After deliberation on a 54-acre, 52-lot development in Edgartown, called Katama Meadows, went long on Thursday night, Martha’s Vineyard Commissioners pushed a final approval or denial until the following week for the second time in a row. And conditions on the proposed single-family housing project, which will be put on the developers to integrate into their plans if it is approved, are already some of the most substantial in Martha’s Vineyard Commission (MVC) history.
“The tenor of the project has changed dramatically in the past ten minutes,” commissioner Joan Malkin said after a condition to decrease the amount of market-rate homes in the development passed.
Katama Meadows, a widely contentious development from the start located off of Meshacket Way and Division Road in Edgartown, includes 14 donated lots to the town of Edgartown for affordable housing, 12 affordable and attainable year-round lots ($225,000 each for the land), and 26 market-rate lots, where the homes are restricted to five-bedrooms.
Fevered debate about the project often stems from its size, location, and potential environmental impacts. It is before the MVC, a regional planning committee and county land use regulator. The MVC reviews large projects, like Katama Meadows, that could affect the entire Island. Commissioners from each town look at various considerations such as wastewater, character, and community benefits, and accept input from abutters, local organizations, and residents. Then, the project can be approved, approved with conditions, or denied. If approved, a development can be presented before applicable town boards, where the MVC greenlight holds weight.
The MVC’s jurisdiction, however, is partially in flux as of April, when a lawsuit by a developer led to the Housing Appeals Committee revoking its right to evaluate and approve Chapter 40B developments.
Public opinion — from community members, conservationists and housing advocates — of Katama Meadows veers critical of the project, with an increasing amount of letters in recent months submitted to the MVC and local papers in opposition.
Some critics 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, which abuts the project.
The project has also garnered support, including from Edgartown boards and the fire chief for its potential to house middle-income residents.
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 on 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 Katama Meadows development to use of fertilizer, herbicide, and pesticides on the lawns. Over 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. But another condition that addressed those homes was passed.
Commissioners voted 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, citing environmental and housing concerns from the public. “There’s not enough space that’s being preserved.”
The environmental implications of the development are a point of contention for community members, especially abutters. Executives and staff at the Vineyard Conservation Society, a nonprofit on the Island, are also outspoken about their disapproval of Katama Meadows because of its potential impact on Edgartown Great Pond. This change, Sederholm said, could mitigate some of those worries, but not all.
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.
“It’s a matter of whether we have the will to do it,” Michael Kim, a commissioner, said of the condition, and added that pursuing it would be significant and would change the tone of the project.
The condition passed with four nay votes from the 16-person commission.
“In fear of a lawsuit, I vote yes,” Kim 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.”
“I don’t think there’s any justification for nitrogen fertilizing a lawn in a sensitive watershed like this,” commissioner Linda Sibley said.
A condition proposed by Ben Robinson that 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.
“We have an increasing need for energy,” Robinson said as his reasoning for the condition. He said any on-site solar energy offsets the need for outside energy use, which therefore reduces reliance on the grid.
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 and future tenants who may prefer a gas stove to an electric one.
“It seems perhaps more complicated in its effort to be more thorough,” Malkin said of the condition in full.
Other commissioners argued that the condition wasn’t enough, especially when it came to carbon reduction through energy efficiency. They also repeatedly pointed to the phrasing about cost in the condition as confusing.
“That language, I believe, will increase the carbon. The goal is not to go all-electric; the goal is to reduce carbon, and this is not the way to do it,” Kim said.
The first part of the condition, which ensured all dwellings in subdivision be all electric and restrict fossil fuels from use was passed by commissioners.
The Katama Meadows decision was pushed to August 6 at 6:30 pm in the Martha’s Vineyard Commission meeting room.
