The broad powers of the Martha’s Vineyard Commission and the character of the Island will be on trial in superior court next month.
The broad powers of the Martha’s Vineyard Commission and the character of the Island will be on trial in Dukes County superior court next month, nearly two years after the regional planning agency voted 10-4 to deny a proposed subdivision in Edgartown known as Meeting House Place.
Finding the project’s detriments outweighed its benefits, the commission decision in July 2020 ended a lengthy review during which the plan — the largest proposed development on the Island in decades — underwent several revisions.
Salt Lake City, Utah-based developers Douglas K. Anderson and Richard G. Matthews appealed the decision in superior court in September 2020, claiming the denial was arbitrary and alleging that the commission exceeded its legal authority and in some cases its own guidelines in turning it down.
With the case scheduled to go to trial June 21, Boston trial attorney and Edgartown resident Edward (Terry) Dangel, representing the developers, has already filed hundreds of pages of expert testimony and lined up witnesses, including architect Patrick Ahearn and former MVC commissioner James Joyce, an Edgartown real estate broker, to challenge the decision from multiple angles. The commission’s planned witnesses include John Abrams, founder of South Mountain Co., and real estate broker Candace daRosa.
Both parties agreed to have the case heard without a jury by the Hon. Paul D. Wilson, an associate justice of the superior court who normally sits in Boston. The commission is represented by Joanna Schneider, a partner in the Boston law firm of Hemenway & Barnes. A joint pretrial memorandum suggests that the trial could last five days.
Utah developer Douglas Anderson.
Utah developer Douglas Anderson.
The lawsuit is the first major court challenge in decades to the commission’s broad authority to regulate development on the Island, and testimony at trial is expected to test the limits of its discretion. Created in 1974 by a special act of the legislature, the first-of-its kind 21-member commission was handed a sweeping mandate: “(T)o protect the health, safety and general welfare of Island residents and visitors by preserving and conserving for the enjoyment of present and future generations the unique natural, historical, ecological, scientific and cultural values of Martha’s Vineyard which contribute to public enjoyment, inspiration and scientific study by protecting these values from development and uses which would impair them, and by promoting the enhancement of sound local economies.”
Over the years, the commission has developed procedures and criteria, including public hearings and written testimony, for reviewing developments of regional impact (DRIs), of which the Meeting House Way project was one.
The project came before the commission in 2018, a year after Mr. Anderson and Mr. Matthews, doing business as Meeting House Way LLC, bought five lots totalling 54.26 acres between Meeting House Way and Meshacket road in Edgartown for $6.6 million.
Originally, the developers hoped to build 36 market rate homes on the property, but the plan was revised several times during its two-year review by the commission.
The final version called for 28 single family homes with up to 4,200 square feet of living area on lots between a half-acre and an acre in size, and a cluster of 14 below-market-rate townhomes of between 800 and 1,100 square feet on a 29th 1.4-acre lot. Developers agreed to protect 21.9 acres of the 25.2 acres identified by state scientists as priority habitat for the imperial moth. An additional 9.2 acres of open space would have been held in common by a homeowners’ association.
The developers also offered to make a $1.1 million contribution to the Edgartown affordable housing committee, plus an additional $220,000 on the future sale of lots.
Civil engineer Doug Hoehn is on the witness list for plaintiffs in the case.
Civil engineer Doug Hoehn is on the witness list for plaintiffs in the case.
In its written decision denying the project, the commission said that while the project satisfied “in some form” many of the MVC’s guidelines, “it did not provide sufficient benefits to outweigh the overwhelming detriment to the rural, natural character of the area, and the Vineyard as a whole.”
The commission identified a variety of negative impacts to the environment and new burdens on the Island infrastructure, but the focus of its denial, both in comments made by commissioners and in its written decision, was on its overall lack of appropriateness for the Island.
“In sum,” the decision reads, “the commission finds that the development would commit significant acreage toward luxury homes in a suburban setting, which would not be a prudent use of the Island’s dwindling supply of remaining developable land.”
In court filings, the developers claim the decision by the commission was arbitrary and capricious, offering expert testimony to dispute various conclusions cited by the commission.
In a written opinion, for example, Slater W. Anderson, managing director of real estate for LandVest, stated that homes of about 3,800 square feet are common and desirable in the area, and that the MVC’s staff analysis did not accurately reflect recent market trends and buyer preferences.
City planner Roberta Cameron offered an analysis to show that the proposed development would generate substantially more tax revenue than it would cost in municipal services.
And environmental scientist Andrew Glucksman concluded that the project would not have a detrimental effect on open space and the environment relative to other development alternatives.
But court documents filed by both parties suggest that the question of whether the project is appropriate to the character of the Island will loom large over the trial.
In a pretrial motion, attorneys for the developer sought to exclude testimony from the commission’s witness, Mr. Abrams, that said the project did not fit with the Island character, noting that their own witness, Mr. Ahearn, had indicated that there is no single Island character.
A separate pretrial motion, filed by attorneys for the commission, sought to exclude testimony that purported to show that the commission had a bias against people from off-Island.
Following a hearing, Judge Wilson denied both motions.
Comments
I support the decision of the
Shawn Taylor Oak BluffsI support the decision of the MVC. We need more affordable housing, not more luxury homes. Enough is enough!
Amen! Building affordable
Laura EdgartownAmen! Building affordable housing that wouldn't overtax the septic and ecological systems would provide jobs, too.
The more affordable units
Mike SomewhereThe more affordable units built will only increase the amount of sewage generated.
They have 50+ acres. Hold the developer to 3 acre minimums and not to exceed 15 lots with homes. A cluster of 14 affordable units is a sewage problem.
The MVC far too often doesn't
rational person Oak BluffsThe MVC far too often doesn't take into consideration the part of their enabling legislation that states " promoting the enhancement of sound local economies.” This project would have provided jobs for islanders as well as affordable housing and provided open space. The MVC over reach in this case just might jeopardize the affordable housing and open space components of the development. How often do we hear the cry of how are our kids going to be able to stay on island as they mature, well perhaps by being plumbers , electricians, property managers etc for these new developments. Providing new income streams for islanders is the best way to make housing for them affordable.
My compliments to the author.
George Stein OBMy compliments to the author. Quite a range of issues to bring together. The original draft must have been quite longer. It is about time court proceedings directed at this group sort out the impediment to progress this group seems to pride itself in.
I hope, really hope, the MVC
Will EdgI hope, really hope, the MVC be looses this case.
Even the MVC, or any engineer
Mark Acker VHEven the MVC, or any engineer, does not understand the complex and arbitrary nitrogen determining regulations formulated by the MVCs non expert staff members. If you want to regulate growth, there has to be uniform and scientific based regulations. I hope the Judge rules on this.
This is why the MVC exists.
David Nash EdgartownThis is why the MVC exists. Let's hope they prevail. Anyone who thinks this project is needed on any level other than to make the developers and their attorneys wealthy is being unrealistic.
What’s wrong with developers
Tom EdgartownWhat’s wrong with developers and lawyers making money? This project brings jobs to the Island
Construction comes to mind….
What is wrong with "making
Katherine Scott TisburyWhat is wrong with "making developers wealthy"?
I'll tell you what is wrong with that: Martha's vineyard is not a cash cow for developers.@@
The most important phrase in the MVC enabling legislation is "protecting the character of the Island.@@
Patrick Ahearn and a Utah developer both custom-tailor the idea of Island character to fit their money-making agendas.@@
Island character is what was there before the developers and high-end architects show up to extract the goose's golden eggs, not afterwards (mixed metaphor intentional.
"This project brings jobs to
Peter Edgartown"This project brings jobs to the Island Construction" Really? Take a look a the crowd waiting to board the ferry in Woods Hole at 7:00 every morning. These days the construction crews are by and large all from off island.;
Tine for someone to Finally
IcarusOB Oak BluffsTine for someone to Finally take the MVC to the woodshed!!!
the original legislation was to have the be a Planning commission NOT a regulatory thug group. Time for a change!
Several points:
JayEff EdgartownSeveral points:
(1) Both sides agreed that any off-island bias shouldn't be considered. True from a legal point, but horrible from an island land-use-management view. These are typical developers who come to the island with a chance to make a buck, then leave with a pocket full of money. The MVC has the bad-guy role trying to make sure that our land isn't devastated by profiteers.
(2) Jobs for island tradespeople: Not so fast. Off-island construction crews are more than common.
(3) Do we need more building on MV? We can't handle the load now. Summer traffic is horrible. And the crush of resource demand, power, water, sewerage, etc is heavy -- and maybe unsustainable.
(4) the environmental impact is huge. Start with animal life that is being squeezed from their habitats. Then add the very considerable effect to aquifers and more. All for someone to make an "investment".
Years ago a similar land-use effort was in front of the MVC. A firm (Wallace) tried to build 54 houses at Herring Creek. After resistance, they cut the number of houses to 30 something -- all with an experimental septic system. The MVC said no, and the courts agreed. Let's hope the courts agree this time.
Make that aquifer, singular.
Marie Laursen TisburyMake that aquifer, singular. One water source for the whole island. Why must we keep catering to the second and third homeowners when we can’t house the people who are already here year round. They are being priced out of the market.
I support the MVC on this one.
Because they pay taxes too,
Chris Oak BluffsBecause they pay taxes too, and utilize a lot less resources.
Well put.
Katherine Scott TisburyWell put.
Re "Both sides agreed that any off-island bias shouldn't be considered"--this is bonkers.
Of course Island bias should be considered. And that is the whole point of the MVC.
Agreeing" to this would seem to be tantamount to negating the point of the MVC and neutralize the legislations via "lawfare."@@
I would love to know when was the first time this Utah-based developer even heard of Martha's Vineyard.
Maybe when the Clintons came here? Or, later, the Obamas? @@
This fellow has zero entitlement to come here to profit bigly from the natural and aesthetic resource represented by the Island that was not created by him and that his development will degrade. And to attack and break the back of our special legislation so that he can get his way. That says it all right there.
I echo David's comments. The
NR EdgartownI echo David's comments. The MVC is right. The character of the island must be preserved and not overdeveloped.
The MVC isn't perfect however
Amy EdgartownThe MVC isn't perfect however their intentions are to uphold the character of the island and protect the fragile, irreplaceable natural habitat that exists here. Who would argue that this is of utmost importance!? The intentions of a high powered lawyer with a summer home on a desirable Edgartown street and real estate developers from the mid west are driven soley by financial gain. Hopeful that the MVC remains intact as Marthas Vineyard needs all the help she can get
Everyone complains about
James EdgartownEveryone complains about affordable housing, then no new housing gets approved and people wonder why housing costs keep skyrocketing! Classic NIMBY and Vineyardism. Newsflash: All new development starts out as "luxury." More housing supply lowers overall housing costs no matter what level is built - There have been many case studies on this. People will move from mid tier housing to better available housing which opens up housing for others, its basic math.
Really? We have way more
TisKid VHReally? We have way more houses on this island than there used to be, yet housing costs have skyrocketed. I'm not so sure it's as simple as you say at all. The MVC doesn't owe Utah developers the right to further suburbanize the island, so they can get rich. I didn't go to his nice Utah town and build something totally out of character and I bet if I did there'd be push back. As there should be.
Do you really think limiting
James EdgartownDo you really think limiting house building is going to ease the cost of housing? House building on the island hasn’t nearly kept up with population growth. If only native islanders could build here, nothing would get built, especially with the outrageous unnecessary red tape involved on this island these days.
It amuses me to read that Mr
Kathryn Muir EdgartownIt amuses me to read that Mr Ahearn indicated that there is no single Island character when it appears he can only design one style of home in various puffy sizes. The developers should keep in mind the substantial farm next to the proposed development. A real farm with large compost piles,heavy equipment and all those smells and noises attached to it. This proposed development has no connection whatsoever to the island character . As we have seen in the past , à developers idea of affordable housing is not really affordable to most people. Please stop this from happening.
The MVC has lost its way.
Bob EdgartownThe MVC has lost its way. They want to control every aspect of new building on the island and consider everything regional. This was not a regional issue to begin with and could’ve been handled by Edgartown. Everyone wants affordable housing and this project was going to do more in that regard than anything else that has come across recently. This pure and simple is class warfare against vacation homes verse low income homes. Just so I understand every home being built on this island after I got here is too many. Do I have this right? Oh except for low income homes as they do not damage the environment.
Perhaps its time for
suggestion edgPerhaps its time for Edgartown to pull out of the MVC. I have full confidence in the local boards to know whats best for our town. This project would have been a plus for the town. Interestingly the loudest cries against it are the abutters crammed in on 1/2 acre lots in a development. They 'have theirs''already so... typical here.
MV is already overdeveloped
Mark EdgartownMV is already overdeveloped and our infrastructure can barley handle the current load. Fully support the MVC in this case.
Please, please, do not build
Lorraine EdgartownPlease, please, do not build this. This is NOT affordable housing. We do not need this. I cannot fathom why this is even being considered. As a multi decade Edgartown resident, I am already crowded out with vehicles that preclude me from riding my bike on errands, as I used to do. I used to get my mail at the Post Office, stop at the market, with my saddlebags on my bike, and not even get in a vehicle all summer. It is now dangerous to ride a bicycle around the island in the summer; please do not dump more traffic into the area.
I do wonder what the island
RC OBI do wonder what the island would be today if the MVC was around in 1866?
The island has retained its
Carl Erickson VHThe island has retained its character in large part due to the efforts of the MVC. The argument that this project creates jobs just doesn't hold up, it would be a labor force of mostly off-island workers, and these jobs would only last a year or two, when the project is finished so are the jobs, and now we are all left with a development that just further burdens our infrastructure and local environment. Thank you MVC, being critical of developments like this is exactly why the island needs you.
Add new comment