The Martha’s Vineyard Commission last week again reviewed revised plans for the controversial three-story garage built along the North Bluff in Oak Bluffs in 2003 without a permit.
The story behind the three-story garage is by now familiar and dates back to November of 2003 when Mr. Moujabber received a town building permit to replace an existing small garage on his Sea View avenue extension property. In less than six months the project grew into a three-story building with multiple balconies, sliding glass doors and a roof deck.
The violation is now the subject of numerous court cases, all unresolved, and the commission is reviewing a revised building plan as a development of regional impact.
Neighbors, who want to see a town demolition order upheld, remain unhappy.
“The basic structural elements of the building are, in a word, ugly,” said Saco avenue resident Belleruth Naparstek, a plaintiff in one of the lawsuits.
The commission has received numerous letters opposing the revised plan.
At the start of last Thursday’s meeting, commission executive director Mark London presented a four-page report recommending changes, including a reduction in size and scale of the proposed addition. Mr. London recommended that a tower, several dormers and a second-floor balcony be eliminated, and that the ridge line be lowered by at least 18 inches.
Spokesmen for the project, including attorney Matthew Iverson and architect Peter Clemente, said they were willing to work with the commission to find a solution that worked for everyone.
But when Mr. Iverson said one of the goals of the revised plan was to give Mr. Moujabber a view of the ocean, the remark drew a rebuke from commission chairman Douglas Sederholm.
“You say you are trying to create an ocean view, but this building already has an ocean view from a porch and at least one bedroom. Just from listening to you one might get the impression that [Mr. Moujabber] doesn’t already have an ocean view,” he said.
The public hearing has been continued until a future meeting.
Comments
Comment policy »