the zoning board of appeals for new building projects over 3,500 square feet for a three-acre lot. Home size would be capped at 6,000 square feet per three-acre lot (the minimum zoning in Chilmark). Another 250 square feet per house per acre would be allowed. Substandard lots would also be regulated. Existing homes that exceed the threshold would be allowed a one-time exception to increase living area size by five per cent.

This is the second time a large house bylaw has come before voters; in 1991 the town turned down a bylaw to limit house size.

The proposed bylaw also contains new definitions for total living area and detached bedrooms. Total living area would be defined as all habitable space, excluding decks and basements, while a detached bedroom would he be limited to 400 square feet and may contain a bathroom, but no kitchen.

The two proposals are the last articles on the warrant; both require a two-thirds majority vote.

The planning board used town assessor data to come up with the threshold numbers. That data shows the average house in Chilmark is 2,300 square feet. There are a total of three million square feet in the town of Chilmark; very large houses (more than 6,000 square feet) make up about one per cent of that number.

Mr. Poole said this week he is expecting to receive a petition for a so-called Australian ballot for the proposed bylaw amendment, where voters cast their ballots on slips of paper that are collected by the constable and tallied by the town clerk.

Annual town meeting will consider money for repairs at Chilmark School.
Mark Lovewell
Annual town meeting will consider money for repairs at Chilmark School.
Mark Lovewell

Mr. Poole said it is his practice to allow Australian ballots, but a petition must be submitted no later than Friday, he said.

Lengthy debate is expected on the town meeting floor and Mr. Poole said he does not intend to limit it.

“I don’t believe in cutting anyone off,” the longtime moderator said. “Annual town meeting is the one chance every voter gets to have his say.”

Selectman and board chairman Jonathan Mayhew said his board has not made a decision about whether to speak about the bylaw on the town meeting floor, but Mr. Mayhew said he is “very much in favor” of it.

“For the most part I’m very happy with what they’ve done,” he said. “The planning board has done a great job.”

Planning board chairman Janet Weidner said whatever the outcome, the hard and thorough work of her committee is above reproach.

“I think we’ve come up with a good consensus . . . however it turns out, I’m pleased with what we did,” she said.

The town operating budget is up $360,000, largely due to school spending. Higher student enrollment in the up-Island regional school district and needed repairs to the drainage system at the Chilmark School are the principal added cost centers.

Total education costs budgeted for next year are $3 million, up nearly 10 per cent over last year. The town’s up-Island district assessment is $2.3 million, up $309,000 from last year. The high school assessment has decreased by $53,000. Included in the budget is $100,000 for Chilmark School repairs.

Voters will be asked to approve two debt exemption ballot questions at the annual town election on April 30. The Proposition 2 1/2 questions include $300,000 for the school assessment and $80,000 to go toward the repairs.

A transfer of $300,000 from the general stabilization fund is requested to pay for road resurfacing on Tabor House Road and North Road. If approved, $200,000 will be spent on paving Tabor House Road and $103,000 on North Road. The repaving is part of the town’s long-term resurfacing plan.

Voters will be asked to spend $31,000 for a new police cruiser to replace a vehicle that has over 150,000 miles on it. A corresponding question appears on the annual town election ballot. Other public safety articles include $39,000 from the general stabilization fund for the town’s share of a new ambulance at the Tri-Town Ambulance Service, $30,000 from free cash to the fire department stabilization fund to replace 25-year-old fire apparatus, and $18,000 to upgrade a breathing machine at the fire station.

Community Preservation Act spending articles include $8,600 to go toward preserving historic documents and artifacts at the Martha’s Vineyard Museum and $7,600 as the town’s share of a project to replace 26 windows at the county courthouse.

Town executive secretary Tim Carroll told the selectmen this week that the amount of certified free cash may be less than anticipated this year. The final number will not be available until Monday. If the amount, which is certified by the state department of revenue, is less than $97,000, Mr. Carroll said some spending articles will need to be withdrawn on the town meeting floor.

The annual town election is April 30. There are no contests on the ballot and three debt exemption questions for education costs, school repairs and a new police vehicle. Mr. Mayhew is running for re-election.

Comments

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 04/19/2013 - 12:04

Permalink

Caroline New York

If that were MY house the Gazette photographed aerially for this article to exemplify the "very large", I wouldn't be happy. Not happy at all. As a matter of fact, I'd demand it be taken down. It's an invasion of someone's privacy, not to mention a serious attempt to bait the readership to deem this house offensive.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 04/19/2013 - 13:25

Permalink

obporch ob

The photo was NOT altered. That's what it the house looks like. Some are embarrassed, some are envious and some say 'it's gawd awful.'

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 04/19/2013 - 16:02

Permalink

Janet Chilmark

Using a specific home built completely as-of-right to promote an agenda is irresponsible.

obporch ob

The house shown is an accurate representation what these types of houses look like. To show a little cottage would be misleading.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 04/19/2013 - 17:04

Permalink

Alec Chilmark

It is offensive, and exactly what the by-law should prevent from being built in Chilmark.

Ryan South Shore

Alec, what formal guidelines are you referring to when you deem this home 'offensive'? I can absolutely, 100% guarantee you that there is something about every single home in Chilmark and all of MV that somebody finds offensive. you know what's really offensive? a 12% unemployment rate in MV during most of the year compared to the 7.5% state rate. This is NOT offset by the 3.6% unemployment rate during the summer months. Not by a longshot. What would be fantastic for the community is if the two of the largest revenue generating and job creating industries on the island (construction and property taxes) doesn't get completely devastated over the unbelievably subjective topic of personal taste. You may want to keep the island looking as pristine and untouched as possible, back to the 'good old days', but last time I checked the cost of living will still be based on the year 2013 even if the look of the town is kept in the 1950s. Those of you living on the island year round, those of you on a fixed income on the island, those of you that are struggling with sustainable employment on the island. Basically those of you that don't want the loss of revenue that comes from these homes and future revenue lost from people that do not build on the island to be reflected in greatly increased property taxes rates better think twice about voting this in. Do some research and you'll see that this is exactly what will happen if this is passed and other towns follow suit.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 04/22/2013 - 07:02

Permalink

One of the many Vineyard Haven

As on of the hundred plus Vineyard persons who worked on the particular home during construction of it, I ask why do you wish myself and all the other skilled craftsmen involved to lose our income ? That project covers a much smaller percentage of its property than my 1200 square foot house on a 1/4 acre lot does.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 04/22/2013 - 10:14

Permalink

Jeannette albuquerque

i think we know what the right decision is. and if one's job depends on building houses that despoil world heritage sites, use thousands of times more energy than can sustainably be produced without drilling in the arctic or depriving the ogoni of their lands, one might could be thinking of another way to honor god with one's substance.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 04/22/2013 - 12:28

Permalink

Ben Edgartown

You all voted for Obama - just where in the world is our Emperor going to stay this summer if you exclude these large homes? He needs a lot of space to come up and practice class warfare.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 04/22/2013 - 14:56

Permalink

S.J. Chilmark

I live between two large inns in Menemsha, a large house blocked our ocean view years ago and more have been built in recent years. The damage has already been done......the Vineyard is becoming the Hamptons. We can slow it down, but we can't go back in time. Good luck!

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 04/22/2013 - 17:28

Permalink

Steve F. Cambridge and Chilmark

If Nantucket can have bylaws that limit the sizes of houses then certainly Chimark can. It's at least worth a civil and informed discussion.
From the "big picture", Right On! Jeanette.
Ben, Stick to the point.

Add new comment

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically.