The Edgartown historic district commission (HDC) last week wisely resisted a proposal from the new owner of 81 South Water street, who offered to suggest a “no-build” restriction to the conservation commission if HDC approved without substantial change his plans to renovate, demolish and rebuild part of the present structure.

Those plans would have:

1. Narrowed the iconic view corridor to the harbor (which HDC protected against a less invasive proposal by the prior owner in 2023).

2. Allowed construction of a pool, spa and expanded patio and retaining wall closer to the harbor (all of which HDC rejected when proposed by the prior owner in 2023).

3. Made the house much bigger than HDC approved, after nearly a year of proceedings, in 2023.

Worse, the proposed “no-build” restriction (to be included in a permit from the conservation commission to allow digging up protected land for the pool) would block the conservation commission from exercising its powers over plantings and landscaping on the view corridor, leaving the new owner free to obstruct the harbor view.

And, far from protection “in perpetuity,” as the applicant promised, under Massachusetts law the “no-build” restriction could be modified or repealed.

At the HDC public hearing on Jan. 8, the applicant heard objections and requests for changes from the public (no member of the public spoke in favor) and from most HDC members. Asked if he would consider modifying his plans, the applicant said he would not.

An informal polling of the HDC members then quickly indicated four “no” votes — enough to kill the plans.

HDC offered the applicant the opportunity to withdraw the application or pause the proceedings to allow discussion and potential revisions to the plans. The applicant chose the latter, and the public hearing will reconvene on Jan. 22.

The public has heard nothing since then. No revised plans have been filed with HDC. As the public and HDC members made clear, objectionable elements in the present plans can be eliminated or modified without diminishing the applicant’s enjoyment of this property while also preserving the historic house and, crucially, the harbor view that is a signature feature of South Water street. If he truly wishes to preserve that view, the applicant should grant a view easement to the town over the unbuilt portion of the property, preserving the harbor view as it is today.

The template exists. There are two such view easements presently in force, one next door at 75 South Water street, and the other from the second house on Dunham Road across the road to the harbor. Granting a third would cement forever the applicant’s reputation as a true champion of Martha’s Vineyard.

Michael Hirschfeld,

New York City and Edgartown