MVC unanimously rejects Edgartown Gardens
**Martha’s Vineyard Commission Unanimously Rejects Controversial Downtown Edgartown Housing Project**
In a rare unanimous vote, the Martha’s Vineyard Commission (MVC) rejected a nearly 60-unit senior housing development proposed for downtown Edgartown near the triangle. After nearly four hours of deliberation on Thursday evening, the commission determined that the detriments of the controversial Edgartown Gardens project outweighed its possible benefits.
The proposed development, spearheaded by Falmouth developer William Cumming under the Chapter 40B statute, had faced significant community pushback. While the commission acknowledged that the project would introduce much-needed housing to the Vineyard—including 11 affordable units—they ultimately deemed it inappropriate for the area.
### Project Overview and Community Concerns
The latest proposal includes 55 to 57 units with a total of 105 bedrooms spread across 11 residential buildings on a 3.38-acre lot. Of these, 11 to 13 units would be designated affordable housing. The plan also calls for 88 residential parking spaces, 16 commercial parking spaces, and an elevator in each residential building.
Despite potential benefits such as economic development and more affordable housing options, many commissioners and residents expressed concerns about the scale and design of the project. Key issues raised included:
– **Density and Scale:** The development’s density was highlighted as significantly higher compared to other existing or proposed Island projects. Only the Green Villa development in Oak Bluffs, also proposed by developer Cumming, was noted as slightly denser.
– **Building Height:** The buildings, particularly the tallest three-story structure planned to rise just over 32 feet, would stand taller than adjacent residences, requiring a special permit from the Edgartown zoning board of appeals.
– **Design and Neighborhood Impact:** Commissioners criticized the design, stating that placing parking on the exterior facing the neighborhood would make the complex appear as one large, imposing building. Concerns were also raised about impacts on traffic congestion and nighttime lighting affecting nearby residents.
Commissioner Ben Robinson from Tisbury described the design as “bad,” noting that the parking layout would negatively impact the neighborhood’s character.
### Community and Commission Feedback
The commission received over 100 letters, primarily from Edgartown residents, opposing the development. At the October 16 meeting—the continuation of which took place on Thursday—both commissioners and Edgartown officials expressed frustration over the proposal’s lack of clarity. Some commissioners, including Greg Martino from Tisbury, called the project an “incomplete application,” though the development team disagreed.
Commission chair Peter Wharton noted that the developers had declined multiple requests for additional information, such as renderings illustrating how the complex would integrate with surrounding buildings. This lack of detailed documentation left the commission with less information than usual for a project of this size.
Several commissioners indicated that while the site was well-positioned for housing—close to public transportation and nearby stores—a smaller-scale development would be more appropriate. Oak Bluffs commissioner Brian Smith described the location as “perfect” for housing if fewer units were proposed.
Linda Sibley, West Tisbury commissioner, summed up the mood: “I think it radically changes the character and identity of the neighborhood, and I think that’s negative. You’re going to be shocked when you drive into Edgartown and you see this massive thing.”
### Voting and Conditions
The commission voted 12-1 that the project was “essential but not appropriate,” with West Tisbury commissioner Doug Sederholm registering the sole dissenting vote and Tisbury commissioner Mary Bernadette Budinger-Cormie abstaining.
In addition to outright rejection, the commission reviewed 42 conditions it would have imposed had the project moved forward. Among them were requirements for the developer to undergo further review by the Land Use Planning Committee, including an initial advertising campaign focused on Vineyarders and a homeowners association plan.
### Legal Challenges and Next Steps
Despite the MVC’s decision, the project’s future remains uncertain. Attorney Jay Talerman, representing the Edgartown Gardens development, filed a lawsuit in Massachusetts Land Court on Thursday before the MVC meeting. The suit challenges the commission’s authority to regulate Chapter 40B projects, which allow developers to build more densely and supersede local zoning bylaws.
The lawsuit also alleges that the MVC failed to open a hearing in a timely fashion and argues against the commission’s power to require the developer to fund peer reviews.
Talerman commented, “It was clear we would have a difficult time getting the votes. The hostility the MVC had expressed toward our project from the very beginning had not subsided.”
Adam Turner, executive director of the Martha’s Vineyard Commission, noted that a broader discussion about Chapter 40B was planned for the Thursday meeting. However, following legal consultation, the topic will be addressed in executive session moving forward.
—
The debate over Edgartown Gardens highlights the challenges of balancing the Vineyard’s housing needs with preserving the character and identity of its communities. The project remains under close observation as legal proceedings and local planning discussions continue.
https://www.mvtimes.com/2025/10/31/mvc-unanimously-rejects-edgartown-gardens/
You may also like
Leave a Reply