In the face of possible legal action, the Oak Bluffs planning board met last Thursday and downplayed the possibility the board might move to void the subdivision permit used to create South Woods Farm, a 26-lot subdivision that was part of the settlement in the long and divisive battle over the failed Down Island Golf Club.
The property was sold at a foreclosure auction on June 26 to a group led by Paul Adamson, a Boston-area developer and Edgartown homeowner. Mr. Adamson bought the property off Old County Road for $5.15 million from Patten Companies, a family-owned network of companies based in Williamstown with a long history and national track record of purchasing failed developments.
National Land Partners (NLP) Finance, a subsidiary of Patten Companies, precipitated the sale after it purchased the mortgage from the bank that was left holding the property once owned by Corey Kupersmith. The sale is pending, given a condition that outlines NLP Finance must work with the town and the Martha’s Vineyard Commission (MVC) to resolve permit and license issues before closing the deal and moving forward with development.
In a July 6 letter addressed to the planning board, NLP Finance general counsel Michelle Manners promised legal action if the planning board moved to void the special permit. The July 9 meeting was generally amicable, with all parties expressing an interest in working together to move forward.
The subdivision was created in 2004 when the Martha’s Vineyard Land Bank agreed to purchase 180 acres from Corey Kupersmith for $18.6 million, creating the Southern Woodlands property. The subdivision was created to bridge the gap between what Mr. Kupersmith wanted for his property and what the Land Bank would purchase.
The Martha’s Vineyard Commission signed off on the subdivision plan, and Mr. Kupersmith stopped suing, and left the Island. In 2004, the town approved a special permit. Beyond infrastructure and two model homes, there was little additional work, and the property became tied up in Mr. Kupersmith’s legal woes.
Keep it simple
The meeting Thursday opened with a discussion between planning board attorney Daniel Perry and NLP Finance general counsel Michelle Manners over whether the planning board has the discretion to void the special permit.
Mr. Perry questioned whether the special permit issued on the Southern Woodlands Project had lapsed under the provisions of the town’s bylaw and chapter 48, which requires that construction begin within two years of issuance. He said that his research showed that the infrastructure was not completed within the two years, thereby granting the planning board authority to void the permit.
“In terms of exercising your discretion, I think the board has the right to ask that the current owner of the property comply with conditions that can be added in an amended permit as a condition of not exercising that right to void,” Mr. Perry said. “If you do vote to void it, it would require that they start from scratch and comply with all the regulations.”
Ms. Manners questioned whether it would be fundamentally fair to make anybody start from scratch in developing the property.
“I would take issue with whether or not the board has authority to void the permit at this point,” she said. “But really I don’t even think that’s necessary. I think if we can find out tonight what it is that you’re looking for, I don’t see an issue.”
Vineyard Haven lawyer Geoghan Coogan represented the buyers. Mr. Coogan added the buyers wanted to cooperate with the planning board, but needed specifics.
“The point that I’m really here to express is that they’re ready to go, so if you’ve got bullet points that you want to address specifically about the plan, let’s talk about them next week, sit down with the plan and go over those,” Mr. Coogan said. “And as long as you have the discretion, not to void it and restart the engine. Don’t start the game over; we can play right now.”
Harry Patten, founder of Patten Companies, also expressed an interest in having all the parties work together to move the project forward.
“If there are things that you need from us and would like to see, tell us what they are,” he said. “If we’re able to meet the requirements that you need, then let’s do it. Let’s make it simple, let’s not make it difficult, let’s not make it contentious.”
Up to date
Ewell Hopkins, planning board member, said that many of the bullet points raised in discussion arose as a result of changes to town bylaws and policies since 2004. Mr. Hopkins recommended the parties address the development requirements, now in place.
Oak Bluff’s wastewater commissioner and selectman Gail Barmakian raised the issue of wastewater, and the need to limit nitrogen loading.
“Right now, Oak Bluff’s share of nitrogen removal would probably be sewering at least 350 to 400 homes,” Ms. Barmakian said. “Our wastewater capacity right now, which needs to be improved, can only afford 100 homes. So we’ve got 200 more to deal with, and this project will only put us farther behind the eight ball.”
She requested that the planning board look into nitrogen removal systems before moving forward with the development of the property.
Marie Doubleday, chairman of the Oak Bluffs affordable housing committee, expressed similar concerns.
“Those of us who live here year-round are well aware of the difficulties of workforce housing,” she said. “Unless we clear out some of this nitrogen issue, even just building a simple two- or three-bedroom house is impossible. I’m backing Gail as far as the nitrogen issue goes, because it’s going to impact — unless something is done — the ability to construct workforce housing in our community.”
Planning board Chairman Brian Packish said there was a need to define the well-trafficked walking trails that run through the property, and look at the depth of the back end of the property, which is close to the back of Lagoon Estates, creating a very narrow corridor.
Mr. Packish said he receives six to seven calls a day, mainly regarding the primary issues discussed. Mr. Coogan said the buyers were willing to address the concerns.
“The buyers, two of them own houses on Martha’s Vineyard, one in Oak Bluffs, one in Edgartown,” Mr. Coogan, a former Tisbury selectman, said. “They’re invested in the Island, that’s why they’re doing this. They’re not sweeping in here, building a bunch of houses and see you later. They have an investment in the nitrogen levels in the ponds. This is not somebody coming in here, running amuck, building some McMansions and here you go.”
The board agreed to continue discussion at their next meeting on Thursday, July 23, and potentially hold a public hearing the following week on July 30. All potential amendments or decisions with respect to the special permit would have to be approved by the MVC before being put to vote by the planning board.
MVC says valid
MVC Executive Director Mark London said Tuesday that as far as the MVC is concerned, the subdivision permit is still valid, given the action that was already taken in 2004.
“The broad strokes are, they have what we understand to be a valid MVC approval, in that they started work on it,” he said. “They registered the subdivision, they laid out the road, they started construction of two houses, and the owners will have the choice of either completing the project according to the MVC decision, or if they wish to make modifications about anything, they can make a request to the commission to modify any aspect of the decision, and that would be evaluated on its own merits.”
Mr. London said discussion will concern whether the property can develop based on the existing conditions. He foresees certain modifications will have to be made.
“For example, for affordable housing it says affordable housing mitigation is going to be donated to the Corey Kupersmith foundation, or something like that,” he said. “They might want to modify that one, because it presumably does not exist.”
He said only modifications to the original decision will have to be run by the MVC.
“Our understanding is that the MVC decision is still valid, it’s up to the town to figure out its own business,” he said. “I understand they were questioning whether that approval is still in place, but that’s their issue.”