Home is situated in area still known as Institute Hill.
Ray Ewing

MVC Allows Demolition of Old House in East Chop Highlands

The Martha’s Vineyard Commission cleared the way late last week for the demolition of a historic house overlooking East Chop Drive, unanimously approving the plan to raze 19 Mill Square Road.

The Martha’s Vineyard Commission cleared the way late last week for the demolition of a historic house overlooking East Chop Drive, unanimously approving the plan to raze 19 Mill Square Road and replace it with a new home. The vote sparked more ongoing discussion among commissioners about their own role in reviewing old house teardowns, as demolitions continue to proliferate on the Vineyard, some of them historic buildings.

Dating to 1898, the home on Mill Square Road in the highlands section of Oak Bluffs is listed in MACRIS, the state historic building database. The area where the home is located is still known locally as Institute Hill, formerly the site of a summer institute. Owners Christopher and Abby Sage plan to demolish the house and construct a larger, year-round, four-bedroom, three-and-a-half story home in its place.

A public hearing on the plan opened earlier this summer. Before voting Thursday, commissioners praised the homeowners and their architect Travis Blake for returning with design changes that will make the house more closely resemble the original, including with a new roof pitch and gables. “I compliment and applaud them,” said commissioner Doug Sederholm, who led the land use planning subcommittee post-public hearing review on the project.

Commissioner Fred Hancock agreed, remarking later in the meeting on the benefit of having reopened the written record to allow for further exchange between the applicant and the commission.

“The decision to reopen the written record and allow them to come up with revisions was really really productive ... it’s something we need to keep in mind for the future,” Mr. Hancock said.

The LUPC voted to recommend approval of the demolition with conditions.

On Thursday the commission voted 12-0 to concur. There was little dissent about the project, but during deliberations discussion strayed frequently to broader questions about the standards for reviewing historic home demolitions as developments of regional impact (DRIs). Under MVC rules, demolition requests for buildings that are more than 100 years old are automatically referred to the commission for review.

“At what point is there a threshold at which you have to allow a historic structure to come down,” mused commissioner Ben Robinson. “What is the threshold at which you want to save a historic building . . . on the Island there has been a lenient attitude by zoning boards,” he also said.

“I think we ought to have a separate discussion about demolitions,” longtime commissioner Linda Sibley said. She noted that when the commission enabling act was written more than 40 years ago, the framers could not have contemplated the changes the Island has seen since.

Commission chairman Joan Malkin agreed separate discussion could be in order, but she called for some clear parameters.

“I’m not going to open the door and say let’s talk about demolitions,” Ms. Malkin said. “It’s much more productive if people have specific things that they think should be discussed within the context of demolitions . . . you guys have to come up with some framework, questions, thoughts, ideas.”

The roll call vote on the Mill Square house demolition was as follows: Voting in favor were Jeffrey Agnoli, Trip Barnes, Christina Brown, Fred Hancock, Kathy Newman, Ben Robinson, Doug Sederholm, Linda Sibley, Ernie Thomas, Christine Todd, Jim Vercruysse, Joan Malkin. Commissioners Jay Grossman and Ben Robinson abstained. Commissioners Josh Goldstein and Michael Kim attended the meeting but were ineligible to vote.

In other business Thursday, the commission grappled at length with ways to better streamline its own process when weighing the benefits and detriments of development projects. A subcommittee led by Jim Vercruysse has developed some possible procedural changes.

Discussion ranged broadly and was heated at times, with the commission ultimately agreeing to tweak the subcommittee proposal and continue the discussion.

The commission concluded the meeting by voting to go into executive session to discuss unspecified pending litigation.

Comments

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 10/04/2021 - 18:04

Permalink

s.s. North Tisbury

Ok, now I am angry!! One MUST ask at this point whose palm is getting greased? This is insane, why not just knock every piece of history down!! what are these people thinking. The character of the island is for sale. Has anyone seen the abomination being built on Old Courthouse Rd.? Probably not but a 100 year old fabulous building was demolished to make way for for tract housing. Why not just do that to the whole island. NO more sympathy, no more respect for anyone that knocks a vintage home down!!

windywood Los Angeles, California

My husband and I would do annual autumn visits to "The Vineyard"...(went there on our Honeymoon of '79 yes that is a long time ago) however even then the Island was anxious about changes that might be occurring...and why i don't understand the Island was beautiful then and it all worked for the locals and visitors then leave it please the way the "Vineyward was always meant to be"...Classicly ihistorically beautifully...don't mess with success....from a very fond memories annual visitor of the '70's and 80's 90's....thank u for your time...Elizabeth S.

Burgo de Barra off Nantucket

… yes. Each house is part of a bigger picture, the island whole. As the fabric is degraded with the destruction of old houses one by one, the island tips towards a characterless holiday island and the chain of built continuity, stretching into the past is broken. Perhaps that is the idea.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 10/04/2021 - 18:11

Permalink

JG RI

Shame on the Commission for setting a course down this slippery slope, that is leading to the Disneyfication of the Vineyard. These precedents will be hard to undo, and once history is destroyed it cannot be recreated with similar roof pitches, and gables, tacked on a house twice the size of what was torn down. If people want huge, fake, “historical” houses there are towns that cater to their whims in Florida. Why ruin the essence of what makes the Vineyard unique? Shame on the Commission for allowing these demolitions.

JG RI

That is not what I was saying. I was saying, why ruin the Vineyard with these tear downs, when whole towns of modern “vintage” houses exist in Florida and other places. Destroying historic structures with modern copies was the reason for my Disney comment. History happens, Disney is a fake.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 10/04/2021 - 18:45

Permalink

Larry Vaughn Oak Bluffs

The Karen generation is at it’s peak; outrage over everything. Who cares, it’s not your house or your island. Deal with it.

Adrienne Ma.

COMMUNITY: A feeling of fellowship with others, as a result of sharing common attitudes, interests, and goals.

LINK: How Preservation Supports Your Community | SHPO

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 10/04/2021 - 18:54

Permalink

BCS Oak Bluffs

I remember Mark London and I having a discussion about what's going to happen in 30 or 40 years when someone wants to tear down an "historic" 3 bedroom ranch that'll be over 100 yrs old then with no character at all. Boy, the MVC will be busy then!

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 10/04/2021 - 19:03

Permalink

Lida Elliott Finlayson Charleston, SC

Dear commission and board of Martha’s Vineyard. I implore you to come and see Charleston South Carolina! See what has happened here with our historic buildings. Many of our historical homes have been saved; we give guided tours of them with state and city protection. They give the history of our city, our culture, to the whole world to see. These homes are special to our history and we preserve them as a valued part of our heritage and history. Please do not go down this road of tearing down old homes! It’s tearing down the heart f the history of MV. I beg you to please not allow this!
Years ago when I left the Island, I remember feeling a great sense of pride and faith that those who were in power and in the government would reserve the islands history. No big box stores, no Starbucks, no McDonald’s.
There are many obnoxious homes and humongous homes on the island that will never, ever replace it’s history they will just erase it.
It’s embarrassing. I have come to the Vineyard every summer for many years and I only see disgustingly huge and gross homes which have no business at all being called homes! Just shallow show places. Really, some people need to grow up! Who cares if you have Learjet‘s and huge mansions but have NO respect for the Island’s or for helping your year-round supporting community of workers!?
I have lived in Charleston,SC for 30 years.
I was born on Martha’s Vineyard and probably most likely know this house that you’re going to tear down very well. It is probably part of my family’s heritage. (The Osborn wharf! etc.).
The point is, PLEASE come to Charleston and see what our Council’s have done to this beautiful historic city! THERE ARE MANY DARK THINGS GOING IN HERE TOO…
Now, it Is overrun by “developers”. The infrastructure is way behind everything that is being built. Historic sights have been bull-dozed and replaced!
I never thought that MV would ever allow this to happen to its Island; in a million years! Wow!
I always tell people how proud I am of the Island governing board that they would never tear down historic buildings, on the Vineyard??!
I was proud of its’ heritage.
It seems things have changed since I have been there.
What a crying shame. You should be ashamed! Ashamed!
My husband and I lived in New York City and worked in the music business with many of best studios for music in the 70’s; including the Hit Factory, were John Lennon and many other famous musicians recorded. It’s iconic! It’s our cities history. NY is still keeping its history alive!
I was so shocked and appalled by what they have done to Charleston South Carolina. Please I beg you do not tear down these old historical beautiful homes. To what end!
Is the Island now a millionaires playground “island” where every thing is like a new movie set in their imaginations!?

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 10/04/2021 - 19:08

Permalink

gina Menemsha / NYC

OK so new owners want NEW .. & some have better taste than others can't control that. but @ the very least the MVC can control the new Buildout to original sq footage/footprint. so an old 2800 sq ft house will still have to be 2800 not 3800 sq ft. after all the land doesn't increase in size .. .

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 10/04/2021 - 19:20

Permalink

JC VH

There definitely should be an ongoing, significant, property assessment surcharge on the replacement building when a historic structure is demolished unnecessarily.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 10/04/2021 - 19:56

Permalink

John Gault Oak Bluffs

Being old does not make it historical or valuable enough to restore. It’s truly amazing that people can try and dictate to those who have worked and saved to purchase properly are made out to be evil when they help the community by improving it.

Carol formerly Chilmark

Read the article, @JohnGault. They could have bought a house somewhere else; this one was listed in the historical database and that would have been disclosed to them in the sale - they did not have to buy THIS house to tear down. And it is definitely NOT an improvement, and the surrounding community absolutely does have every right to weigh in on what may or may not be built there. Almost every community does that - it's why building permits are required, zoning and community preservation laws exist.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 10/04/2021 - 20:28

Permalink

here we go again edg

just because something is 'old' doesn't make it 'historic' or worthy of preservation. As the calender goes by, eventually every old house will be subject to the mvc.

JG RI

Please see the above replies to John Gault’s comment. The state apparently thought that it was historic enough to add it to their database of historic structures.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 10/04/2021 - 21:14

Permalink

M

Why.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 10/04/2021 - 23:11

Permalink

Colleen Kydd-Sumberg CT

Down comes an historic home and up goes a "McMansion". This is truly a sad commentary on what the Commission deems as important. What a sellout of the Vineyard! Shame on you!

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 10/05/2021 - 07:36

Permalink

osuzna shelburne, vt (vineyarder in spirit)

Many of these historic homes were built very close together, as appears the case here — increasing to 3-1/2 stories will likely affect neighbors' views. And what about the demolition noise and dust (potentially hazardous, in older homes), and construction noise that will likely go on for many months? I'm curious if that is factored in.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 10/05/2021 - 12:21

Permalink

Nancy Oak Bluffs and Haydenville

Building a house that is much larger and completely out of character for the neighborhood is shameful! This was done on John Wesley Ave. Why was this allowed as I am sure that it is a designated historical area?

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 10/05/2021 - 16:24

Permalink

Mack and the boys West Tisbury

These new buyers have the right to rebuild but since it's a historic house they should at least have to keep it the same size. I also hope the new place doesn't block someone's view - that would be really sad.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 10/06/2021 - 06:59

Permalink

Carol formerly Chilmark

This really does show that the MVC is useless - this is exactly the sort of thing that the Commission was created to rein in in order to preserve the character of the Vineyard. MVC members should all resign & be replaced with people who actually understand & care about the mission. Shame.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 10/08/2021 - 11:43

Permalink

Doug Oak Bluffs

No pix of the proposed replacement dwelling? You're only telling 1/2 of the story !

Add new comment

Plain text

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