The developers behind a controversial housing proposal intended for the outskirts of Edgartown are coming back before Island planners with a new plan to develop up to 54 acres of land for 36 rental units, 12 duplexes and 26 single-family lots.

The team behind Meeting House Way, a denied housing project planned along the road of the same name, is now proposing Katama Meadows for the area. Attorneys for the project are set to go before the Edgartown planning board on Tuesday.   

The new project is the third iteration of a housing development and subdivision for the land owned by Utah-based developers Douglas Anderson and Richard Matthews. The pair are seeking to add more affordable housing after the last plan was rejected by the Martha’s Vineyard Commission in a contentious decision that is still under appeal. 

The project would trigger review with the Martha’s Vineyard Commission, and Katama Meadows attorney Robert Moriarty said his clients have worked hard to come up with the new proposal. 

“It strikes a balance that’s hard to strike at that location,” he said.

Meeting House Way was initially proposed as a 36-home subdivision for the 54-acre parcel in 2018. By 2020, the plan had changed to a 28-lot subdivision, along with 14 townhouses. 

That proposal was denied by the commission in a 10-4 vote, largely because it didn’t fit in with the character of the Island, and appeared to be “a development for millionaires” that was not needed for an Island facing a housing crisis, as one commissioner put it. 

Mr. Anderson and Mr. Matthews objected to the decision, and ended up appealing the ruling to the Dukes County Superior Court. Despite noting some potential flaws in commission’s denial, Judge Paul Wilson ruled in 2023 that the commission does have the power to conclude that a private development of primarily vacation homes was a danger to the Island’s character. 

“The case is made more difficult by the fact that the commission strained for reasons to deny Meeting House the right to build its development, supporting its denial with some reasons that I have found insupportable as a matter of fact,” he wrote. “But certain other bases for the Commission’s decision – including its concern about the use of the property for large homes likely to be purchased as vacation residences – were factually justified.”

The decision was a landmark ruling for the MVC, affirming the commission’s broad powers over development on the Island. 

Meeting House Way went on to appeal the ruling with the state Appeals Court in 2023. In October, Mr. Moriarty wrote to the planning board, saying that the developers have, in principle, come to a settlement with the Martha’s Vineyard Commission.

Though such an agreement has not yet been finalized with the court, the new plan was born out of the settlement discussions, according to Mr. Moriarty.

The lead attorney for the commission did not return a request for comment this week. 

The new plan before the planning board has 36 low-income rental units on 3.5 acres of land. The units would be restricted to people whose incomes are between 30 per cent and 80 per cent of the area median income, and be made up of one-, two- and three-bedroom apartments.

The 12 duplexes would be deed restricted to year-round residents, though still set at market rate. The 26 house lots would have no restrictions, under the plan filed with the planning board. The duplexes would range from 1,400 square feet to 2,000 square feet. 

About 25 acres of the lot, largely along the Meeting House Way and Pease’s Point Way side of the property, would be conserved in open space, according to the plan. 

Mr. Moriarty said the new project was done to preserve open space, while also providing housing to an Island that needs more affordable places to live.

“This project has benefited from the scrutiny its predecessors received,” Mr. Moriarty wrote in the application. “It is a step forward that addresses the most pressing challenge Edgartown faces: providing affordable housing for the people who make Edgartown and Martha’s Vineyard work; while also being duly sensitive to the environmental and open space concerns inherent in any subdivision of this size and scope.”