The owners of a 147-year-old East Chop home had their demolition application denied by the Martha’s Vineyard Commission Thursday night.
The owners of a 147-year-old East Chop home had their demolition application denied by the Martha’s Vineyard Commission Thursday night.
“There’s an authenticity to history and once it’s gone, it’s gone,” said commissioner Ben Robinson.
The 8-2 decision was made without prejudice, meaning the applicants may submit updated plans without a two-year waiting period.
Eunu Chun and his wife Lisa Kim are seeking to tear down most of their summer home at 7 Arlington avenue to build a new and larger year-round residence designed by architect Chuck Sullivan.
Once part of a larger 1875 house in the Beecher Park neighborhood that was divided in two in 1917 and moved separately to 7 and 11 Arlington avenue, the structure was deemed “preferably preserved” by the Oak Bluffs historical commission in a 4-3 vote earlier this year.
The owners’ demolition application was referred to the MVC by the Oak Bluffs zoning board of appeals as a development of regional impact (DRI) last November. Following public hearings in June and August, the owners and Mr. Sullivan have made changes to the proposed new house to make it look more like the current structure. But on Thursday, a majority of MVC commissioners voted against the project.
“The applicant has come closer to addressing our original concerns [but] I don’t think they’ve gotten all the way there,” said commissioner Fred Hancock. “I believe that it is much larger than I think is appropriate for the location.”
Commissioner Linda Sibley also voted in the majority.
“Our job is to make sure that the character of the Island isn’t changed,” she said. “I do not think the replacement is sufficiently in keeping with the historical character of the neighborhood.”
Commissioners Jim Vercruysse and Brian Smith opposed the denial.
“I’m not comfortable at all designing someone’s house for them,” Mr. Vercruysse said. “We’re not designers.”
Mr. Smith also backed the owners’ application.
“Just because something’s 100 years old, for me, does not make it historic,” he said. “These people have gone through extensive effort and expense to make something that looks very close to the original.”
Doug Sederholm, who chairs the commission’s land use planning committee, has recused himself from the Arlington avenue DRI because a relative’s firm has worked for the applicants.
Citing strong personal opinions, MVC chair Joan Malkin also withdrew from discussion and voting on the application, with Mr. Vercruysse conducting the public hearing in her place.
Commissioner Ernie Thomas abstained from voting on the decision. Also voting in the majority were Jeff Agnoli, Christina Brown, Jay Grossman, Greg Martino and Michael Kim.
In other business Thursday, the commission quickly approved planned updates at two cellular towers, one on New Lane in West Tisbury and one at the Martha’s Vineyard Airport.
In each case, the MVC is constrained by the federal Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, which requires state and local government to approve modifications at existing wireless towers or base stations as long as the facilities remain roughly the same size.
The New Lane tower, which was approved as a DRI in 2013, is a monopine — an imitation tree — complete with boughs and branches that have begun weathering and falling off the 66-foot-high structure.
Early this year, the commission approved a 15-foot extension for new Verizon equipment mounts as well as cleanup of the fallen branches. The West Tisbury zoning board of appeals subsequently ordered the removal of all the branches. This week’s approval allows the cleanup and equipment installation to proceed once workers ascertain that ospreys are no longer nesting on the tower.
At the airport cell tower, the commission approved the installation of new Sprint antennas, remote radio heads — used to link transmissions between the tower and ground — and equipment cabinets.
Also Thursday, commissioners signed their written decisions approving the Vineyard Wind helicopter hangar and New England Wind undersea cables, deliberated earlier this month, and the denial of the demolition of a house at 1133 Main street in Vineyard Haven.
Comments
Everyone is so eager to tell
David W TisEveryone is so eager to tell others what they can do with their money. The museum piece the MVC wants preserved for all has already been tinkered with substantially - it was cut in HALF in the 19th century for crying out loud. So building new (to look old) at 4300sqft would bring it back to the original residence. Why do some want other people to live in old places so they can look at them? Are they going to be willing to put up the money to bring it to code?
The Gazette reported, "Citing
Nelson Sigelman Vineyard HavenThe Gazette reported, "Citing strong personal opinions, MVC chair Joan Malkin also withdrew from discussion and voting on the application, with Mr. Vercruysse conducting the public hearing in her place."
Who on the MVC does not hold strong opinions on every topic? What underpinned Malkin's decision? Why did Thomas abstain? Please ask the follow-up questions that help readers understand the decision-making of the Island's most powerful regulatory body.
Sibley wants to preserve the
Schools Out TisburySibley wants to preserve the character of the island? What do you call the abomination that is frankensteining around the old Stone bank building? It's who you know at the MVC; consistency in decision making is tossed out the window.
Walk past this house often
Carl Kelly USAWalk past this house often during the summer months and it’s a nice house. Nothing special or worth saving. As long as it keeps within the norm of the neighborhood let them rebuild. MVC needs to get out of the way of progress.
It is a slippery slope once
JG OBIt is a slippery slope once permission is granted to tear down existing historic buildings. Once the precident is set, it is hard to get the toothpaste back into the tube. What is at stake here, is maintaining the character that makes MV MV. I supporter the Commission’s decision, Without oversight, and regulation people left to their own devices would soon have the historic towns, which is what drew people here in the first place, looking like the Jersey Shore, or Long Island. Once it is gone, it is gone forever. Disneyfied replacements will never be the same as the original architecture. MV is lucky that so much of the original fabric survives, it is a character defining aspect of the island.
For the MVC to have
Stephen Davis East Chop, Oak BluffsFor the MVC to have credibility it must respect the law and be consistent in its rulings. Commissioners Hancock and Sibley by their own statements show they think they are above this and in doing so undermine the public’s confidence in the MVC.
Commissioner Hancock is quoted as stating the house “is much larger than I think is appropriate for the location”. The house proposed is 4,300 sq ft on a one acre lot. How can you deny the house on that basis when there are many, many houses which are much bigger on smaller lot sizes? Commissioner Hancock and the MVC should base its decision on facts e.g. house size to lot size ratios with and without the basement, set off from lot boundaries, height vs lot size, and other such metrics rather than simply stating “I think…”. The fact is that 800 sq ft of the proposed 4,300 sq ft is basement and the ground footprint is only 3,500 sq ft on a lot that is almost one acre. Tell me Commissioner if this exceeds what already exists in East Chop and what many, many others have built. If it doesn’t then you have no factual basis for your statements and then the question is why would you rule against 7 Arlington when many, many others have been permitted to build larger houses on smaller footprints.
Commissioner Sibley is quoted as stating the house is not sufficiently “in keeping with the historical character of the neighborhood”. Is the modern house that sits right on East Chop Drive in keeping with the historical character of the neighborhood? Or the large house on Mass Ave or the many other houses in East Chop? How did those houses get approved and not 7 Arlington?
Commissioners Hancock and Sibley need to answer these questions and I would hope the MVC would hold them and others accountable to facts, standards and precedent. The MVC is very important but we all lose when personal, unsubstantiated opinions become the rule.
Been here retired over 40
Charlie Callahan So Boston/EdgartownBeen here retired over 40 years and have seen people apply to do certain similar projects and one would be approved and the other turned down,kinda makes u wonder if maybe gratuities are changing hands. U would have to be an idiot not to see what goes on ,on this island. Almost like I never left southie,only in a more civilized crooked way than in So Boton,but still the same old way
That a house is old and
James EdgartownThat a house is old and “perfectly preserved” does not make it architecturally or historically significant. MVC decisions do not satisfy any clear standards and are increasingly subjective, arbitrary and capricious.
This house is ordinary, well
Kerry Quinlan-Potter East ChopThis house is ordinary, well past its prime and set way back on a hill where no one can even see it anymore. It is an old, decrepit wooden structure that is barely a cottage.
The current owners have done everything possible with it in its current condition short of encapsulating it for prosperity. At what point do they get to rebuild it into an efficient, effective and useful home for themselves and their descendants vs turning it into some monument to Vineyard History. Seriously. IT's their HOUSE. they have owned for 10 years. they just want to improve it and have their own dream home what is wrong with that? I am so disheartened that the MVC is obstructing people's literal dreams for what seems to be petty and unwelcome opining on individual rights. Ultimately so very many of these old houses have lost their best use and are past redemption. Please use your great influence and get to work on issues that matter. The movie theaters. The empty storefronts all over Vineyard Haven. The neglectful landlords who are allowing their commercial properties to fall into blatant disrepair and are laying in wait to take advantage of new tenants that they can intimidate and bleed for repairs....there are so many atrocities happening and your job is to make sure the character of the island does not change....? Define the character that you are defending.
Touché and BRAVO to this
Sue EdgartownTouché and BRAVO to this comment! I have never read anything so hypocritical and, basically, suspicious as the decision of the MVC. Just take a look around…please. The theater in OB is a disgrace that has gone for years and years. How is that allowed? The Triangle on the left side of the road coming in to Edgartown is an eyesore beyond belief, with the roads full of potholes. And yet, everywhere one looks, there is another house being built. Another house over 4,000 square feet. If this couple has been so diligent, honest and respective of the islands history (I don’t know of them or their history), then what is the issue here? Sounds like some people get things done because of politics, where others are refused. That should NOT be the MVC. Ever
Add new comment