The future of 54 undeveloped acres in Edgartown remains in suspense after the Martha’s Vineyard Commission continued its final deliberations to Oct. 8.
Commissioners spent nearly three and a half hours Thursday night deliberating the potential benefits and detriments of the Katama Meadows mixed-income housing project, one of the largest residential development proposals the Island has seen in decades.
The commission’s decision-making procedure begins with a series of votes on how a proposed project will affect the Vineyard’s natural environment, its character and identity and other elements of Island life.
On Thursday, commissioners concluded that overall, Katama Meadows would have a detrimental effect on the natural environment of Martha’s Vineyard.
The property is located in the Edgartown Great Pond watershed, which is already impaired by excess nitrogen.
Homes built at Katama Meadows would be connected to the town sewer system, but the project still is expected to leach some nitrogen into the environment.
“The small detriments are cumulative,” commissioner Joan Malkin said.
Commissioners also voted that Katama Meadows would have a negative effect on the area’s habitat and ecology, climate resilience and open space.
Although more than half the 54 acres are meant to remain permanently open, building 45 homes would eliminate a significant amount of natural storage for carbon dioxide that would otherwise enter the atmosphere, Ms. Malkin said.
“The project proposes to eliminate half of the property’s ability to sequester carbon, estimated at 1,500 tons, due to only land clearing and excavation,” she said.
Commissioners also noted testimony from Island biologists who described the land as a fragile habitat and essential wildlife corridor.
The one environmental benefit commissioners found was the solar energy plan, which commissioners added as a condition of the project earlier this year.
Each owner of the 19 market-rate lots in the subdivision would be required to install solar power generation when building, and the developers would have to pay up to $500,000 to assist owners of the 26 income-restricted lots to install solar when they build.
The commission found Katama Meadows would have a detrimental effect on the Vineyard’s character and identity and on Islanders’ social development and recreation.
“This just screams overdevelopment to me,” said Brian Smith. “It does not respect Island character or identity.”
Ben Robinson said the physical segregation of the project’s market-rate and income-limited lots into separate neighborhoods violates the commission’s own policy.
“Our housing policy expresses that you integrate the units,” he said.
Katama Meadows’ developers testified previously that they couldn’t integrate the differently-priced lots for a variety of site-related reasons, Ms. Malkin said.
Commissioners wrangled over the subdivision’s potential economic impacts.
“For an Island whose economy is ultimately based on our special environment … this demolishes a large swath of what’s special about Martha’s Vineyard,” Linda Sibley said.
“The more houses you build, the less this is like Martha’s Vineyard and the more it is suburban,” she said.
“Our economy will not benefit from overdevelopment,” said Mr. Robinson, arguing that Island workers would not benefit from Katama Meadows because the local construction industry is already overwhelmed.
“The morning boats ship over hundreds and hundreds of workers,” Mr. Robinson said. “I don’t think it’s a benefit to add more to an overheated economy … People are driving from New Hampshire on a daily basis to do work on this Island.”
Commissioner Douglas Sederholm said the public hearing included testimony that local tradespeople would be able to do the work.
“What Ben is discussing isn’t in the record. Maybe something we see when we go down to the ferry early in the morning, but it’s not in the record,” he said.
“I think the evidence that we have is what we’ve heard, which is that there’s capacity to to take on this work,” Mr. Sederholm said.
Commissioners ultimately voted that a slight economic benefit was likely.
The commission also found a potential benefit for low- to moderate-income and workforce housing in the project’s 26 lower-priced lots, 14 of which would be donated to the town of Edgartown and another two to be given to Habitat for Humanity, with an ongoing preference for municipal employees as buyers for the remaining 10.
Ms. Malkin, however, said the housing benefit remains speculative until homes are actually built on the lot.
“According to the testimony, it will require a town vote… so it may never happen, [and] there is no time frame within which the housing will be delivered,” she said. “It may never eventuate.”
Impacts from traffic and night lighting were found to be neutral.
The commission still must weigh the subdivision’s potential impacts to municipal services and local laws and ordinances, before taking its final vote on whether or not to approve the subdivision.
Deliberations are scheduled to resume Oct. 8 at 6:30 p.m.
If you approve this one more will follow and the Vineyard will continue to be destroyed. Have none of these people driven the roads during July and August. My wife and I are seriously considering leaving during the 2nd and 3rd week of September and traveling elsewhere, and not being prisoners in our own home.
Agreed. In the six years since this development was denied the first time, the Vineyard has only become more degraded. The Utah developers want a Salt Lake City-style upscale suburb on the Vineyard, and it is simply inappropriate. Approve this development, and how do you say no to the next one? The suburbanization of the Vineyard will destroy what made this place special, forever.
Just say no. The only certain benefit here is to off island developers.