Montessori School expansion faces neighbors’ pushback

The issue will be taken up again during a future MVC meeting.

2
The Vineyard Montessori School faced some pushback by abutters. —Courtesy of MVC

The Vineyard Montessori School’s expansion plans in Tisbury faced resistance from neighbors during their first public airing. 

On Thursday, Feb. 1, the Martha’s Vineyard Commission (MVC) held a hearing regarding the school’s plans to construct a third building with a 2,915-square-feet footprint. This would allow the school to increase the number of people at its main campus on 286 Main St. by 29 students and five staff members, according to a MVC staff report. It would also allow the school to end its lease on a satellite campus at 15A Church St. by 2025, saving the school $3,100 a month.

Numerous people sent letters regarding the project, with supporters outnumbering letters of opposition or concern by nearly triple. Supporters voiced the need for childcare access and education for working parents. 

Meanwhile, the concerns raised about the proposed project included light, increased noise, traffic concerns, and a lack of communication from the applicants. 

Ross Seavey, the attorney representing the school, sent a letter to commissioners in response, to try to assuage neighbors’ concerns. Seavey said plans had also been slightly adjusted based on feedback received during the meeting with the MVC’s Land Use Planning Committee. 

Regarding some abutters’ concern about a lack of transparency, Seavey said the school went “above and beyond” in notifying abutters. 

“In my opinion, both as a land use attorney but also as a Tisbury building inspector for quite a few years, people always want more notice, and would like to know more on what’s going on on their neighbors’ properties,” Seavey said, adding that since the school was pursuing the project under Tisbury bylaws, there weren’t requirements for the organization to actively notify abutters. 

Seavey also emphasized that the school’s goals of providing a safe environment align with abutters, since their students also walk the neighborhood streets. 

Abutters opposed to the construction were in attendance at Thursday’s hearing. 

Abutter Jayne Stanek, who had been a part of the Montessori School before, voiced concerns about the impact the project would have on her property, and that the preparations had more of an impact than the applicants suggested. She noted the number of trees cleared. Stanek said she is pro-education, and recognizes the needs the school meets for Island families. “We don’t deny any of this,” she said. “But the obligation to ensure responsible growth on the Island is just as important.” 

Stanek underscored that she was not a case of NIMBYism (not in my backyard), and she was concerned the expansion will add additional pressures to an area she said is already overburdened. She did say that the development would have a detrimental impact to the neighborhood and her property.

Abutter Susan Dunbar, who sent four letters to the commission, said there were several considerations the neighbors would like commissioners to review before making a final decision, such as the long line of idling cars on Tashmoo Avenue of parents waiting to pick up children, noise abatement, and the potential reforestation of trees. 

Dunbar also said the school was not completely forthcoming about its expansion, claiming that a previous iteration showed a smaller building, compared with what was proposed.

“Those buildings stick out like sore thumbs in the neighborhood,” she said. 

Dunbar said that she wasn’t against the school’s mission. “My daughter went to this Montessori School when it was tiny, and … it was great,” Dunbar said. “I do believe in what they’re offering, but it’s just so gargantuan, and it’s hard to wrap your head around.” 

Some abutters also said the traffic was worse than what was presented during the hearing. 

Seavey pushed back on the idea that the school had been dishonest, and said the area was not overburdened. He also said the MVC staff would have likely notified the applicants if a policy was violated. 

“I think some of these concerns are not borne out by our plans, or the facts really here,” he said.

Seavey also said they can work out additional ways to address neighbors’ concerns, like a no-idling sign. 

Commissioners voiced their own concerns — mitigation efforts on light pollution, septic connections, the trees cleared for the construction preparation, among others — but they also wanted additional information, such as a preliminary landscaping plan. 

After further discussion and consideration, the commission decided to conduct a site visit on Wednesday, Feb. 7, at 12:30 pm. Additionally, the record will be left open until Feb. 15 at 5 pm for further submissions. A vote was not taken by the commissioners.

2 COMMENTS

  1. I find it ironic that the headlines read that the Edgartown School is losing students, enough to cause concern, and the Montessori School wants to expand to accommodate basically the same number of students. A coincidence?
    I have to agree with the neighbors. This is a residential area and the school is already crowding the streets. It’s an accident waiting to happen.
    What started as a small preschool now encompasses infants and up through 14 years of age.
    I don’t dislike the Montessori School, my own nephew went to preschool there. I know that they already have a property they wish to use. But perhaps it’s time for them to look for another campus with more open space, further from their neighbors.

    • For reference, the Tisbury school is in the exact same zoning as the Vineyard Montessori School.

      It’s unfortunate that it would be assumed we are somehow taking kids from the public school in Edgartown. Especially considering The VMS expansion is adding preschool spaces and the Edgartown school serves k-8.

      There was a traffic study done by the Commission that stated that the added building would not burden the neighborhood. “Staff has evaluated the proposed project and has concluded that the project will not have a negative impact on the surrounding area/neighborhood. In the event that the drop-off and pick-up windows become problematic, the applicant should consider additional times in order to reduce potential conflicts. ”

      Here is the link to the staff report if you would like to know more about the topic you are giving a public opinion about.

      http://www.mvcommission.org/sites/default/files/docs/Updated%20Staff%20Report%20DRI%20751.pdf

Comments are closed.