Plan to gut and expand brick building at the head of Main street Vineyard Haven is under review.
Ray Ewing

MVC Hearing Opens on Edu Comp Redevelopment

Size, scale, architectural aesthetics and vague arrangements with neighbors over shared use of access roads were all issues when a public hearing opened on a plan to redevelop the former Edu Comp building.

Size, scale, architectural aesthetics and vague arrangements with neighbors over shared use of access roads were all issues when a public hearing opened Thursday night on a plan to redevelop the former Edu Comp building at the head of Main street Vineyard Haven.

Real estate developer Xerxes Agassi wants to gut the old brick building and rebuild it as a large mixed-used facility with 15 residential condominiums and seven retail stores. The project would triple the size of the roughly 7,600-square-foot brick building that dates to 1929.

Mr. Agassi has an agreement to buy the building from the owners of Edu-Comp, the art and office supply store that closed last year. The MVC is reviewing the project as a development of regional impact (DRI).

“The real draw for the project is the building itself,” Mr. Agassi told the commission at the hearing Thursday. “I feel it’s an iconic building, a beautful building. We are looking to repair the existing building and keep it in character with the original — that’s a very big part of why we are involved.”

The project aims to better showcase the town-owned Veterans’ Memorial Park, and bring more foot traffic to Main street Vineyard Haven, the developer also said. “I really do feel that the park is hidden in Tisbury, so part of the design process for us was to provide access to the park ... that would be a benefit to the town as well as to the tenants in the buildings,” Mr. Agassi said.

He said the planned first-floor arcade-like retail complex would be an enhancement in the commercial district.

“The idea is to continue the storefront vibe on Main street,” he said.

Five of the 15 condos would be set aside for what is being termed workforce housing, with two of the units designated as affordable. Initial plans described an arrangement for the hospital to lease the five units, but on Thursday Mr. Agassi amended that slightly, saying he had since learned that the hospital may not be able to lease the two affordable units due to legal and other constraints.

From the outset he was peppered with questions from commissioners, many of them seeking more clarity on the details, including parking and the legal structure for the condominiums.

“To what extent are you going to sell and to what extent are you going to retain ownership and rent?” commissioner and hearing officer Doug Sederholm asked. “That’s a decision we would like to make when it is finished,” Mr. Agassi replied. “Whether they turn into rentals or sales is a decision our investors would like to make. It’s a market decision, we would like to make it later.”

Mr. Agassi did not name the investors, but responding later to a question from commissioner Trip Barnes, he confirmed that the hospital is not one.

Commissioner Michael Kim offered a light architectural critique of the proposed new building, which Mr. Agassi said complies with town zoning rules.

“I sympathize with your willingness to comply with town zoning, but the [plan for] the rear of the building, I think, is a poor interpretation of a good law,” Mr. Kim said. “You’re taking an architecturally significant building and throwing its massing way out of whack. Have you considered changing the massing?”

Mr. Agassi said he was open to changes.

“We are willing to review the renderings and break it up . . . I think that is worth discussion, ” he said.

An MVC staff report found no significant issues with traffic from the project; a count done on State Road in early August found an average of some 17,000 vehicles traveled the stretch of road daily. The project calls for 17 parking spaces, but the hearing saw confusion and disagreement over how many spaces exist presently behind the building.

During public comment there was lengthy testimony from abutters about easements over the in-and-out access driveway that circles the building. Joseph Grillo, who with his family owns property on both sides of the project, confirmed that negotiations are under way with the developers about future use of the road. He described a longstanding informal easement with the owners of Edu Comp, and raised concerns about the amount of excavation that would be required during construction.

“We look at this as being a massive project that takes up a great deal of the Edu Comp space . . . it’s critical to come up with something that works,” said Mr. Grillo, who is also a longtime Island contractor. “To build the footprint out, it requires more than what you see on the plan,” he said. He continued: “The easement we’ve been using . . . is word of mouth. We do have a working relationship [with the developer], we are talking and the conversation is sincere.”

But Erik Hammarlund, an attorney whose law office abuts the project, was more blunt in his criticism.

“Unlike Mr. Grillo, I’m not quite as confident that we’re going to be able to work this out,” Mr. Hammarlund said. “This is an extraordinarily large building, larger than any building that’s been proposed in Vineyard Haven . . . overall I think it’s both inappropriate for the site and sets a poor precedent for the town of Vineyard Haven. It’s something that would reasonably belong in a large mill or factory, not next to Veterans Park. The parking is ridiculous, frankly.”

The hearing was continued to Nov. 4. “We’re going to continue this because there are a lot of open threads,” said Mr. Sederholm.

Commissioner Linda Sibley advised Mr. Agassi to get his ducks in a row.

“There are aspects of this that are so tentative . . . like the business of easements or sharing a loading zone with your neighbors,” she said. “I hope you realize you have to actually resolve those issues because we have to approve a particular plan. You sound so tentative about many of these things, and they can’t be tentative when we decide on it.”

Comments

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 10/09/2021 - 15:13

Permalink

Laura Edgartown

Get to that meeting, Vineyard Haven people. The third worst intersection in town might climb in status. Even if the hospital doesn't get apartments there, they will probably get increased business from accidents. Way too big for that spot, especially when the wastewater system is being overwhelmed by illegal hookups. Just increasing the flow limits does not make the system able to handle it. A reasonable development would be great!

Burgo off Nantucket

… exactly. The strategy appears to be to propose an insolently ill thought out large scaled development while being casually unprepared for questions, have it rejected, re-apply with a smaller proposal which is accepted with relief all round. Sheep. Wolf’s clothing. Beware islanders — Mexican Restaurant included ! …

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 10/09/2021 - 20:38

Permalink

Born and raised Islander

Bring it back to old youth center. Stop just stop with over development.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 10/10/2021 - 02:58

Permalink

Mark Acker Vh

Dead on arrival. The thought of increased traffic here solely for profit is a no go.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 10/10/2021 - 08:49

Permalink

Resident

Having only two out of fifteen units be affordable housing is laughable at best. Instead of building monolithic complex, why not just renovate and turn the whole thing into affordable housing. That would be best, but requires humans to think about what is best for the island instead of what’s best for their pockets. If the spokesperson isn’t willing to name investors and isn’t willing say whether or not they plan to own the units or to sell them, we really have no idea what’s going on behind the scenes and what the long term plan is. Overall bad idea.

Resident

Okay, you say affordable housing isn't profitable. Let's check the math. For Dukes County, the rent limit (aka the highest they could charge for low income housing) is $1585 for a one bedroom apartment and $1902 for a two bedroom apartment. They stated there were going to be mixed one bedroom and two bedroom. I'll be generous for the calculations and say that it will be ten one bedrooms and five two bedrooms. The monthly income from rentals would be $25360. The yearly income from rent alone is $304320. Not much at face value, right? Now the spokesperson hasn't stated if they are planning to sell units, lets assume they won't. The developers bought the building for an undisclosed amount. The asking price was $2.6 million. I'm going to be kind once again and assume that because it was an undisclosed amount that they were able to negotiate down, let's say to $2 million. Land value and real estate almost always appreciate in value, the real money to be made is developing the property and holding it. In this hypothetical situation where the developers are not completely overrun with greed and chose to have all affordable income housing and don't sell for ten years, they've made $3043200 on the low end for rent and now have a property worth $3257789 if we use a 5% yearly appreciation rate. That's $4300989 in profit. We all should know by now that the 5% yearly appreciation rate is extremely low for Massachusetts. If we were to be less kind to the developers and do a 10% yearly appreciation rate for ten years, we get $5187484. More than double their original investment. Add that to the over three million earned by having low income rentals and you get $8230684 in profits. If over 8 million dollars over 10 years isn't profitable than what is? Is that not enough? How far will the greed go in order to satiate the money-hungry?

Mark Edgartown

Your analysis is flawed it doesn't consider cap ex and renovation costs, taxes, lending costs which would reduce your returns numbers by 50% or more. Tough to get investors to put up money for development without compensating them for the risk.

John Aldeborgh Katama

Agree, affordable housing isn’t profitable with government subsidizes. Most real estate investors I’ve worked with model a minimum of a 16% ROI and hope the property increases in value, which is never guaranteed. Real estate is a risky business that requires significant capital investment (up front, long before any returns are realized) so locking in returns up front, before committing to any re-development is only common sense.

John Aldeborgh Katama

I’ve yet to meet a single successful individual investor that will knowingly take something worth X million and turn it into X- something million. Wealthy people will happily give to charity or set up a charitable foundation, in return for a tax break, but would never setup an enterprise designed to loose money, that’s bad business. This is a business deal, nothing will be ventured if nothing is to be gained, as it should be. The idea of a business plan is designed to loose money is a non-starter at every level. The MVC may try and strong arm the investors but at some level the property owners still control their own destiny, thank god for small favors. The idea that government should try an limit my prosperity is abhorrent and counter productive on many levels. The combination of current taxation system plus the unwritten “Vineyard Tax” is already burdensome enough for island residents without the help of the MVC adding complexities that drive up building costs, which in turn drives up the overall cost of living on the island injuring to the greatest degree those who can least afford it. It’s good intentions gone wrong.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 10/10/2021 - 18:07

Permalink

David Damroth Chilmark

I hardly recognize one of the great loves of my life, The Vineyard.
At some point we need to slow or stop developments like this. Peoples ambition is driving deep damage to this place. Yes, we need housing and it should be so.
We don't need more commercial space, unless we need that to provide shopping to those vast crowds coming to visit. We must embrace a new sustainable economic model that does not depend on expansion and development.

Mark Acker Vh

I completely disagree with Mr Damroft. Islanders Will benefit from increased commercial space which allows more products and lower prices. But I think this location is out of the question due to traffic

Christine Senge

Why do we need more commercial space when we have vacant store fronts on Main St. (e.g. The old Bowl & Board building, the former cinema.)?

John Aldeborgh Katama

I’m excited to see an economic model that doesn’t depend on growth or development. It would also be interesting to see how needed housing comes about without investors or profit. The idea that the Vineyard will be somehow be frozen in time while the world around us evolves isn’t practical. The way forward is to embrace change while honoring our heritage yet doing everything possible to keep living costs with the reach of the average islander. A difficult challenge but one that we all must face.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 10/10/2021 - 19:55

Permalink

Downislander

15 condos, 7 retail spaces and …. 17 parking spaces?? Where do the condo dwellers plan on parking? On the street? “An MVC staff report found no significant issues with traffic from the project”????? Traffic is a problem ALREADY. How will this expanded use not make it worse? Im not anti-development and I dont even live in VH, but this is a behemoth structure on the busiest street on the island. I cant even imagine what mayhem the construction phase alone will cause.

Main Street Resident Tisbury

"An MVC staff report found no significant issues with traffic from the project”"

How does the MVC collect data for their reports? I suggest trying to drive into VH from any direction at just about any hour of the day. Upper Main Street, Spring Street, Edgartown Road, and Beach Road are all basically failed roads with long tailbacks. Sometimes the tailback on Upper Main Street reaches past the Black Dog, toward the Tashmoo Overlook.

There, fixed that for you, MVC: Access ways to Main Street are already failed and there is no available capacity for more traffic and delays caused by added trips plus cars eggressing from the proposed development.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 10/11/2021 - 08:44

Permalink

Lisa Aquinnah

The size and scale of this proposed project is inappropriate for Vineyard Haven. There is no way it would have no impact on traffic. There is no other building anywhere on this island like the one proposed for good reason—it doesn’t belong here!

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 10/11/2021 - 17:45

Permalink

BS Oak Bluffs

This is exactly the type of development that the MVC has been championing for decades. Mixed use residential development at an in town location. They would be hypocrites to object to it.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 10/12/2021 - 07:08

Permalink

Joanne Up Island

We as their future customers should engage in a PRE boycott. Vow that we will never shop in those stores. I, for one, do not want to ever shop in those stores. We live here because there are no chains, strip malls and arcades!!!!! ACTION!!!

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 10/12/2021 - 08:28

Permalink

Ezekiel R Up-Island and Dedham

More traffic in that area isn’t just a majorly bad idea…It’s a recipe for disaster when getting off-island in an emergency. Think of this past September when really heavy rain and drainage problems turned Beach Road into a lake and then multiply that by 5 or 10!

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 10/12/2021 - 11:56

Permalink

Adelaide Kent New York City

Will the rent on the regular-priced units be raised to subsidise the affordable units?

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 10/12/2021 - 15:00

Permalink

Christopher Celeste EDGARTOWN

An indoor mall (ie retail arcade) has about as much business being on Martha's Vineyard as does a McDonald's – espeically when its positioned to compete with a historic VH Main Street that already offers plenty of diverse (& frequently underutilized) commercial space. Throw in the lack of parking, the architectural defacing of an elegant old building, and the added traffic load and this project should be DOA. I'm all for thoughtful redevelopment of existing structures (even historic ones), but scale and real attention to the town's norms, must be present – and they seem to be entirely absent in this case.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 10/12/2021 - 17:29

Permalink

VH resident VH

The MVC will knock off 5 bedrooms and then approve it. Seen this play before, and developers know the playbook.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 10/13/2021 - 14:16

Permalink

Molly West Tisbury

Seven retail stores? Who is going to work there, and where are the workers going to live? This is a strange vision, not in keeping with reality.

Add new comment

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically.