Eleven vie for nine seats on the Martha's Vineyard Commission

Posted November 2, 2006

On Tuesday, Nov. 7 voters must make the biennial selection of the nine elected members of the Martha's Vineyard Commission (MVC). Eleven candidates are running for the positions, six of them for re-election.

Established in 1974, the MVC is a regional land use planning agency with broad powers to oversee and permit developments of regional impact (DRI) and develop regional regulations for areas approved as districts of critical planning concern (DCPC).

Martha's Vineyard Commission members are chosen in an at-large, Island-wide vote. Residents of one town may vote for candidates from other towns, but at least one commissioner must be elected from each town, and no more than two elected commissioners can sit from any one town.

For example, if the candidates with the three highest vote totals are from the same town, only two will be elected to the MVC. If a candidate with the lowest vote total overall is the only candidate from that town, he or she would be elected.

The Martha's Vineyard Times asked each of the MVC candidates to respond to the following three questions.

1. Considering recent decisions, such as the conditions put on the World Revival Church, the lengthy review of the Cozy Hearth housing development, the rejection of development of regional impact review for an Edgartown neighborhood and a West Tisbury single-family house, has the MVC properly balanced its authority, the authority of local town boards, and the rights of individual applicants?

2. Should large houses be subject to MVC review as developments of regional impact?

3. Some MVC applicants criticize the process for DRI review as costly, time consuming, and arbitrary. Do you agree?

Jim Athearn of Edgartown, candidate for reelection.

1. I think every commissioner is acutely aware of the responsibility to balance the rights of the individual applicants with best interests of the whole community. With input from public hearings, town officials and boards, and careful study from thoughtful and sincere commissioners, I believe we usually come up with a result that is fair to the applicant and better for the island than it may have been without careful review of concerns such as traffic, water quality, scenic impact and so on. This does take time, and can be frustrating for everyone, but it's better to take the time before it's built than worry about it after. Concerning the World Revival Church, many of the conditions attached to that project came from the church planners themselves. For instance, knowing the MVC standards for groundwater in the Sengekontacket watershed, they offered a wastewater system that would meet those standards. The MVC even encouraged them not to limit themselves on a steeple if that's what they really wanted. It was a good example of a successful process.

2. I don't know if large houses should be reviewed as DRI's. I do know that I've heard a lot of concern about them so I think we ought to sit down and study the real impacts and come up with appropriate plans. There may be ways for town boards to review them with MVC powers to back them up, as in the DCPC process. The Island Plan will probably address it but the MVC may need to create an interim policy for the near future.

3. Yes, it is costly to go through a DRI review and it takes time, some a lot more than others, depending on the complexity. The question needs to be asked, what would be the cost to the community to not review it? Not just in dollars but in other real costs to our well-being. No, the MVC decisions are not arbitrary, though they may look that way to those who are not as deeply involved in the process. We have been working on policy plans that help to clarify to applicants and others what the general standards for previous projects have been. Also, flexibility to one could look like arbitrariness to another.

Christina Brown of Edgartown, candidate for re-election.

1. Yes. In my experience, the MVC members put a great deal of time and thought into each of these proposals, including considering the roles and issues of all involved.

2. Not at this time. If the MVC were, it should develop clear reasons and guidelines. What is the effect of large houses - on the total energy available to the Island, on the labor force and the economy, on open natural habitats? What is the experience of communities that have limited house size, such as Aspen?

3. No, I do not think that the DRI review has ever been arbitrary. It is always based on the legislation establishing the MVC, which gives guidelines for evaluating the benefits and detriments. The time and cost result in careful review with the applicant and often a mutually agreed better project.

Mimi Davisson of Oak Bluffs, candidate for reelection.

1. Yes. This balance is dynamic and is governed by the existing DRI checklist and DCPCs (Districts of Critical Planning Concern). A combination of innovative new DCPCs, revised regulations for existing DCPCs, and a revised DRI checklist could change this balance in a very constructive way. Regardless of checklists and DCPCs, the larger the Island population gets, the more personal rights will be constrained. One person living in a 10-foot by 10-foot room has more personal rights than 15 people living in that same space.

2. Sometimes. Impact on the Island, not only house size, should determine DRI status. For example, a starkly contemporary 1,500 sq ft house built in a sensitive watershed in the middle of a favorite Island view can have more regional impact than a "green" 10,000-square-foot house in Island vernacular style that's self-sustaining via renewable energy and built in the middle of 100 permanently protected, wooded acres.

3. Costly and time-consuming? Sometimes. Arbitrary? No. Time is money. Streamlining the DRI process could reduce both time and money spent. Decisions are not arbitrary. Commissioners carefully and thoughtfully consider existing criteria and precedents in their decisions.

Dan Flynn of Oak Bluffs, former MVC member.

1. No. In my limited tenure as a voting member and my substantial observations throughout the years I feel that the MV commission is too into the regulatory aspect of their positions and not enough into the planning and follow through of their plans. The towns have not and should not subordinate their authority to the MVC.

2. No. Using the size as the only criteria for referral as a DRI is not in the best interest of our community. Local bodies can decide if the size of a house fits within their rules and should be evaluated in their venues.

3. Yes.

Paul Strauss of Oak Bluffs is a Dukes County commissioner and currently serves on the MVC as the county appointee.

1. In general, yes. The Commissioners try to balance these factors in their deliberations. The process continually evolves as we get more input from residents.

2. Where they are deemed to have a significant impact they should. MVC should develop specific criteria for this category so there is no uncertainty.

3. Some potential developers misguidedly fear the MVC so much they avoid coming to it any way they can. This is unfortunate: virtually every project that has been reviewed ended up better than it was on arrival. The decisions of the MVC are certainly not arbitrary though they can be costly and time consuming. That is the price we pay.

Richard Toole of Oak Bluffs is a former member of the MVC.

1. Our instructions from The Times say to answer these three questions with a yes or no. If that were possible, serving on the MVC would be fairly straightforward and easy. Question number one covers a lot of recent history that involved many hours of thoughtful discussion at the MVC. I did not participate in any of these discussions and am only familiar with newspaper accounts. The MVC resolved these issues in the best interests of everyone involved.

2. As for question two, there are many reasons why large houses may want to be reviewed by the MVC. Two of these are the need for more affordable housing to provide the increase in services to build and maintain them and the strain on an already limited energy supply to power them.

3. The process for MVC DRI review, subject of question three, is far from perfect, but performs a vital service. The MVC is constantly working to improve this, striving to become more consumer-friendly while targeting projects with true regional impact.

Kathy Newman of Aquinnah, a candidate for reelection, submitted the following response to the three questions.

All the questions you ask are issues of concern and consideration as the Commission moves forward. If you read my bio for the League Forum, you will note that I emphasized that my past training as a psychologist has taught me to listen to all sides and see issues as neither black nor white. I think all these concerns, about the size of houses, the character of old neighborhoods, etc. are important considerations.

The reason the MVC seems to be hearing them is that local boards are often torn about what to do. I think bringing together Island voices both to define an Island Plan and to input what that Plan should be, is an important step. All Island residents are urged to go on line and take the survey, contributing their voice. The balance between holding to Island traditions and moving ahead is a delicate balance. I think we're all struggling with these issues.

As for the DRI process, I think we can work on making that as cost effective and straightforward as possible. My hope is that the Island Plan will help to set standards that will simplify and refine the process as well as helping each of the towns to better define their criteria and standards.

Linda Sibley of West Tisbury, candidate for reelection.

1. Yes. In order to avoid being arbitrary the MVC must operate according to its rules and regulations and might sometimes decline to review projects that would benefit from review. When a project is properly before us, the length of time taken to review the project is a product of the complexity of the project, the degree to which the project evolves while before the MVC, and the completeness of the applicant's presentation.

2. Maybe. For example, some large individual homes have the potential for regional impact on public views. There can also be traffic impact and impacts on natural resources which rival those of commercial development. However, the MVC cannot embark on such reviews without a careful public process and the development of objective standards.

3. Arbitrary, no. Costly, occasionally; but costs are generally proportional to the magnitude (and overall cost) of a project. Time consuming? See my answer to number one. If you believe in the mission of the MVC to protect the unique character of Martha's Vineyard, the DRI process is worth the time, cost and effort, because it creates better results for the Island and generally an improved project for the applicant, as well.

Andrew Woodruff of West Tisbury, candidate for reelection, did not respond to The Times request.

Peter Cabana of Vineyard Haven submitted the following statement in response to the three questions posed by The Times.

I am a candidate for and not yet an elected member of the Martha's Vineyard Commission. If elected, I will make every attempt to objectively work within the guidelines established in chapter 831 to help Martha's Vineyard retain some of its unique values.

Douglas Sederholm of Chilmark, candidate for reelection, did not respond to The Times request.