Archives | Buy Photos | Subscriptions | Submissions | Advertise | Contact

Wednesday, May 22, 2013

By Steve Myrick
Published: April 16, 2009

The Oak Bluffs zoning board of appeals (ZBA) approved the Bradley Square affordable housing project last Thursday evening.

The vote was 3-0, with two abstentions. ZBA chairman Kris Chvatal, and members Jane Lofgren and Peter Palches voted for the project. Gail Barmakian and Joe Re abstained.

The ZBA decision is the final step in a design, review, and regulatory permitting process that began more than 18 months ago. That process included 10 public meetings, seven separate sessions of public hearings before the Martha's Vineyard Commission, six nights of public hearings before the ZBA, two funding votes before Oak Bluffs town meetings, and seven professionally mediated sessions between the developers and a committee of citizens who objected to the scale of the project.

The ZBA's decision does not rule out a court challenge that could further delay the project. Following the meeting, Don Lambert, who chaired a committee of concerned citizens, said he knew of no plans to appeal the board's decision.

Asked after the meeting if the process frustrated him, Richard Leonard, chairman of the Island Housing Trust, replied with a smile, "Not right now."

The Trust, along with the Island Affordable Housing Fund and contractor John Early are the project's applicants. In its final iteration, the development at the corner of Dukes County Avenue and Masonic Avenue includes 10 residential units, a commercial unit, and an office and sanctuary with at least 18 on-site parking spaces.

About 25 people attended the April 9 meeting, expressing much the same sentiments in support of the project, or in support of scaling it down.

In his presentation to the board, Philippe Jordi, executive director of the Island Housing Trust, outlined the changes in the project, and emphasized his contention that it would create between 80 and 100 jobs for Island tradesmen. He asked that the project be approved with the conditions imposed by the Martha's Vineyard Commission when it approved the revisions on March 5.

Mr. Lambert praised the developers for compromising with his committee, but he was concerned that traffic and parking remain an issue. "You're impacting the neighborhood," he told the board members. "If you just adjust those two issues, I think everybody can be happy with it. Masonic Avenue is a back door through Oak Bluffs that everybody in this room uses all the time. Any impact is going to be felt by everybody."

Candace Nichols, who owns property near the proposed project, raised a number of objections. She said the latest revision in the plan endangered a tree that the town's tree warden previously ordered preserved and protected. The developers promised all trees under the tree warden's order would be protected, and said the tree warden had agreed to the revised plans.

Ms. Nichols, who cited her experience as a real estate attorney, also said the applicants had not recorded a revised lot plan with the Registry of Deeds. She questioned whether the project had a valid approval for a sewer hookup, since the permit was based on the lot plan.

The developers purchased the land as two lots, and combined them into one for the purposes of permitting. Mr. Jordi produced a lot plan that he said was marked as properly recorded. After examining it, the board voiced no objection to the sewer permit. Ms. Nichols also suggested that the project be reduced in scale from three buildings to two.

Ms. Barmakian also questioned the developers about whether the project could be reduced in scale.

"To me this is extremely large for the lot. I did my numbers. I'm wondering why you object to taking a building out," said Ms. Barmakian. "The way I see it, you keep the commercial building and you preserve the Denniston building. I took out the costs of building Bradley Two, and reduced the revenue you derived from it." Ms. Barmakian said with those adjustments, the plan would remain financially viable

"You're not probably assuming certain fixed costs that can't be taken away, land costs," said Mr. Jordi. "You're also assuming the same amount of subsidy is going to provided. If you have four less units, you're going to have that much less subsidy."

Ms. Barmakian raised new questions about parking. She said the project needed 28 parking spaces to accommodate mixed commercial and residential use. Mr. Palches disagreed. "We have so many examples of some of the most beautiful housing in America, the campground, that has no parking," said Mr. Palches. "The more urban you get, the more you're in conflict with the automobile. Are these places for people or are they for cars? We have come as close as we could possibly come to our goal of providing enough."

Ms. Barmakian made a motion for the board to delay its decision until more information could be gathered.

"You could bring up new questions forever, and kill the project in that way," said Mr. Palches. "I don't think the questions are productive at this point."

The motion to delay was defeated, 3-2, and it was followed a few moments later with the vote to approve the project.