Commission Denies Meeting House Way Subdivision, 10-4

Noah Asimow Friday, July 31 2020 - 6:41am

In a historic 10-4 decision the Martha’s Vineyard Commission voted Thursday night to deny the Meeting House Place subdivision.

In a historic 10-4 decision the Martha’s Vineyard Commission voted Thursday night to deny the Meeting House Way subdivision, formally rejecting the Island’s largest proposed development in decades and framing the occasion as a watershed moment for both the commission and the Vineyard.

“This has been, for me, just about the most difficult DRI I have had to work on,” said commission chairman Doug Sederholm after the vote was taken. “It is wrenching. And we have a tremendous responsibility.”

The vote concludes a protracted, nearly two-year review process for the proposed 54-acre, 29-lot Edgartown subdivision, which has gone through multiple redesigns.

Earlier in the week on Monday, a key commission subcommittee informally recommended turning down the most recent version of the project. Developers went ahead with the formal vote, making Thursday’s decision unsurprising but nonetheless momentous. The commission has seen few large development plans since the 1980s and 1990s when Thursday night meetings often ran long and late with one subdivision plan after another during a time when the Island was under extreme pressure for development.

In the roll call vote, commissioners Linda Sibley, Joan Malkin, Kathy Newman, Robert Doyle, Ernie Thomas, Jim Vercruysse, Fred Hancock, Christina Brown, Ben Robinson and Mr. Sederholm all voted to deny the project. Commissioners Clarence A. (Trip) Barnes 3rd, James Joyce, Richard Toole and Josh Goldstein voted in favor of the proposal.

The denial sets up a potential legal battle for the commission if the applicants, Utah-based developers Douglas K. Anderson and Richard G. Matthews, decide to appeal the decision in superior court.

Deliberations Thursday were penetrating and at times emotional as commissioners weighed the project’s benefits and detriments. In the end there was consensus that despite substantial improvements to the plan with respect to energy, nitrogen, affordable housing, density, home size and even layout, a more intangible issue tipped the balance.

“To me, it fails on character,” said longtime commissioner Linda Sibley. “It is anathema to the character of the Vineyard. And particularly to that area.”

The notion of character has been a theme throughout the project’s quartet of hearings, more than 50 letters of correspondence, and again during deliberations Thursday night, forcing the unique regional planning body to re-examine its own mission as set by an act of the state legislature in 1974.

At the outset Mr. Sederholm read from Chapter 831, the state enabling legislation that describes the commission’s chartered responsibility to preserve the unique natural, historical, ecological, scientific and cultural characteristics of Martha’s Vineyard.

Commissioners then spent the next hour and a half agonizing over the language in the context of the Meeting House Place development’s benefits and detriments. The first asks commissioners to determine whether the project is essential and appropriate.

“I would have a hard time saying that this development was essential, in any stretch of the imagination,” said commissioner Fred Hancock. “I think, what we are essentially looking at, is a development for millionaires, when we look at the numbers involved in this process. And I don’t think we want to mortgage our patrimony of the Island for that. I would say it is not essential or appropriate.”

Commissioner Joan Malkin went further.

“I don’t think there is any need for the kind of housing that is proposed,” Ms. Malkin said. “Not only do I think it is not essential, I think it is inappropriate.”

Ms. Sibley called the development “suburban” and an inappropriate use of the land. Ms. Malkin criticized the 3,800-square-foot maximum home size set by the developers. Ben Robinson noted that the homeowner’s association would require a two-car garage minimum. Ernie Thomas lamented the weak energy requirements. And Kathy Newman questioned whether the project’s proposed 14 deed-restricted, $400,000 town homes actually constituted affordable housing.

Commissioner and governor’s appointee Michael Kim said that despite creative ideas and well-meaning offers, the project missed the mark.

“It just seems like maybe the Red Sox payroll,” Mr. Kim said. “For that amount of money, we deserve better pitching. For the amount of money they have committed to invest, they could have easily made the case — and proven it — that they could have been part of the solution. But they missed.”

A vocal minority offered support for the project. Commissioners James Joyce and Trip Barnes countered the others on nearly every issue, praising the project’s ingenuity and benefit to the local economy. They said the project would constitute a significant property tax windfall for the Edgartown, and Mr. Joyce said the development would be a “bonanza” for the sewer commission.

“Nobody’s talking about the boom to the economy, a shot in the arm,” Mr. Barnes said. “Boy this could help people. If we could do something to put this thing through, we could be doing a bunch of working people a favor.”

Mr. Joyce criticized other commissioners for opposing the project when it closely followed the commission’s own guidelines — pushing the discussion beyond the details and reviving an age-old debate around the controversial role of the commission on the Island.

“I think what the group of you are really saying, is that you don’t want any more housing of any kind on this Island and you want to pull the drawbridge up right now,” Mr. Joyce said. “And that’s been going on since I came here 40 years ago.”

With some hesitation, commissioners Richard Toole and Josh Goldstein joined the no side of the vote. Mr. Goldstein said he felt the commission needed to seriously consider the ramifications and precedent of denying a project that closely followed the guidelines. Mr. Toole felt similarly, and said in prepared remarks that the vote posed an existential threat to the commission itself.

“I fear for the continued existence of the Martha’s Vineyard commission if we overreach, and continue to up the ante,” Mr. Toole said. “Are we saying no to new, creative development while blindly watching the existing buildable lots built upon and or expanded upon, affordable only to the wealthy? This is a character issue.”

Ms. Sibley agreed that it was a character issue. But she disagreed on everything else, arguing that it was not the commission that had moved the goal posts on the applicants, but a world — and Island — that had changed drastically over the past 40 years, in turn making the commission, and its original mandate of preserving the unique characteristics of the Vineyard, more important than ever. Her view carried the evening.

“I think it’s [unfair] to say that we’ve moved the goalposts,” Ms. Sibley said. “The analogy I prefer is that of a lifeboat. At some point, you add more people, and the boat sinks, and everything is gone. And I think that we are seeing that the character of the Vineyard is under even more threat than it was four decades ago when the commission was created. We are in danger of giving up. That’s it.”

Comments

Thank you, MVC. It is

Islander Edgartown

Thank you, MVC. It is extraordinary that 4 members supported this development, all of whom ought to be thrown off the board for being completely out of touch with the reality of what Martha’s Vineyard must remain. From Tripp Barnes apparently thinking in terms that are remarkably short-term, without foresight and a perspective of long-term growth, to Josh Goldstein, a business owner who regularly protects his own business as part of his decision making process in what amounts to self-dealing, to the other two who, quoted here, again sound like they can see exactly 10 weeks into the future rather than ten years or ten decades. Thank goodness for the adults in the room. We should all be glad that, for now, this is a dead duck. We’ll see about any court cases. In the meantime, vote these 4 representatives off the MVC. Enough with the people who no longer can see the forest for the trees, because they, too, will continue to destroy Martha’s Vineyard.

Well done MVC. This was an

JayEff Edgartown

Well done MVC. This was an important and necessary decision for Martha's Vineyard. MVC made the right call. Thanks.

Wrong call. Trashing land

Robert Oak bluffs

Wrong call. Trashing land rights and commission cannot follow any of its own rules hiding behind a BS character excuse. It is the commission and the NIMBYs who have no character. We need smart project such as this. Major missed opportunity by the commission to help shape our future.

Thanks Commissioners, and

island girl island

Thanks Commissioners, and thanks to those who understood (and understand) the the role of the MVC -- from the very beginning -- and the special nature of the legislation that established the Commission, its mission and role.. The regulatory structure of the Commission, the rules and their functioning along with the criteria which establish their framework and the playing field are all critical to conserving while fostering the well being of this special place. I appreciate your deliberations and look forward to being able to read more on the comments in full.
Now is the time to put some time, energy, lateral thinking and sensible creativity into developing an economy which is not based on exploitation of the very features of the island that we all profess to cherish.
Again, thanks to all, and perhaps one or two of the 4 "yes" votes may reconsider their opinions and join in with the 8 "no" votes, after they reflect upon the reasons and rationals expressed.

The MVC did move the

Kelce OB

The MVC did move the goalposts multiple times and never had the intention to approve this development. I hope the developers sue the MVC and win. The MVC never intended to offer the builders a seat in their lifeboat. Oh, and don't most MVC members live in million dollar homes?

We all want things, of course

WT resident

We all want things, of course. But normally, the limit on our desires is balanced by the costs of obtaining them.
.
At the MVC, that balance has been severed. The result is unusual to put it mildly.
.
Remember: almost everything we presumably want is attainable through normal action. Do we want $1m for affordable housing? Raise taxes. Do we want 15 units for first timers or the elderly? Raise taxes to build them. Do we want to preserve land? Buy it or take it through eminent domain; pay for it through taxes. We don’t do all of those things, of course, which is a function of the balance I described.
.
The problem here is that the MVC has begun to think of itself as being a proactive agent of change rather than a predictable limitation.
.
We see that the MVC talks here about what kind if development they “want”. But the MVC was NEVER supposed to do that. It was designed to avoid a few developments that were bad.
.
But over the decades, the MVC has changed from “do what you want, with a few MVC exceptions,” to “do what the MVC wants, with a few allowed exceptions”. For example there’s the official affordable contribution (selectively taxing new developers to pay for the wishes of all) but then there’s “what the MVC actually demands” which is far above the official line.
.
Even this would be OK, perhaps.... IF the MVC was bound by the normal balances I first described. But it isn’t. So it spends “other people’s time” and “other people’s money” like they’re going out of style.
.
I didn’t particularly care for this development. But so what? Last I checked I don’t need to like everything, and we should focus our regulations on the truly atrocious things.
.
It’s time to reform the MVC.

Thanks, MVC! It can not have

Sandy

Thanks, MVC! It can not have been easy, but this is the right decision! Good job trying to get something appropriate out of the developers! Hopefully going forward, the proposals before you will be more completely fleshed out and appropriate to the community. Thank you!

Really. After three years of

Mark Boston

Really. After three years of review with the builder the MVC couldn’t clarify what its mandate is and get the most out of the project? The MVC did a terrible job or managing this process. Embarrassing and atrocious. We deserve better from this MVC board and from the process. The MVC has gone way way off the mark and makes policy by decree. This is not right. This must be changed and at the very least change out all commissioners that can’t seem to follow their own mandate and instead follow their feelings. This commission has got to go. It certainly MUST be cleaned up and revamped or disbanded completely. Many many people would applaud a complete retooling of this god like attitude and of disbanding today Chapter 634. The island will he left behind instead of thinking forward. Zero growth is not the answer and arbitrary actions by the MVC certainly will not stand.

What has the MVC done for

T Bone Oak Bluffs

What has the MVC done for affordable housing? They're a joke.

Are you familiar with Are you

Islander Edgartown

Are you familiar with Are you familiar with Kuehn’s Way? Many housing units going in, They play a role in many developments, very carefully and with responsibility, many of them.

Thank you for saying it out

Jocelyn Croft Oak bluffs/Falmouth

Thank you for saying it out loud Mr. Hancock. Fred Hancock. “I think, what we are essentially looking at, is a development for millionaires.

The inclusion of the

Joe Buti Boston

The inclusion of the masterplan for this project, or a link to it, would have added to an understanding of just what this was all about...

We are long time owners of

Jun Boston

We are long time owners of real estate on the island. What the Commission did yesterday is just plan NIMBYism and isn’t right. In fact it is probably down right illegal if not unfair for sure.

While some other troubling

AM 02539

While some other troubling project will surely arise, I’m pleased that, for the moment, keeping the Island a bit less developed has won the day. Very good decision.

I suppose each of these

bs Oak Bluffs

I suppose each of these commissioners should be grateful they live in a house that wasn't denied by the MVC in the past. Most are not native islanders and I suspect many rented a house or two before moving here. Again, they were lucky those houses were available to rent and not denied by the MVC. They got their MV dream home, the heck with you sucker.

Thank you for making the

Morgan Muir Edgartown

Thank you for making the right decision. I wonder how many who voted against it are in the real estate business?

The MVC has done a good job

Fur Baby OB

The MVC has done a good job protecting the character of this island. Let’s not allow it to become Miami Beach. You go MVC! Once in awhile it takes 45 minutes to enter Edgartown. We don’t want that full time :(.

Thank you MVC. All those non

Vasha Brunelle VH

Thank you MVC. All those non-humans living in that habitat, well, they matter too.

Thank you MV Commission for

Right Whale H

Thank you MV Commission for preserving the character of our island and protecting our natural resources. Nice work.

Thanks MVC for carrying out

Hochkiss Lane Katama

Thanks MVC for carrying out the responsibilities delineated in your Charter, after all isn't that the purpose of the Commission?

What should trigger an Island

T E Hopkins Oak Bluffs, Ma.

What should trigger an Island-wide review? Be a part of the decision making process.

Development of Regional Impact Checklist - Version 14 - Public Hearing Scheduled
The latest draft of the proposed DRI Checklist will be coming before the Commission for a Public Hearing on August 13, 2020, at 7:05 p.m.

As stated on the MVC website:
"The DRI Checklist is a document outlining the standards and criteria specifying the types of development which, because of their magnitude or the magnitude of their effect on the surrounding environment, are likely to present development issues significant to more than one municipality of the island of Martha's Vineyard, and therefore are considered to potentially be Developments of Regional Impact. The Checklist is required to be updated every two years by State mandate. The DRI Checklist Revision Committee has been meeting frequently to evaluate the current checklist and propose modifications."

These recommended changes highlight a concerning trend. The Oak Bluffs Planning Board will discuss this at their Thursday August 6th. meeting.

Shame on the MVC. What have

Michael Frick Hotchkiss Lane

Shame on the MVC. What have you people done to affect affordable housing EVER ? What have you done to protect the pond ?
This developer went out of their way to lower the nitrogen levels below 100KGs and did so, and one member asked "How do we get it to zero ?". I ask how was this fool even made a member as anyone knows getting to zero is impossible ?
You had Hotchkiss and other areas already developed that would now have access to the sewer lines and thus off septic to further lower the nitrogen levels, but the MVC board did not see the benefit to that ? Are you all blind ?
And a developement for millionaires ? Please show me an area close to this one where a 3 BR home would not list for at or over $1 Million ? You can't !
I hope the developer sues you, and I along with others will support them.
MVC has failed in their duties to protect the island thru taking more homes off septic and onto sewer as well as making this personal, not being able to put their bias aside.

Shame on the MVC. You are fools.

THANK YOU, MVC. Approving

ON THE POND WT

THANK YOU, MVC. Approving this project would have made an already unsustainable model on the Vineyard even more impossible. As someone only slightly in the know, the amount of business and micro-development in the pipeline presently is staggering for this magnificent place. Historic hotels and historic residential properties are changing hands at breakneck speed and the more capital behind each of these transactions hastens their development approvals. MVC, please keep a close eye on MV and these transactions. There are major master plans in the works that you will see unfold one phase at a time. FIght every last one of them in court if you have to.

Wait till a federal judge

Island guy Edgartown

Wait till a federal judge reviews how the MVC conducts business. Turning down proposals without any real guidelines is a sure way to loose a case in federal court.