<p>An appeal from Benjamin Hall Jr. continues to delay a major renovation and expansion plan for the Edgartown Stop & Shop expected to begin last fall.</p>
An appeal from Edgartown attorney and landowner Benjamin Hall Jr. continues to delay a major renovation and expansion plan for the Edgartown Stop & Shop expected to begin last fall.
The expansion plan, which has been in the works for about three years, aims to add 16,000 square feet to the 25,000-square-foot supermarket. Relocation of a drive-through bank on the property and a redesign of the store’s parking lot are also planned. Stop & Shop cleared approvals with the Edgartown planning board a year ago this month, and a revised architectural designed was approved by the Martha’s Vineyard Commission in August. Work was expected to begin last fall.
But an appeal filed in Massachusetts Land Court in July 2018 by Mr. Hall has delayed the project. In the appeal, Mr. Hall cites a variety of shortcomings with the permitting process and has requested a judge send the matter back to the planning board. A hearing was held on May 30 on Stop & Shop’s motion for summary judgment in the case, but a mountain of late filings from Mr. Hall further slowed the court proceedings.
“Attorney Hall submitted several new filings on the day of the hearing, well after the May 21, 2019 extended deadline,” the docket for the case states. The filings include dozens of requests for discovery. The Hon. Diane R. Rubin, who is hearing the case, took the matter under advisement.
The crux of Mr. Hall’s appeal rests in a disputed “shadow study” about the effects of the renovation and expansion on a quarter-acre parcel he owns behind the Stop & Shop building, listed at 14 Cyprien Way. According to assessor records, the property is valued at $537,600 and shares a 92-foot border with the northern side of the supermarket.
Mr. Hall’s father lives on the property, which is owned by Courtway Trust, an LLC of which Mr. Hall is trustee.
In an affidavit, Mr. Hall objects to a shadow study Stop & Shop conducted that found the expansion would have minimal effects on his property. The affadavit claims the study was conducted in self-selected locations and did not include necessary details about its 3D digital rendering. Mr. Hall also has objected to Stop & Shop’s noise study and noise mitigation plans, as well as what he calls “prison-block” construction that would occur near his property line.
In filings, Mr. Hall also included an affidavit from Robert MacLeod, founder of a company that conducts digital renderings for shadow studies. Mr. MacLeod takes issue with the Stop & Shop study, requesting further discovery about the shadow model and renderings.
Attorneys for Stop & Shop have objected to Mr. Hall’s requests for information, stating that they are overly burdensome and unnecessary.
No date was set for further hearings.

Comments
I have a plan. Move stop and
Planner EdgartownI have a plan. Move stop and shop out to goodales since they are about mined out. Sell parcel in edgartown to a halfway house developer, as the service is much needed here. No zoning issues with those. Exempt. Or maybe a nice agricultural use, to keep with our farming heritage. A pig farm would be perfect! Meanwhile, since Mr Hall is so concerned with the laws, I would ask that anybody with knowledge of housing law violations in his rentals contact town hall. I am not saying they exist. Just if they do, and you can document them. Meanwhile, I’m off to cronigs.
Some nerve.
Mike WTSome nerve.
Many to suffer for no reason except a possible shakedown.
The plaintiff should practice what he preaches.
I understand that the plaintiff owns several run down properties that border on being a public nuisance.
Looks like 'pay me or you dont go forward soon'
How can one man hold a large,
Shopper EdgartownHow can one man hold a large, Dutch corporation that owns Stop and Shop hostage? It’s beyond comprehension! It’s all about money for Mr. Hall. He holds Oak Bluffs hostage with that ugly, falling down theater at the beginning of Circuit Ave and yet, the town can’t even move forward because of Halls legal wrangling and coercion! Stop and Shop has been held hostage in the same way. He’s just waiting to hold them up for millions with a house that is falling down! What a disgrace for both towns to allow one man that power! Stop and Shop tries hard, but the market is awful, outdated, expensive, and did I mention the filthy, rusting carriages??
I agree with Mr Hall’s
Steve ChilmarkI agree with Mr Hall’s concerns. The new proposal is to big and will effect the neighborhood in the rear. I would scale back the property put up some pleasant plantings and stop wasting time.
I agree. We stopped the
Kyle Vineyard HavenI agree. We stopped the malling of America right here in Vineyard Haven and I stand up and say thank you to Steve from Cronigs in spearHeading the efforts - Edgartown I would embrace Mr Hall’s plea and rethink the expansion. Also, I refuse to shop and Stop &Shop and only patronize Cronigs - its Island friendly and will not ruin the fabric of this island - not to mention the beautiful beach grass-
Well, clearly your budget
Kelce OBWell, clearly your budget allows you to shop at Cronig's. Most of us Islanders don't have that kind of checkbook. Stop & Shop is a godsend. Without them Cronigs would increase their prices even more.
More of the same from a
matthew sudarsky vineyard havenMore of the same from a family only concerned about themselves.We are expected to believe they now care how one of their many uncared for properties will be affected.
"Overly burdensome"??
Islander too"Overly burdensome"??
Ha ha. That means that if someone other than S&S does such studies, they could contain substantial relevant information that differs from S&S's results. Of course S&S's results are going to serve S&S's purposes! Parties seek to suppress info only when it might go against their position. This is pretty much axiomatic. A property owner will seek to prevent or hinder a survey that she/he thinks might go against her/his ownership claims. Etc.
There is really no such thing as "overly burdensome" when it comes to a search for reliable data/evidence. Shadow and noise studies must be done by neutral entities, not by the applicant. Surely that is obvious. (Reminds me of the SSA's doing its own study to determine the status of its old ticket office in WH, standing in the way of its new slip. They wanted to get it out of the way. Was there ever any question as to what that outcome of that study? Building deteriorated beyond saving! Uh-huh.)
S&S's arguing that such studies are "burdensome" kinda proves the point.
Add new comment