The Martha’s Vineyard Commission last Thursday heard testimony both for and against a proposal to radically reduce the size of the Copeland Plan district, an architectural district of critical planning concern (DCPC) that includes several historic areas of town, including Ocean Park, the North Bluff and Waban Park.

Members of the Cottage City Historic District want to eliminate the Copeland DCPC from the downtown area, because they believe the protection zone is largely duplicated by the town historic district.

Speaking in favor of the idea were David Wilson and Renee Balter, both members of the Cottage City Historic Commission. They want the boundaries of the Copeland district reduced so that they do not overlap with the town historic district. The change would effectively eliminate the DCPC except for a small area around Sunset Lake.

The district was created in 1991 and includes architectural regulations administered by a special review board. The town historic district was created in 2003.

Last week Mrs. Balter said the Copeland review board is largely duplicated by the historic commission, which often forces applicants to go through the same review process twice. “The Copeland review is mandatory, but only if the building inspector decides its mandatory,” she said, adding: “The Copeland board has reviewed 25 to 30 applications in 19 years; by way of comparison the Cottage City commission has reviewed more than 200.”

Mr. Wilson said the Copeland board has done little to protect town architecture. “When we created [the historic district] in 2003 we could have included language to say that Copeland should go away, and we probably should have,” he said.

Gail Barmakian, a town wastewater commissioner and former member of the zoning board of appeals, spoke against the proposal. “Why not address the problem and fix it, instead of just getting rid of the [Copeland] district? . . I see this as an added measure of protection, and an important one,” she said.

Commissioners also questioned why the two review boards could not be combined into one board, retaining the legal strength of the Martha’s Vineyard Commission. “Why would you want to take away the super zoning powers of the DCPC?” John Breckenridge asked. “Why not incorporate the more special language of the Cottage City [district] into [the DCPC]?”

Linda Sibley agreed. “You have made your case; there is unnecessary duplication, but I don’t think you want to live with the unintended consequences of pulling the plug on the DCPC,” she said.

The public comment portion of the hearing was closed and the written record left open. The commission will revisit the issue at their next meeting on Feb. 4.