A Circuit avenue building owner is suing the Martha’s Vineyard Commission over the regional planning agency’s decision in favor of a new project at the former Phillips Hardware site.
Laurence Hardoon, the owner of 31 Circuit avenue, filed a lawsuit in Dukes County Superior Court earlier this month and is arguing that the commission erred in its approval of the Oakwood mixed-use development.
Mr. Hardoon owns the “arcade” building that hosts Sharky’s Cantina and is across the street from the Oakwood development. He claims that the application from the owners of the Phillips property did not have the proper documents, lacked the required stamp of an architect, and did not adhere to the historic nature of the Victorian hotel it was attempting to emulate.
“There are just too many deficiencies, missing pieces of critical information, unanswered questions, [and] ignored policies to conclude that the decision of the MVС is supported by the evidence,” Mr. Hardoon’s attorney wrote in the May 5 complaint.
The Martha’s Vineyard Commission voted unanimously in March to approve the Oakwood proposal, which was put forward by the Pacheco family who owns the next door Reliable Market.
As proposed, the project would have two street-level retail shops and two upper floors of apartments. The proposal draws its name and inspiration from the historic Oakwood hotel, a 19th-century hotel in town.
Mr. Hardoon said he was in favor of redeveloping the former hardware store property, but worried about creating something that didn’t fit with the historic nature of the street. The arcade building, which features a walk-through portion that connects Circuit avenue to the camp ground, is designated a National Historic Landmark.
“If there wasn’t a historic complement to this, then whatever you put up there is going to be an improvement,” he said. “But there is a historical component.”
Mr. Hardoon also pointed out that the commission’s own historic consultant had raised concerns. Though tweaks to the Pachecos’ original proposal did make improvements to reflect the architecture of the surrounding neighborhood, commission consultant Eric Dray felt the proposal did not adequately reflect the former Oakwood hotel.
Mr. Hardoon said he even produced alternate plans for the project and only filed the lawsuit to have a conversation about the building.
Commission executive director Adam Turner and the attorney who represented the Pacheco family during the commission hearings did not return requests for comment.
An initial hearing in the court case has not yet been scheduled.
This article appears in May 29, 2026.
Is this for real?? What is the problem? This is a great thing for downtown OB!!!What effect will it have in Sharkys and his business?? I don’t get this at all!
This is a win win for OB IMO, please let’s not see a construction fence up for 2-5 years while attorneys have a field day.
Just a point of info Sharky’s is a tenant and has nothing to do with any of this situation or suit. Thank you.
It baffles me that someone can call this design not adherent to the character of Circuit Ave. ! It’s a design that fits in, in fact it’s a lot nicer looking than many of the other buildings on Circuit. Sounds like Mr. Hardoon needs a new hobby.
If the MVC didn’t exist and this went to the planning board, building department and even zoning board and still was approved and permitted what would Mr. Hardoon do legally? I think nil. The MVC is a great tool but we have seen time and time again this Achilles heel situation play out in the court/legal system and THAT is a problem. Every town is tossing in more and more $$$ to effectively front all of these legal challenges and costs?! It’s a free country and Mr. Hardoon has every right but the process of the MVC should enough to call a spade a spade. Sadly this is going to keep happening.
How can anyone complain about something that is only going to make Circuit Avenue more appealing.
Not sure what Mr. Hardoon, Is thinking? This is a great project and needed on Circuit Ave. it completely fits into the character of the town.
Maybe he should clean up his building instead of looking at others….
Looks nice to me. Sounds like this whiner needs to get a life and stop wasting the towns time.He’s probably jealous cause he’s not gonna get a piece of the action
I am fully in favor of redeveloping the old Phillips property. It will almost certainly improve that stretch of Circuit Avenue, and I hope the project eventually succeeds.
But supporting a project does not mean people lose the right to question whether the approval process was handled properly. Mr. Hardoon appears to be arguing that the MVC approved the plan despite missing documentation, unresolved questions, and concerns raised by its own historic consultant.
People may disagree with the lawsuit, but citizens absolutely have the right to question whether the MVC followed its own standards correctly. Too often on this Island, commissions, boards, and even individuals start acting as though rules, procedures, and laws are somehow optional when they become inconvenient.
They are not. Accountability and oversight exist for a reason.
To me, it’s obvious why Mr. Hardoon objects. His building will be losing the water view.
Circuit has no true aesthetic. This would be a welcomed upgrade to the run down buildings lining the street.
The building is a monstrosity. Too many floors—too much to squeeze into the space. It’s an eyesore and detriment to the neighborhood. Larry is correct to question it in its current form.
Stop trying to say it’s about things it’s really not. This law suit is someone with an $ ax to grind, not a genuine objection based on actual aesthetics.
https://vineyardgazette.com/news/2007/09/20/postcards-reveal-bustling-nature-circuit-avenue-century-ago
Multiple story buiildings are an original and long-time feature of Oak Bluffs and its architectural character. It would be wrong to try to impose 21st century suburban esthetics on Circuit Avenue. Spend some time looking at period photography from early Oak Bluffs, and you’ll see that height restrictions came from the engineering limits of wood construction, and not from zoning restrictions. Big, tall buildings were found throughout the Island in those years.
He filed his own plans?
Just to have a conversation?
This indeed will be an improvement to what’s on Circuit Ave.
I don’t get his concern, is he jealous?
He is losing his 2nd and 3rd floor views. Period and end of story.
This is no way to make friends & influence people Larry! This building is a beautiful reflection of years gone by and is so needed on Circuit Ave.. stop being a cog in the wheel of OB progress.
Mr. Hardoon’s only concern is the height of the new building blocking his view of Ocean Park and beyond. He did the same thing to the Phillips family years ago when they sought permission to build a second floor above the hardware store.
Arcade is owned by 3 lawyers. What they are doing is called lawfare. Hopefully the bar and the courts will reprimand them for their harassment. Perhaps take their law licences. The process was appropriate, I went to the public hearing and these people had 3 assaults on the plan. They even suggested that Reliable tear down the store and build a major historic, in their view, mega project. The people at the hearing laughed them off. These are sick people. I hope they lose their
licenses.
If I had to guess, the underlying reason is he’s salty that the water views from the upstairs portion his building will be reduced.
The Pachecos are true stewards of OB and Circuit Ave. This lawyer/owner who lives in Edgartown has brought up spurious concerns, that the Pachecos addressed in their final design. Here is an Off Islander trying to force his misguided and injurious will on OB. I liken him to that notorious family that have ruined so many Island properties. I feel bad for the Pachecos, their only intent is to improve the Circuit Ave environment. I only hope the court and the MVC see through this obvious charade.
“Mr. Hardoon said he even produced alternate plans for the project and only filed the lawsuit to have a conversation about the building.”
This statement should be reason enough to have this thrown out of court.
I commend the Pachecos. The razed the building in a swift manner, it didn’t go on for weeks like other projects on this island. Then, instead of leaving an ugly hole in the street, they used pea stone and planted native grasses to dress up the vacant lot. I do wish they would remove the fence, but I can understand why maybe they can’t. Good job.
This indiviual took the same legal action with the buidling plans put forth by family that owned Phillips Hardware, which settled in 2020. What’s ironic to me is that his own building is not in such hot shape – the concrete in the arcade building walkway is nearly black. As a good landlord he should insist it be powerwashed on a regular basis.
When he fought the Phillips on their proposed design, he cited losing his water views as the reasoning. Nothing’s changed despite what is being said now. I bet Mr. Hardoon’s proposed plans are for a single-story building.
Just the facts:
1-As an abutter we applaud the effort to replace the unsightly hardware building with a new structure containing ground floor retail space and ten workforce apartments above.
2-Eight years ago, there were complete building plans created by local architect Chuck Sullivan that were approved by the MVC, that satisfied all the requirements. Apparently for stated financial reasons these plans were rejected in favor of cheaper modular construction.
3-The Oakwood proposal was created by a designer, not an architect as required by MVC rules. There are mandatory requirements missing in the proposal. The interior design (of no consequence to the MVC nor to us as an abutter) is a very inefficient use of space.
4-The MVC is required by law to consider the historic characteristics of a proposal such as Oakwood.
5-A historic architect, an architecture professor, and the MVC’s own hired consultant all agreed the Oakwood proposal did not satisfy the historic requirements. One of the MVC Commissioners characterized the proposed structure as a “cheap imitation of a style of building.”
6-If there was no alternative to the proposed structure, we would completely agree it is better than what was there before and serves a critical community purpose.
7-However, there IS an alternative. A licensed architect was able to slightly modify the proposed plans to provide ALL the features that the Oakwood proposal has, namely two retail spaces and ten workforce apartments, that was a much better and more efficient use of the interior space, would cost LESS to build, AND is historically compatible. (Incidentally, the “water view” remains the same with the Sullivan plan, the Oakwood plan, or the proposed alternative Oakwood plan. This dispute is NOT about the water view.)
8- Given that the MVC was created in part to protect and preserve, as feasible, the historic nature of Island buildings, the MVC should have encouraged exploring alternate plans that would have satisfied the historic requirement, but it did not do so.
9-Construction cannot begin until mid-October. There is ample time for the MVC and the Oakwood developer to get this right and construct a building that enhances the historic character of the Town while meeting all the needs of the developer and the community.