The Oak Bluffs planning board last week rejected a proposal to impose stricter regulations governing the appearance of downtown properties through a bylaw that expressed the frustration of town leaders with the deteriorating appearance of the Island and Strand theaters.
After more than an hour of discussion and public comment, the board voted 3-0 with two abstentions to reject the “Minimum property maintenance and vacant building zoning bylaw.” Board chairman Brian Packish and board member Erik Albert abstained because they own property in the business district.
As described, the intent of the proposed bylaw was “to enhance the economic viability and visual integrity of the B-1 and B-2 Business Districts [and] to provide a mechanism for the removal of existing nuisances within these districts.” Those who spoke cited the subjectivity of the proposed bylaw, which would require town meeting approval.
Oak Bluffs building inspector Mark Barbadoro said the bylaw was not enforceable under his purview since he can only take action when a building is considered structurally unsafe. He said it also could set the table for conflict down the road.
“My primary concern is that it’s up to the town to decide what it needs to address in terms of aesthetics,” he said. “It’s not very specific and I’m afraid it’s going to turn into something where feuding neighbors turn on each other. When does white cedar [shingling] become so far gone it needs to be addressed? I think there are some serious problems with some of the buildings in town that the building department and selectmen have the ability to address in terms of blight. The board of health and the selectmen can order a building down. Extreme measures can be taken, but there’s not a lot in between.”
“I see a lot of redundancy here,” board member Ewell Hopkins said. “I don’t see the benefit of a blight bylaw regardless of how it’s worded when what it brings to the table is aesthetics. Why aren’t we enforcing what we have instead of creating new statutes?
“I don’t believe there’s anything here that creates another option we don’t already have,” recused chairman Brian Packish said. “We don’t want bylaws directed at two properties when there are 287 properties in town. If you’re asking the building department to decide if a building’s pretty or not, you’re going down a slippery slope.”
Co-owner explains
Benjamin Hall Jr., co-owner of the Island and Strand theaters and attorney for Lucky 7 Realty Trust which holds both of the buildings, attended the meeting to contest the legality and the spirit of the bylaw.
“This was clearly written to force us to tear down the building,” he said. “I can appreciate people are upset with it. For that I apologize. However, this bylaw is over the top.”
Mr. Hall said the bylaw was “problematic” because it applied today’s building code to a 100-year-old building. “This is a zoning bylaw,” he said. “It cannot have retrospective application.”
Mr. Hall also took issue with the “registration of vacancy” clause. “There are situations where properties might be unrented but owners might be storing things in it,” he said. “Registering a vacant building after seven days seems punitive. The insurance company will say you have no insurance — most vacant buildings are not insured. This is putting somebody between a rock and a hard place. I think the intention of the bylaw is ‘your place looks like crap.’”
Mr. Hall said the repair of the Island theater has been hampered by the elements, the summer building moratorium in the downtown district, and by extreme measures taken by former town building inspector James Dunn. He provided the committee with a detailed and lengthy account of his various travails in his efforts to spruce up and repair both buildings.
The hearing ended on a positive note, with board members and Mr. Hall agreeing to further discussions.
“Thank you, Ben, for coming out,” Mr. Packish said. “I would encourage you to continue the dialogue. We have a resurgence in our town that I’ll venture to say is unprecedented.”
Mr. Packish said that at a recent seminar he spoke to several planning board members from other towns who are in similar situations, namely Scituate and East Hampton. “They said the worst thing we can do is waste time and energy on a few properties,” he said. “As the tide rises you will carry those properties with them.”
“It’s true that bylaws can’t go after existing problems,” Mr. Barbadoro said. “Tenants doing the work might work better than a bylaw.”
“The town can’t afford to spend a lot of money on litigation,” Skip Finley said. “We need to meet with the family. We need to find a way to sit down and make this work.”
After the vote to shelve the bylaw was taken, acting board chairman Kris Chvatal concluded the proceedings. “I’m glad we had a public hearing so we could get this in the open,” he said. “I’m concerned about local government making decisions. Higher property values always make a town look prettier. Hopefully with the downtown revitalization project we’ll see that.”
Selectman Walter Vail, an outspoken critic of the Hall family’s handling of the theaters, was unable to attend the meeting. In a conversation with The Times on Wednesday, he said he would continue to push for action on the theaters. “I don’t want that building looking like that next summer,” he said.
