West Tisbury duplex project approved, with conditions

A proposed duplex was conditionally approved by the West Tisbury planning board during a Monday meeting, but questions remain for the project as it moves forward. 

Last month, Island Housing Trust (IHT) proposed building a duplex — an around-1,700-square-foot building on 88 Pin Oak Circle, a 20,038-square-foot lot — during a public hearing. 

The duplex would consist of two units: a 936-square-foot two-bedroom residence on the first floor, and a 786-square-foot, one-bedroom residence on the second floor. 

The trust plans to make the second floor unit affordable to households earning 140 percent or less of the area median income (AMI), with the two-bedroom unit restricted to year-round occupancy. 

According to the Dukes County Regional Housing Authority, 140 percent of the median income on the Island in 2022 for a four-person household is $150,400.

Monday’s meeting was a continuation of a hearing in July, when concerns were raised about possibly selling or renting the units at a market rate, the size of the property, and the possible impact to neighbors. 

IHT real estate associate Pamela Scott showed some changes to the plans, like shifts to the curb cut; she also provided additional information about the units in an updated memo. According to the memo, no maximum sale price or rental restrictions are planned for the two-bedroom unit, the town would not be responsible for the property management, and IHT has not determined how to allocate the property yet — whether it would be used for IHT employees, if individual units would be leased, or if they would sell the duplex with leasing restrictions. 

Additionally, Scott said attorneys from West Tisbury law firm Brush, Flanders & Moriarty found no affordability restrictions for 88 Pin Oak Circle. 

Board member Virginia Jones expressed strong reservations about having the two units on an “extremely small lot.” In particular, she said, the seeming flexibility of who might own the units worried her that they could eventually be used in unintended ways in the future.

“It’s not as restricted as much as I would like to see it,” she said. “If it’s going to be allowed, I think it should be very heavily restricted to somebody, such as an employee of Island Housing Trust, and there should be only one unit.” 

IHT real estate project director Keith McGuire pointed out that the proposed duplex is a similar size to 16 Old Courthouse Road, a two-unit affordable rental housing that was roughly 1,800 square feet. “That was a controversial project too,” he said. But he added that he has heard a lot of good things about how the project turned out.

When board chair Leah Smith asked why IHT didn’t propose two affordable units, McGuire pointed to funding, and the high cost of building a house on Martha’s Vineyard. He said IHT grapples with this challenge, and the duplex was a “financial risk” for the developer. “The prices have gone up from pre-COVID times at least 25 percent, and probably more,” he said. “It’s not just the price of materials … we’re competing on the market for labor with people who have million-dollar houses.” 

IHT CEO Philippe Jordi clarified that the two-bedroom unit would not just be sold on the open market, adding that a year-round restriction would be implemented. “The intent is really to provide a combination of housing that is affordable up to [140] percent, as well as year-round restriction that we can permanently restrict using our ground lease,” he said, pointing out that some IHT employees who need on-Island housing may fall into the 140 percent AMI category, rather than a smaller income range. 

Board member Amy Upton made a point that the higher limit can help meet the Island’s “missing middle” population, which is not discussed as much in the affordable housing conversation. According to Upton, this upper limit can help provide a wider range of Islanders who might be able to get housing. 

After further discussion among the board and IHT, the meeting shifted to public comments.

Although appreciation was expressed for changes made to the plans based on feedback from the previous hearing session, some concerns from abutters lingered. Residents nearby reinforced their concerns about not enough space on the lot, possible septic issues, increased traffic, and protecting open space near the proposed project site. 

Abutter Jeremiah Brown pointed out that other property owners in the area needed to sign deed restrictions that came from the West Tisbury affordable housing committee more than 20 years ago; the new project needs to be protected for affordability. 

Michael Colaneri, who was a longtime member of the West Tisbury affordable housing committee, sent a letter advocating for the building to have a permanent town covenant “restricting it to affordability forever.” He also asked what town counsel’s input was on the property.

Town counsel was not consulted by the board, according to board chair Smith.

Smith expressed concern over the discrepancy between the deed restrictions mentioned during public comment and IHT’s attorneys being unable to find affordability restrictions. McGuire said he thinks that the restrictions mentioned by neighbors may be just the town’s zoning and health bylaws, placed on smaller lots. 

After further discussion, the board contemplated whether it would be beneficial to continue the public hearing, considering there are still questions remaining for the property. 

After further discussion, the board decided to close the public hearing. The board unanimously approved the project, but with some conditions, like maintaining the buffer zone with Old County Road, and limiting the property to no more than four cars. 

Additionally, the approval is contingent upon an investigation by town counsel of West Tisbury affordable housing committee documents to determine whether there is a restriction that all units in the area need to be affordable.