Tisbury Demolition Heads to MV Commission

The Martha’s Vineyard Commission voted 10-4 Dec. 12 to publicly review the proposed demolition of a secluded house in West Chop that is believed to be older than stated in Tisbury town records.

The Martha’s Vineyard Commission voted 10-4 Dec. 12 to publicly review the proposed demolition of a secluded house in West Chop that is believed to be older than stated in Tisbury town records.

The owners of 125 Massasoit avenue have applied to the town for permission to tear down the building, which is recorded as dating from 1930.

The Vineyard Haven Historical Commission, however, submitted evidence indicating the house had been moved to West Chop in the early 1930s from Lambert’s Cove, where it was known as Red Lodge as early as 1917. 

The building’s interior contains architectural elements that may date from the 18th century or earlier, such as dark wainscoting and gunstock-style corner supports, according to a report from Martha’s Vineyard Commission staff.

Commission approval is required for demolitions when the structures are at least 100 years old.

“Our job is to determine whether this has historic validity,” said chair Fred Hancock, in his final meeting as a commissioner.

“Without a really deep dive, it’s difficult for anyone to know what the history … is,” Mr. Hancock added.

Commissioner Doug Sederholm favored a public hearing on the demolition as a development of regional impact (DRI), while Brian Smith expressed strong opposition.

“Whatever happens on this property has nothing to do with the character of the Island … because nobody can see it,” Mr. Smith said of the building, which is not visible from Massasoit avenue.

The owners should not be penalized with a DRI hearing when they relied on information from the town about the building’s age, Mr. Smith said.

Countering his assertion, commissioner Kate Putnam said it’s not hard to tell when a building is older than property records claim.

“I bought a house that Edgartown said was built in 1930 [and] I knew it wasn’t built in 1930. It didn’t take a whole lot of effort to figure that out,” said Ms. Putnam, who dates her low-ceilinged home to the 1850s. 

“There are certain accommodations that you make to an old house because you want to preserve it,” she said.

Mr. Smith, Mr. Hancock and commissioners Clarence (Trip) Barnes and Michael MacKenty voted against the DRI review for 125 Massasoit avenue, which will begin in the new year.

Thursday’s meeting was the last for Mr. Hancock and Mr. Barnes, who did not run for re-election to their seats in November.

Mr. Barnes’s place will be taken by newcomer Bernadette Budinger-Cormie of Tisbury, who was elected in November.

Carole Vandal, elected in 2023 to represent Aquinnah, and longtime Chilmark appointee Joan Malkin of Chilmark also chose not to seek another term.

Write-in candidate Jannette Vanderhoop was elected to represent Aquinnah.

Comments

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 12/26/2024 - 11:27

Permalink

Over-reach VH

I know this house / property and how this is going to a public DRI is a joke. It was moved to its current location. Instead of all this back and forth why can't a house like this have the interior portions of value (beams, moldings) removed prior or during demolition and those features could be auctioned to all of our high-end builders, architects and interior designers to fund idk- maybe affordable housing or something of community value? Good riddance the MVC makes a lot of extra work for such little gains...

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 12/28/2024 - 06:00

Permalink

Michael edgartown

they need to determine if the house has historic validity? you cant see the house. you cant visit the house. its their house and these people want to tell them they need to save stuff for who? auction it off? this commission needs to be real.....your wants and needs aren' what other people want and need....save this board? save this moulding? auction them off? honestly?

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 12/29/2024 - 07:47

Permalink

Mark Acker Tisbury

If the newspaper report is correct and this home is not visible from any public road or place, where is the regional impact? Once again the MVC is overstepping its charter which will only cause its eventual demise.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 12/31/2024 - 05:31

Permalink

JB Tisbury

As a historian and self-proclaimed history nerd I applaud the efforts to recognize and save pieces of history. Those can be wide ranging from letters, cards, advertisements, etc. to buildings.
However... Everything MUST be balanced. Education is key to saving and preserving - not just because something is old but for what it adds to the body of knowledge and understanding of that past.
Balanced... That means balanced between practice, process, and practicality. I agree with the comments I've seen here that this seems to be an excessive and perhaps aggressive overreach of the MVC. I've read a number of these stories where the MVC seems to have failed to protect in some cases or overprotects in others. Find the balance but, above all, remember that this is private property. Someone purchased the property with their own money and resources and have every right the make changes and best-use for themselves out of their property, within generally agreed guidelines. MV is a small island and place but with a lot of wealthy people that pass through or live part-time there. Don't let that over-sized sense of importance overwhelm good practice, process, and balance.

Add new comment

Plain text

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