Less than a year after a bench trial pitted the Martha’s Vineyard Commission against developers of a proposed housing development over the denial of the Meeting House Place project, a superior court judge has upheld the commission’s decision.
Filed in Dukes County Superior Court on April 25, Judge Paul Wilson called for a dismissal of the complaint, affirming the commission’s claim that “the Meeting House proposal was the genesis of a good idea that was incomplete and infeasible as proposed.”
First filed by Utah-based developers Douglas K. Anderson and Richard G. Matthews, represented by attorney Edward Dangel, the lawsuit aimed to appeal the commission’s 2020 denial of the proposed Edgartown subdivision.
The 54-acre property initially slated for Meeting House Place was purchased for $6.6 million in 2017 by developers Anderson and Matthews, operating as Meeting House Way LLC. The project called for nearly 30 single-family homes on around 20 acres of the Edgartown property.
Triggering the denial of the proposal was the commission’s assertion that the subdivision would threaten Island character via suburbanization; it ultimately decided that the project was more of a detriment than a benefit to the Island community.
The commission’s rejection said the project plans fell short when it came to the MVC’s goal of limiting the impact on the surrounding environment, and that it lacked sufficient wastewater facilities. The commission called the development of additional housing units “the only true benefit” of the project, but argued that developers’ claims that the housing would be affordable had no merit.
Judge Wilson agreed.
The proposed project was “unworkable for several reasons, both factual and legal,” Wilson’s decision reads, stating that Meeting House Way LLC lacked sufficient plans outlining how the affordability would actually work.
Without a proper mechanism to regulate deeds restrictions, or offer details regarding who can occupy the housing units, there’d be potential for misuse of the units, the argument states.
The court’s decision called the project proposal “legally deficient,” as it failed to fit within state and federal guidelines for affordable housing.
“I am sympathetic to the grievance that inspired Meeting House to file this appeal,” Wilson’s ruling says. But despite its support from town officials, “Meeting House found itself before a regional planning agency that disliked the size and style of its planned subdivision and the likely audience for the proposed lots, and therefore prevented it from seeking permits — permits that it believes it would have successfully obtained — from the town of Edgartown.”
“This case is made more difficult by the fact that the commission strained for reasons to deny Meeting House the right to build its development, supporting its denial with some reasons that I have found unsupportable as a matter of fact,” Wilson’s decision continues, “but certain other bases for the [denial] — including its concern about the use of the property for large homes likely to be purchased as vacation residences — were factually justified.”
It appears the Meetinghouse Trust attorney did not have the capability to educate the Judge. I watched one session and I felt the attorney missed the mark on everything he tried. Before the trial he did not listen to any advice. Be ready Edgartown expect another round of appeals and lots more of legal money. So wasteful.
I see you have made this comment before and think it is more about you not liking the attorney rather than the work he did. It was always a long shot to over turn an MVC decision as the MVC has vague rules they go by. Even the judge in his decision said as much that some of the reason the MVC used to deny this were not supportable. This was not a slam dunk that the commission was right it was more of you can deny this project because you want to. Until there are more black and white rules that a developer can follow we will have more lawsuits. As with this ruling a firms the MVC can make up any reason they want to deny a project. But this is what the island wants right now so this is what we get. We put these utopia thinking people on the MVC.
“This case is made more difficult by the fact that the commission strained for reasons to deny Meeting House the right to build its development, supporting its denial with some reasons that I have found unsupportable as a matter of fact” – Is this not the entire tale of the whole MVC for years and years of abuse of power and denying additional housing supply!?!?