Pennywise Path Vote Next Week

Informally, Commissioners Seem Inclined to Okay Housing Plan, but Voice Doubts on Access; Other Issues Linger

By JULIA WELLS
Gazette Senior Writer

Early road signs now point to possible approval for the Pennywise Path affordable housing project in Edgartown, but members of a key Martha's Vineyard Commission subcommittee said this week that access and impact on the neighborhood are stubborn trouble spots in the plan.

"This is not a perfect plan, but I don't think it has any fatal flaws - my only concern is the impact on 12th street [the planned access road]," said commission member Richard Toole.

"We are really, really burdening 12th street with this - although I think we can fairly condition it and I don't think it will kill the project," said commission member Douglas Sederholm.

"Access is a major concern I have," agreed commission member Linda Sibley.

The comments came during a meeting of the land use planning subcommittee Monday night as deliberations began on the housing project, first of its kind for the town of Edgartown.

The town wants to build a 60-unit government-subsidized rental housing complex on 12 acres in the outskirts of what is known as the Ocean Heights section of Edgartown. The property abuts the 118-acre Pennywise Path Preserve, a Martha's Vineyard Land Bank property that the town took in an eminent domain purchase five years ago. At the time of the taking, some 57 acres were set aside for future municipal use. The town now has an agreement with The Community Builders, Inc., to build and manage the 60-unit housing project. The largest nonprofit urban housing developer in the country, Community Builders is based in Boston. The project is planned as a mix of low and moderate income rental apartments.

Filed under Chapter 40B, a state law that governs low and moderate income housing projects, the project is under review by the commission as a development of regional impact (DRI).

A public hearing on the plan was closed two weeks ago.

The full commission is expected to vote on the project at its regular meeting next Thursday night. Another land use subcommittee meeting is set for Monday, when the commission is expected to develop a list of possible conditions for approval.

On Monday night commission members put the spotlight on parts of the plan they felt were weak or required more clarity - and the access road quickly emerged as a central point of discussion.

Project developers had originally planned to offer two access roads - one through 12th street from the Edgartown Vineyard Haven Road, and a second access through Metcalf Drive, a road that comes in from the West Tisbury Road and runs alongside the Vineyard Golf Club.

But the developers ran into problems with the second access because it would require removing a conservation restriction from a portion of the golf club property. Removing a conservation restriction is a complicated business that requires an act of the state legislature, among other things.

In the end the project developers said they could not wait for the second access, and the project is now planned using only one access road - via 12th street.

At the outset on Monday commission members asked for absolute clarity on the subject.

"What are the facts here, it's very confusing," said commission member Megan Ottens-Sargent.

Mrs. Sibley chaired the meeting with a firm hand, guiding commission members back on track when the discussion went astray. At one point she criticized the design of the modular apartment complex. The developers said the project will follow a traditional New England design, but Mrs. Sibley said in her eyes the design falls flat.

"It's frankly not my impression that these look like Martha's Vineyard structures - they may look like New England compared to Virginia or California, but they don't really look like Martha's Vineyard," she said.

Mrs. Sibley asked if the design is somehow dictated by the modular construction. "How much does the modular concept drive style? " she asked.

"Modular has nothing to do with it - you're asking me about redesigning the project," replied Community Builders spokesman Charles Eisenberg.

The property planned for development includes a small frost bottom, an environmentally sensitive area which harbors rare plants and animals.

Emergency access was a subject for discussion.

The Edgartown fire chief has recommended that the site have two access roads so that fire engines would not have to negotiate the heavily congested area around the Triangle in the summer months.

On Monday commission member Linda DeWitt picked up the theme.

"We have made such progress on this Island in the delivery of emergency services in the last ten years, and we should make this the best plan with all these emergency issues in mind," Ms. DeWitt said.

Critics of the project have questioned the scale and also the plan to build all rental units instead of a mix of rental and permanent residences.

"This is a great project, it's just too big," wrote Steve Ewing, a resident of 16th street who is also a member of the town conservation commission and a former member of the MVC.

Mr. Ewing also wrote:

"First and foremost, scale the plan back. Don't gamble so heavily with the quality of life in existing affordable housing, i.e. Ocean Heights and Arbutus Park, just to do more. Do 30 units. Try them for two years. Do 30 more. Or not . . . . Don't put it in a place that destroys an established neighborhood and pits the same working families you're trying to assist against each other."

The developers have said that if the commission votes to scale back the number of units or adopt other onerous conditions, it will kill the project.

But the project also drew darts from a West Tisbury resident and longtime Vineyard affordable housing activist. In a letter to the commission, Juleann VanBelle said the project could benefit from some creative planning, and she too criticized the plan to build only rental units.

"I am saddened that it seems to be the position that the only way to move ahead is for the project to be ‘this way' and no other options can be considered," Ms. VanBelle wrote.

On Monday Mrs. Sibley went around the table to get an early consensus from the members of the subcommittee.

Commission members who attended the meeting expressed a general desire to approve the project - with an array of reservations.

More than one member said the letter from Ms. VanBelle gave them pause.

"I feel we owe some response to Juleann's letter. This is such an extreme position to take at such a late time," said Ms. DeWitt.

Commission chairman James Athearn agreed.

"I had difficulty trying to understand how seriously to take Juleann's concerns," Mr. Athearn said. Later in the meeting Mr. Athearn, who said he had not completely made up his mind yet about the project, gave a glimpse of his own thought process as he began to weigh the benefits and detriments.

"There is the option that if there could be a better plan, that we could turn it down and it doesn't kill it it, it only postpones it," he began.

"But I don't really want to be put in a position of doing that because so much work has gone into the project," he said.