Updated August 5.
It remains unclear whether a final decision may be made on August 6 on the controversial and evolving Katama Meadows project, but if last week’s meeting is any guide to where this is going, the Island community and the Martha’s Vineyard Commission can expect more debate.
There’s a lot at stake, and nine years of history.
In 2017, 54 acres off Meetinghouse Way and Division Road in Edgartown was purchased by Utah developers Richard Matthews and Douglas Anderson for $6.6 million to create a sprawling housing development. But the plan for that development has endured several stops and starts.
The fourth iteration of a proposed subdivision of homesite lots for the acreage has been in front of the Martha’s Vineyard Commission (MVC), a regional planning committee and county land-use regulator, all year. Unlike previous proposals, the one before commissioners again this week has garnered town support for its potential to house moderate-income residents, who officials say are underserved due to state-subsidized income restrictions for affordable housing projects.
Proposed conditions, deliberations, and an ultimate decision to approve or deny the projects have already taken longer than usual for a large-scale development. Last Thursday, commissioners spent more than three hours grappling with around 15 conditions, which are compliances the MVC can assign to the developer of a project that go into effect if approved, unless countered through an appeal in court. There are two conditions left for commissioners to discuss Thursday, August 6. After conditions are agreed upon, deliberation on the benefits and detriments begins; then the commission will make a decision. Whether the project will get a final approval or denial this Thursday is unknown.
Prior to the conditions discussed at last week’s deliberation, the Katama Meadows proposal was a single-family residential subdivision of 26 market-rate lots for up to 4,000-square-foot homes, 12 lots for middle-income, year-round residents priced at $225,000, and 14 donated lots to the town of Edgartown for future affordable housing projects. That plan includes a clearing of native and non-native brush and trees for the lots, but half of the acreage would remain open space. Homes built on the site would be connected to town sewer, with nitrogen-diversion systems.
The conditions proposed last Thursday, however, changed that. One condition decreased the market-rate lots from 26 to 19, which commissioners noted was a drastic change, and one of the most substantial in MVC history.
“The tenor of the project has changed dramatically in the past 10 minutes,” Commissioner Joan Malkin said after that particular condition passed.
But Katama Meadows made history well before Thursday’s meeting. While the project has garnered support from Edgartown boards and the Edgartown fire chief for its potential to house moderate-income residents, input from the community has been critical.
Katama Meadows has been the subject of lively public outcry, including the requested recusal of affordable housing committee member Julia Livingston from the developer’s counsel, claims of removal from one former commissioner, Kate Putnam, because of her opposition to the project, and email chains and letters to the editors of local papers in protest of the project.
The development has become a totem for the clash between affordable housing, conservation, and tourism, and a symbol of the challenges the year-round community faces. Through letters and input, Islanders have asked for more support, with Katama Meadows as the catchall for larger questions about the sustainability of life for the people who actually live and work here.
Organizations like the Vineyard Conservation Society and Great Pond Foundation (GPF) have been opponents of the project from the beginning, pointing to potential harm to Edgartown Great Pond, which abuts the development, and is only recently showing signs of bouncing back after long-term environmental strain.
Emily Reddington, executive director of the GPF, wrote a letter to the MVC in January that said Katama Meadows would have “detrimental impacts” on the “future health of the pond’s ecosystem.” The 52-homesite lot development, she said, would be the “tipping point” for the health of the pond.
Afterward, Robb Moriarty, the attorney representing the project, raised questions about the potential bias of the Edgartown Great Pond Foundation and Vineyard Conservation Society. “In stoking fear of this apparent imminent collapse of the ecosystem, [Reddington] ignored several critical facts and glossed over others,” Moriarty wrote in a rebuttal. He went on to write that the nitrogen load from private Title 5 sewer systems is far less than wastewater that’s connected to town sewers, as the Katama Meadows homes will be.
Aside from the nitrogen-load discourse, the moderate-income offerings have made Katama Meadows a standout as well. The project is modeled after the McCarron model, coined from a development that catered to moderate-income Islanders, often referred to as the “missing middle.” The McCarron model offered some buildable lots at market rates, and others for purchase by locals.
Moriarty has upheld the McCarron project and the Katama Meadows proposal as a direct response to the changing economic reality on the Vineyard, where teachers, firefighters, police officers, and municipal workers make too much to qualify for state-subsidized housing, but not enough to afford the Island’s median home price of around $1.5 million.
The proposed development is before the MVC, which reviews large projects, like Katama Meadows, that could affect the entire Island; from wastewater to character, elements of the project are weighed for benefits and detriments to the land and community. Commissioners from each town are tasked with deciding not only about the project in front of them, but about the housing, conservation, and economic landscape as a whole. Every approval informs future proposals and sets new possible precedents that can then be referenced by developers.
The MVC is facing ongoing litigation, separately from Katama Meadows, about its right to evaluate and approve Chapter 40B housing developments, a designation by which a developer is able to curb local zoning if a quarter of a project’s units are affordable. In April, the Massachusetts Housing Appeals Committee deemed the MVC a nonlocal board after a developer sued the MVC over its capacity and standing on the Chapter 40Bs called Green Villa and Edgartown Gardens.
If approved by the MVC, a development is presented before applicable town boards, where the MVC greenlight holds power.
Some critics of Katama Meadows cite a lack of viable affordable housing options for year-rounders on the Island — where more than 60 percent of houses are seasonally occupied, according to the MVC — and highlight the need to carefully consider each large development through the lens of maximum benefit. Others have focused on the environmental implications of any increase in nitrogen into Edgartown Great Pond.
On Thursday, community involvement continued. Islanders Jane Bradbury and Jennifer Blum wore signs on their chest that said “Deny Katama Meadows” and “Edgartown Voter Pleads Vote No!” in the MVC meeting room.
A final denial or approval from the MVC was deferred for another week. But the three-hour-long public hearing last Thursday included new and amended conditions, which would be imposed on the developer (a common practice for large projects) should the MVC sign off on the project.
While commissioners are continuing discussions again next week, the ones on Thursday ranged from solar use and energy efficiency of the homes in the development to use of fertilizer, herbicide, and pesticides on the lawns. More than a dozen conditions were broached, with several to go next week before a decision is made.
Several conditions were stricken by commissioners throughout the meeting, such as year-round restrictions on the market-rate lots, which means the homes built there could be seasonally owned, occupied, and rented on a short-term basis.
Commissioners did vote through a reduction in the lots for market-rate homes, from 26 to 19. This move, proponents argued, addressed both environmental implications of the project, as the lots would become open space, and worries raised by the public that Katama Meadows would introduce a significant amount of luxury properties for potentially seasonal and short-term usage.
“Do we really need 26 more vacation homes for the people who live here?” Doug Sederholm, West Tisbury commissioner, questioned.
While substantial, the condition is within the purview of the commissioners, according to Sederholm, who said he spoke with counsel before presenting it. “It makes me like this project,” Commissioner Linda Sibley said over Zoom.
The condition passed, with four nay votes from the 16-person commission.
“In fear of a lawsuit, I vote yes,” Michael Kim, a commissioner, said.
A condition for fertilizer, herbicide, and pesticide restrictions on the lawns in the development was amended by Malkin to also eliminate use of natural and chemical products. It passed by majority. If the Katama Meadows development is approved by the MVC, none of the lawns can be treated with any fertilizer, herbicide, or pesticide, which includes the use of tick sprays on the properties. The amendment doesn’t apply to gardens.
“Fertilizers are a significant portion of the nitrogen,” Malkin said about her amendment. Even organic fertilizers and all-natural tick sprays, she said, have an effect on the ecological balance of the Island.
The commissioners acknowledged it would be difficult to enforce, but at the “bare minimum,” Malkin said, “we should not allow it on lawns.”
A condition proposed by Ben Robinson, which related to energy efficiency, barred fossil fuels, and required solar panel installation at the future homes in Katama Meadows, was amended after commissioners said the phrasing was confusing to them. Originally, the condition included a cost breakdown of energy initiatives that would be necessary for the developer to pursue, such as electric car-charging stations at each home.
Commissioners were largely in favor of fossil fuel reduction, but had concerns that in Robinson’s efforts to be comprehensive in his research, the language he used was not easily understandable. They were also concerned about the potential cost burden they were putting on the developer for car-charging stations.
Other commissioners argued that the condition wasn’t enough, especially when it came to carbon reduction through energy efficiency.
The first part of the condition, which ensured all dwellings in the subdivision be all-electric and restrict fossil fuels from use was passed by commissioners.
Further deliberation and a possible decision on Katama Meadows was pushed to August 6 at 6:30 pm in the Martha’s Vineyard Commission meeting room.
Editor’s note: Updated with more information about the history of Katama Meadows, letters, and community input.
One of the beautiful aspects of Martha’s Vineyard has always been its semi-rural character. We are fast becoming suburbanized. Developers looking to make big bucks by building big homes are eyeing every piece of land they can buy, and by tweaking the project to include some “affordable” housing and preserving a portion of the land, try to push through their scheme using the threat of lawsuit if they don’t get their way.
Katama Meadows is a prime example.
Do we need more second and third homes for the wealthy? Do we need to subject our already-harmed ponds to further degradation? Isn’t the traffic in and around Edgartown already awful?
We need modest, new housing for working people, for seniors wishing to scale back, for young couples wanting to be able to continue living on the Island. We don’t need more luxury housing, no matter the sops thrown in to appease and persuade.
MVC, please vote no on Katama Meadows.
Steve Auerbach
Oak Bluffs
Deny whole project. No more houses and traffic on MV
The Island simply cannot afford any more growth. How is that not obvious? Our ponds are already suffering from nitrogen pollution, summer traffic can turn a short drive into a 30-minute ordeal, and our infrastructure is stretched beyond its intended capacity. Every new development, regardless of how well intended, adds more vehicles, wastewater, demand for services, and pressure on the environment. Martha’s Vineyard has a finite carrying capacity, and we’ve already exceeded it. At some point, we have to acknowledge that reality instead of continuing to approve projects that only make these problems worse.