The Martha’s Vineyard Commission is attempting to reverse a ruling that threatens to cut the Islandwide planning agency out of the review process for many large-scale housing projects.
The ability of the commission to put conditions on so-called 40B housing projects was called into question earlier this year by the state Housing Appeals Committee (HAC), a state body that ruled the Island agency shouldn’t be one of the permitting stops for projects.
The commission, along with the Edgartown zoning board of appeals, is now arguing that HAC was wrong in its determination, and filed an appeal in Dukes County Superior Court on May 19 that asks for the ruling to be overturned.
The legal battle largely hinges on if the Martha’s Vineyard Commission is considered a “local board” under the state’s affordable housing laws, known commonly for its statute number 40B.
The law was enacted in 1969 to make it harder for communities to override the needs for affordable housing through extensive permitting and zoning. To help streamline the process, the state allowed projects with at least 20 per cent designated affordable units to have the application consolidated into a single permit request before the zoning board of appeals.
But here on the Vineyard, the Martha’s Vineyard Commission has acted as another layer of review that is taken before the town zoning boards decide on the final approvals.
Decades of precedence was overturned this April when the state Housing Appeals Committee agreed with developer William Cumming that the Martha’s Vineyard Commission was indeed a local board under 40B, and thus did not have jurisdiction over his proposed Edgartown Gardens project, which included a mix of market-rate and affordable units.
In the new filing, the MVC contends it is a regional body that has special dispensation to also oversee 40B housing projects.
“The Legislature enacted the MVC Act with full knowledge of Chapter 40B’s constructive grant mechanism and chose not to exempt Chapter 40B applications from MVC review,” the commission’s attorneys wrote in the 25-page appeal.
The commission argues that calling the commission a local board violates the MVC’s enabling legislation and overlooks past court precedent recognizing the MVC’s regional and statewide mandate.
One of the commission’s main functions is reviewing projects that are considered “developments of regional impact,” or DRIs.
“When reviewing DRI applications, the MVC is expressly directed to consider the impact of the proposed development beyond the municipality in which the development is located to include other municipalities on the island,” the MVC and Edgartown attorneys wrote. “This cross-municipal scope of review is a defining characteristic of a regional, not a local, permitting function.”
The MVC also questioned the Housing Appeals Committee’s expertise in dealing with the MVC act, and noted past precedent was set in 2002 when a developer seeking to find the MVC as a local board was rejected by the Land Court.
The commission’s nine at-large members, as well as a county representative and multiple governor’s appointees, was also evidence that the MVC is a regional body, according to the lawsuit.
The Housing Appeals Committee reasoned that the MVC needed to be considered a local board to create uniformity across the state. Giving the Vineyard an extra layer of review and veto power was unfair, the three-member panel ruled.
“[S]uch veto power would exist only in those municipalities subject to the MVC Act, creating inequity between the island and the rest of the Commonwealth,” the committee wrote in its ruling from April.
The jurisdictional question springs from Mr. Cumming’s controversial Edgartown Gardens proposal, a 55-apartment senior housing project that was rejected by the MVC for its size, location along Upper Main street, and the proportion of market-rate to affordable units.
In addition to questioning the MVC’s authority to review the project, Edgartown Gardens said that the proposal should be approved because the town zoning board failed to open a public hearing on the proposal within the prescribed 30 days.
Past precedent on the Vineyard has been that the zoning board application is on pause until after the Martha’s Vineyard Commission decides, often resulting in a project coming to the board several months after the initial application is submitted.
But with the commission being considered a local board in the eyes of the Housing Appeals Committee, that long wait period is unacceptable and the committee granted the request for a “constructive approval.”
The commission and the zoning board have both argued against this.
“The HAC’s ruling, if upheld, would undermine the MVC’s ability to fulfill its fifty-year statutory mandate to protect the unique natural, historical, ecological, scientific, and cultural resources of Martha’s Vineyard, and would give developers a mechanism to circumvent the MVC’s regional review authority entirely by allowing local deadlines to lapse before MVC review is complete,” their attorneys wrote.
Jay Talerman, the lawyer for Edgartown Gardens and Mr. Cumming, said it was disappointing to see the MVC file what he called a “fundamentally flawed” appeal rather than accepting the Housing Appeals Committee’s ruling.
“Plainly, while the Island’s affordable housing percentage continues to plummet, the MVC is clinging to its archaic veto authority over new housing projects that will provide much needed opportunities for low and moderate income households who can no longer afford to stay on the Island where they were born, where they work, where they have chosen to raise their families,” he wrote in an email to the Gazette.
Related documents:
This article appears in June 5, 2026.
according to the steamship authority, as of may 14, the number of vehicles brought to the vineyard is down 3% at the same time as last year.
thats 6300 vehicles…..do we have a problem? yes we do…
The reduction in vehicular traffic on the ferries can be caused by many factors. Data has shown that some vacationers are staying longer than they have historically. This would reduce the number of vehicles on the ferry, but not necessarily be a “bad thing” for the island.
I’m not so sure I see that as a problem.
well, being that tourism is our only industry, decline of visitors as tourists is a big problem for tourist related businesses……i ask around the island and they are noticing a lack of visitors in stores and restaurants……
“Power begets power”. Reading about the clutching nature of the MVC is alarming. 52 years of the MVC and undoubtedly dozens of tough decisions made that had a positive impact. Yet the “housing crisis” has been fumbled by local boards and the MVC to which Mr. Cumming knows that. This appeal in my opinion is about far more than 40b development (since 1969 folks) but rather a desperate move to keep control. I see it both ways but it’s pretty tough to be “against more housing” when little to no housing has been created. IHT is about to retire Mr. Jordi and even after 20 years at the helm working so hard, only 300 units unveiled. My point being, it’s hard to do hard things here. One could say borderline impossible. I encourage Mr. Turner to change course and accept reality rather than spend more of our townships tax revenue to fight legal battle after legal battle. Litigation is leads to litigation. We all lose. I’m weary of the outcomes ahead.
If Mr. Cummings had a good proposal for affordable housing, it would be approved. Unfortunately, his proposal does not meet Vineyard standards. It is a balancing act and there were always be winners and losers and we do need the MVC but I agree the MVC may have gone too deep. But Mr. Cummings is working in his best interest and not the Island‘s best interest.
What are these “Vineyard” standards you are referring to?