To the Editor:
Last week, the Edgartown Historic District Commission approved Goldeneye LLC’s controversial plans for renovations at 81 South Water St. The lengthy application process, which began in April, was an unfair fight in which the commissioners were ultimately worn down by wealthy investor David Malm and his architect, Patrick Ahearn.
The commissioners deserve our gratitude for what they achieved: preventing construction of a vastly oversize house that would have looked nothing like the historic house currently on the property, and nothing like any other house on South Water Street — a key piece of the Historic District. But let’s briefly list what will be lost, despite the commissioners’ efforts, and might have been saved had they stayed the course.
The original structural and design elements on the south façade and the southeast corner of the main house will be destroyed completely — to enlarge a house that already has 4,748 square feet of living space.
While the original turret on the north side of the historic structure will be preserved (not destroyed, as Goldeneye initially proposed), it won’t be visible from South Water Street, as it is today, and has been since 1912. Only a piece of the turret roof will be seen.
Enlarging the south part of the structure will add outsize mass that HDC’s guidelines specifically discourage, and will destroy the symmetry of the street and harbor-facing façades that was thoughtfully preserved (and some would say enhanced) by the gables added with HDC approval in 2001.
Some might say these are design quibbles; that the important thing is that the view of the harbor, which was threatened by the original designs, has been preserved. They would be mistaken. The view has not been preserved. It may disappear in the near future.
In written narratives dated June 1 and 15, supporting the renovation proposals, Mr. Ahearn said, “The proposed view corridor [affording the iconic view of the harbor] consists of a theoretical 10,505-square-foot lot, which would be a legal building lot in itself …”
Why would Mr. Ahearn have calculated the precise square footage of a “theoretical” lot if Goldeneye were not considering subdividing the current lot and separately developing the “legal building lot” that is the view corridor? Yes, there is reference to a restriction against subdividing the property, but many Massachusetts property restrictions have a limited duration, and it is unlikely that Goldeneye, which paid $15 million for the property, is not fully aware of what it can and cannot do with the property.
The commissioners knew all of this before they voted to approve on August 3. Although they may not be able to stop the subdivision, they at least should have evaluated the proposed renovations in the context of a subdivided property. Despite multiple public comments asking the commissioners to consider the subdivision of the property when evaluating the increased “mass” of the proposed house, there is nothing in the record of their deliberations that suggests they did so. If the property is subdivided as Mr. Ahearn suggests it can be, the historic house will sit on a parcel less than two-thirds the size of its current lot. The enlarging of the house approved on August 3 is inappropriate for such a smaller lot, and should have been rejected.
Last, but certainly not least, there was Mr. Ahearn’s surprise “removal” of the hugely controversial swimming pool and oversize retaining wall midway through the HDC meeting on August 3, without prior notice to the public or the commissioners. Ms. [Julia] Tarka, [co-chair of the HDC,] stated that any renewed request to build a pool would have to come before the HDC. Mr. Ahearn, however, asserted just the opposite: That 1) the pool is not within the purview of the HDC, and 2) he will not bring the pool back to the HDC for consideration if Goldeneye decides to proceed with it later. The following text from page 3 of HDC’s Guidelines clearly supports Ms. Tarka: “While landscaping is generally not subject to design review by the commission, the following are subject to review and approval by the commission: 1) changes to grade [required for construction of the proposed pool], 2) outside HVAC equipment (excluding window units), and 3) yard structures, including, but not limited to, fences, swimming pools, playhouses, and pergolas.” Given Mr. Ahearn’s clear affront to their powers, why did the commissioners approve the plan without determining whether the “removal” of the pool was simply an end-run to circumvent HDC? And why didn’t they give the public an opportunity to be heard on this sudden, unresolved turn of events?
I fear the answer may be that the commissioners were simply worn down by the extended shenanigans that marked this application process. HDC’s records show Mr. Ahearn made five separate submissions, some more than 40 pages long, each with a different proposal for the property (and one with four alternative proposals), on April 3, May 18, June 1 and 15, and July 7, before belatedly “removing” the swimming pool halfway through the August 3 meeting — effectively a sixth proposal.
For a professional real estate investor who wants to make 81 South Water St. a luxury rental property, this is a cost of doing business he will recoup many times over if his plans are approved. The cCommissioners, in contrast, are unpaid volunteers, without dedicated professional advisors to match resources with a wealthy investor and match wits with Mr. Ahearn and his decades of “dealing with” zoning, preservation, and conservation regulators.
If Edgartown truly wants to achieve the purpose of its Historic District Bylaw and Guidelines “to preserve and protect the distinctive characteristics and architecture of buildings and places of historical significance in Edgartown,” it must give the volunteers who give their time to the HDC the backup they need to fight on equal terms.
Michael Hirschfeld
Edgartown