<p>Members of the building community came out in force Thursday night with concerns about the Martha Vineyard Commission’s proposed changes to the DRI checklist, the list that dictates what projects are referred to the regional body. Most of the concerns centered around whether the commission would regulate large houses as developments of regional impact.</p>
Members of the building community came out in force Thursday night with concerns about the Martha Vineyard Commission’s proposed changes to the DRI checklist, the list that dictates what projects are referred to the regional body.
Most of the concerns centered around whether the commission would regulate large houses as developments of regional impact; the commission opted not to mandate that large houses be referred to the commission, but left that decision up to the towns. Part of the checklist does address “community character,” and suggests that developments with a density more than 50 per cent greater than the median for the surrounding neighborhood could be referred to the commission.
The checklist is revised every two years, and the commission has held a series of public hearings about the revisions over the last year. About three people came out to a Nov. 8 public hearing on the matter. At the time, comissioners said they hoped the low attendance was because of a thorough public hearing process. Those who came out last night said it was because of bad weather.
“I think the reason a lot of the people are here, we’re afraid of restrictions people might put on sizes of houses on the Island and we think towns do have the capability of deciding on their own,” said Joseph Chapman, a Chilmark contractor.
“I would point out to you, sir, that we didn’t put that in. We absolutely did not,” said commissioner Doug Sederholm.
“But when you say community character, I’m a little concerned of that. It could be construed in many different ways,” Mr. Chapman responded.
“I certainly respect everything that this group is enabled and empowered to do, but . . . we are an Island that is constantly changing, as much as we want to fight it,” Norman Rankow, the owner of Colonial Reproductions, Inc. said. “We will by nature change or we will die. So how do you manage that change? The cottage on the beach does not remain forever, either God takes it away or the person who comes along and pays 10 million bucks for that parcel.”
He said people who spend money on their land and want to build a large house should be able to do so, and the alternative is “not American in my mind.”
Several argued that community character is subjective.
“How would you judge character?” Mr. Chapman asked. “How would you do it? It’s like creating a rule or a law that you can’t control. You can’t enforce.”
Peter Rosbeck of Tisbury said it sounded to him to like character was the same as house size. “It is really leading down to the same path that we were concerned about before,” he said.
The discussion was at time contentious.
Edgartown selectman Michael Donaroma said the idea of regulating character “scare[d] him severely,” and that it was clear that people did not want community character included on the checklist, though he questioned whether the commission would take it out.
“Everything you talk about you guys end up doing,” Mr. Donaroma said.
“That’s really an unfair comment, Mike,” Mr. Sederholm said.
“You’re going to start talking about the houses. You can’t help yourselves. I understand there’s big concern all over the Island. But you have [Districts of Critical Planning Concern]s. You have historic districts,” Mr. Donaroma responded.
Others discussion centered on whether the commission checklist is too restrictive, and whether the tourism industry or the building industry drives the Island economy.
Some said that local planning board and zoning board regulations are enough to regulate the issue, while others questioned whether houses that are smaller than other homes in the neighborhood should be subject to review.
“I think there’s opportunity to relax the DRI checklist,” Oak Bluffs resident and business owner Michael Wallace said. “It’s my feeling it’s very restrictive.” He questioned why developments like a charging station would have regional impact.
He said the commission should have the burden of explaining why each item on the checklist was included.
“Here’s what bothers people,” commissioner Lenny Jason Jr. said. “We started out with what, a four page DRI checklist. And all we hear is we’re trying to loosen things up, and the exact opposite is occurring . . . [builders] see everything that has to come here as an impediment to them earning a living.”
“As I read through this list, there’s a number of categories that I think are wide open to interpretation solely by the commission, and without a lot of . . . meat behind it,” Robert Smith said, adding that the building community is a driving force behind the Island economy.
Commissioner Linda Sibley said that the community character item was in response to a dispute over a planned housing development off Mullen Way, which neighbors opposed as against the character of the neighborhood.
She said issues like housing size, single versus multi-family homes and housing style dictate community character, and is important to the economy. “Our core economy is tourism and the building trades are as vibrant as they are because of tourism, because people fall in love with this place and want to come here. If they decide that this is an ugly place and they don’t want to come here, there will be no building trade.”
“Hundreds of boards across the country have successfully come up with criteria for ensuring community character is protected,” commission executive director Mark London said. “If you have an area that is very cohesive, one would generally want to find ways to ensure new construction fits pretty well.”
“I think it’s very clear that members of the building trades are very concerned about [the community character item],” Mr. Sederholm said. “I think we’ve gotten that message very clearly and we will consider that when we deliberate on this.”
The comment period on the DRI checklist will continue for two weeks, and the commission will next discuss the checklist at their Dec. 6 meeting.
Comments
Donaroma shoud recuse himself
Paul EdgartownDonaroma shoud recuse himself from any discussions regarding this because his business is a benefactor. And again, to hear Norman Rankow speak makes me laugh because he is so concerned about the island. One has to has him if he will retire and stay here after he build all of the $10 million dollar homes or move to Naples. Come on guys, these meetings are all about insiders and not about the island or REAL people who live here.
like the fox guarding the hen
Dave Edgartownlike the fox guarding the hen house
I think this is a great step
Kaysea Hart AquinnahI think this is a great step forward. I do wish the commissioners voted to regulate size rather than community character. Size is much more straight forward and on point. 3,000 square feet is huge, 20,000 thousand is not only obscene but it destroys important habitat and wastes resources. The trophy home building tradesman will have you believe they put thousands of islanders to work and without them the wealthy would stop visiting and our economy would tank. This just isn't true. Take the boat to WoodsHole on any given week day at 3:30 you'll see it full of laborers from off-island. The wealthy have been visiting and buying/building second homes on mv for centuries because it's off the beaten path, low key and unpretentious. A housing cap size won't put tradesman out of work... people will spend money on alternative energy options for their houses and amazing finish work, landscaping etc. Let's keep the Vineyard healthy and put a limit on housing sizes here.
Please come to Vineyard Haven
J.P. Vineyard HavenPlease come to Vineyard Haven and opine on the haunted house at the corner of William and Spring. I trust that people will agree that that disaster is a blight on the community.
The image of "The Vineyard"
Marty Conceicao FreetownThe image of "The Vineyard" IS what we come here for. Corrupt it with mainland monstrousities, and the mystic of the island, as we have loved it, is no more. And that would be the greatest tragedy of all.
20,000 SF that's not a house
Mit Gold Edgartown20,000 SF that's not a house that's the size of a library or police station!
That's larger than many buildings we design for a major university
I think houses should be regulated by size as well as impact on the area and the environment.
@Kaysea - " 3,000 square feet
Craig Mansfield MV@Kaysea - " 3,000 square feet is huge"? The average new home size in the US in 2011 was ~2500 sq. ft. That the AVERAGE! so what rule book are you referencing, besides one in your own mind, that makes 3000 sq. ft. huge?? "20,000 thousand is not only obscene but it destroys important habitat and wastes resources". Here's a newsflash. You yourself will destroy more important habitat and waste more resources in a year than a 20,000 sq. ft. house will destro if it stood for 200 years!! So based on your logic we really should be regulating you and not large homes. think of the wasted future resources that would have been created every time you step on an ant, fill up at the gas station, eat a hamburger, and on, and on, and on. There are MUCH more important things to concern yourself about than someone working themselves to the bone to be able to create their own sense of comfort in an environment that they have grown to love.
@Mit - regulated on impact and the environment? sure. I agree. What's your criteria and isn't that already being addressed with town and state laws? on size? based on what criteria? because you think it's the size of a library or police station? why do you care? you're not living on the front lawn of that house so why do you care how big it is?
But if all of that doesn't matter to you here's what should: without those people building those types of houses Martha's Vineyard will see a mass exodus as the tax dollars start streaming away. "Great" you say? one problem. The large home owners and their tax dollars may have left but the infrastructure that has been built up to support them and needs to continue to be funded will still be there, the excess left to be distributed to those unfortunate few whom remain. So if you're fine with causing the mass exodus, sticking around, and paying 10x your current tax bill, then keep pushin forward. enjoy
3,000 is huge, I agree with
Carol Lampson CA now, but fprmerly Chilmark3,000 is huge, I agree with Kaysea. (BTW, what's your source for that assertion that the avg new house size is 2,500 sf?) Those people can build 20,000 sq.ft. homes - off the Island. It's an ISLAND. Limited room. And - mass exodus from the Vineyard? Don't make me laugh!
@Carol - my source for
Craig Mansfield MV@Carol - my source for average home size is none other than the US Census Bureau. A quick google search will give you that answer. here's one link with a chart srtaight from the Bureau: http://www.builderonline.com/housing-trends/where-are-new-home-sizes-go… . And the fact that it's an island has absolutely no bearing on home size. It's a land mass and should be governed as other towns/counties in the state. Here's an example since you are grouping all the towns in Martha's Vineyard as one ISLAND: Weston, MA, one of the most affluent towns in the state also has a preponderance of large homes such as you are railing against. It follows the zoning and environment laws of the town and of the state an no one is screaming about the size of it's homes. They're happy to have the tax revenue. Weston's land area is 17 sq. miles. Martha's Vineyard is almost 90 square miles! so get off of your 'limited room' rant until you have some facts.
Where exactly are all these
B.G. Martha's VineyardWhere exactly are all these 20,000 sqft homes?? From the discussion and comments here, you'd think they are popping up all over Edgartown-VH rd. Is there even a 10,000 sqft house in all of OB?? Maybe, but I cannot even think of one if its there.
This is not necessarily about large houses, as much as it is about the continued restrictions placed upon one's right to their own land and the process afforded to you in your own town. The towns we live in have bylaws by which you get to vote when there are any proposed changes. The MVC is currently challenging this process and essentially removes your right to vote... YOU DO NOT VOTE ON THESE CHANGES. You only have the ability to go voice your opinion, which may or may not have any impact on their votes. Large houses are not the only issue on the proposed DRI checklist. If you take the time to read the items carefully, clearly you will find it odd that that every word that follows the heading "Community Character" refers directly to SIZE and nothing else. Additionally, this item was added at the same time the "Large Houses" item was removed. Of course the builders show up to this meeting, it is their profession and life, but that does not make their discussion or points any less relevant.
The MVC is a very important board that helps regulate issues of "regional" impact, but when it veers off issues that are NOT always regional in nature it can be detrimental and difficult to deal with. Do not forget, towns currently and will continue to have the ability to refer issues they feel they cannot handle directly to the MVC for any reason... including a 20,000 sqft home. To add language to the DRI checklist that automatically sends EVERY house of a certain size or character to the commission on issues that are not always "regional" is the wrong direction. Whether the MVC is off course in terms of regional impact is certainly up for debate, but you should ask yourself if you are arguing your personal opinion or whether you believe all these issues are truly regional. Also, whose opinion do we use to define "Character"? At the moment, we are potentially relying solely on the opinion of the majority vote of the MVC... scary.
Finally, keep in mind the MVC formed in 1974 and the DRI checklist started as a couple pages... it now is 20+ and growing with this latest round. Back then each town did not have the organized Planning Boards, Historic Districts, Conservation Commissions, ETC we all have in our towns today... many would argue the DRI checklist should reduced in pages as we become more organized. Some members of the MVC are often quoted as stating they are MANDATED by the state to review the DRI checklist every 2 years... that is correct, but where does it say they are mandated to add as much as possible each time around?
This is certainly a good debate and clearly an important one to many. Absolutely no reason to rush the discussion and force a MVC decision.
Add new comment