An Edgartown planning board member is recusing herself from the review of a controversial, 52-single-family home project proposed for Edgartown after developers pushed her to step aside.
At a planning board meeting on Tuesday, Katama Meadows officials raised the concern that board member Julia Livingston had publicly advocated against the project.
Immediately following the concern, Livingston said she’s intending on recusing herself from a vote. “I’m not going to participate,” Livingston responded.
In a letter obtained by The Times that was sent to the planning board prior to Tuesday’s meeting, Katama Meadows developers outlined a few instances in the past year to back up the claim that Livingston should abstain from further involvement.
“Member Livingston has been prolific in her advocacy against this project, all while a member of the planning board with a then-pending Form C application before it,” the letter, which was signed by Katama Meadows attorney Robb Moriarty, read. “Her past public statements, emails, and published ‘expert opinion’ concerning the previous iteration of this project (DRI 773) command the conclusion that Member Livingston is incapable of acting fairly and objectively when it comes to this project.”
Moriarty cited articles and Livingston’s attendance as a community member in affordable housing committee meetings, where she was quoted as against the project. He also pointed to an email from the Katama Association, a nonprofit membership group that is dedicated to the preservation of the area, in which Livingston outlined reasons she was against the project, and directed community members to meetings in order to speak out against the approval of such a development.
Livingston has previously expressed concern that the project, in its intention to cater to the “missing middle” population of Islanders, would lose an opportunity to house lower-income residents. She also said the development of such a large area for market-rate apartments could be a loss for the Island when so many locals are searching for apartments, and are unable to afford lodging.
In the note sent to Katama Association members and in past affordable housing committee meetings, Livingston clarified that she was speaking as a member of the community, not as a member of the board.
“My personal belief, based on what I know, is that this land is not an appropriate location for a dense residential development of any kind,” Livingston wrote in the note. “I also believe that our only real chance to stop it is at the Martha’s Vineyard Commission.”
Not the first time a public official has done this but still voted so nice to see we are making progress. The MVC has its own problem with Edgartown’s Jeff Agnoli who has fought hard to keep that land vacant for many years even before he went on the MVC. Now he is on the MVC and we are suppose to believe he is not biased. What a joke
“ Now he is on the MVC and we are suppose to believe he is not biased. What a joke.”
Indeed!
When bias enters into a committee’s decisions, it weakens the entire process. Instead of considering all perspectives and evidence, one viewpoint gets unfair weight, which shuts down creativity and collaboration. This leads to poorer choices, wasted resources, and projects that don’t truly reflect the community’s needs. Over time, bias erodes trust—people start to feel that decisions are predetermined rather than fairly discussed. A committee should be a place where facts, balance, and shared goals guide the outcome, not personal preferences. Eliminating bias ensures that every voice is heard and that the final result is stronger, fairer, and more widely supported.