A proposed bylaw that would set restrictions on large parties in residential areas of Edgartown was met with no opposition Monday during a public hearing with the town’s select board.
The proposal, which would limit the number of social events homeowners can have to two per week and five per month, with no more than 50 people in attendance, was prompted by a string of private gatherings held at a residential property that generated numerous complaints over the past summer.
Though select board chair Arthur Smadbeck emphasized that the potential bylaw change is not because of any specific property, he did admit that the discussion had been prompted by a number of concerns raised over one house in particular. “This is to try and give the town teeth to be able to address issues like what went on on West Tisbury Road last summer,” Smadbeck said.
He was referring to a handful of incidents where local law enforcement responded to calls made by neighbors of 10 Codman Spring Road, who had reported that the owners of the property, known as the Uncle Nearest House, had been holding frequent, large gatherings — some of them involving ticket sales — that were causing significant disturbance and increased traffic to the area, located just off Edgartown–West Tisbury Road.
The property is owned by CEO of Uncle Nearest Premium Whiskey, Fawn Weaver, and her husband, Keith. They purchased the property for $2.25 million in April last year under a limited liability company, UN House MV. Neighbors say the Weaver’s “Uncle Nearest House on Martha’s Vineyard” events held on the property — which included clambakes, brunches, and cocktail parties — were hosted with unprecedented frequency for the area.
Despite complaints lodged by frustrated neighbors against what they say appeared as busy commercial activity, Edgartown officials’ hands were tied when it became increasingly murky as to whether the Uncle Nearest property had indeed been used for business — which would be a violation of the town’s current bylaws.
But upon visiting the Uncle Nearest House multiple times during the summer, Edgartown building inspector Reade Milne said she was unable to determine if there was in fact commercial activity happening on the residential property.
On Monday, the select board heard roughly a dozen testimonials from abutters and neighbors to the Uncle Nearest House, who urged the board to crack down on all big parties, citing concerns over traffic, parking, excessive noise, and the presence of liquor.
During the discussion of the proposed restriction that would limit the frequency of large-scale social events in all residential zones, not one Edgartown resident present spoke against the bylaw draft, other than to suggest that the proposal was still not strict enough.
Edgartown resident Jim Dumbrowski recommended that all social events exceeding 50 persons ought to require a special permit from the town.
The recommendation was met with support from most present. Also agreed upon was that the $300 fine for violating the proposed bylaw, if enacted, would likely have little impact in deterring continued prohibited events.
In response, select board members stated that they’d be considering the suggestions offered, and would continue work on finalizing the proposed bylaw. If approved at town meeting, the new restrictions would also need to get the support of the Massachusetts attorney general’s office.
Regarding “Edgartown residents back ‘party bylaw’”, as an Edgartown property owner, I would suggest the proposal is over the top. I worked in land use for 30 years, eventually serving as counsel to various municipal land use boards. I never came across an ordinance as restrictive as the one recently proposed to the Edgartown Board of Selectmen. It is easy to imagine scenarios where well-meaning residents might exceed the proposed 50-person limit. I know of families who could exceed that limit at a reunion without including any non-family guests. I am a member of a badminton club that regularly has cocktail parties in members’ homes that approach or exceed 50 individuals. Admittedly, badminton players are a notoriously unruly bunch, but we generally try not to disturb our neighbors and would tone things down in the event of a complaint. The proposed town wide rule strikes me as a gross over-reaction to a problem centered on a single property. Isn’t there a noise ordinance in Edgartown? Was it violated? Ultimately, if a neighbor’s activities interfere with a homeowner’s use and enjoyment of their property, a civil suit sounding in nuisance is an option. I don’t see why everyone in Edgartown should be restricted by this very local problem.
Does your badminton club have more than two events in one week at the same house? Or more than five events in one month at the same house? This is the real problem.
What business is is of yours? Or anyone?
I agree, Kevin Ryan. It seems to me that the town, and any town, should be able to determine if a residence is being used for commercial events, which is very different from hosting parties.
Especially when the house in question is owned by a distiller, and they have admitted to selling tickets to events where they were serving alcoholic beverages (without a license). These things shouldn’t happen, and the bylaws should be worded in a way that prevents them from happening. We shouldn’t need to regulate the normal and usual use of a residential property to prevent abuses by a corporate interest. We zone areas as residential to prevent these types of conflicts. This does not seem to be nearly as complicated as the building inspector and select board would like us to believe.