Katama Meadows overwhelmingly denied by MVC

This is the print edition of this story, updated Oct. 21.

One of the largest housing proposals ever evaluated by the Martha’s Vineyard Commission (MVC) was overwhelmingly rejected Oct. 15 after seven long and heated sessions in which commissioners weighed not only the plan in front of them but also the consequential impacts of vast housing development on the Island. 

Katama Meadows, the 54-acre subdivision that was eventually denied Thursday, had been widely criticized since its introduction to the regional planning board. The final MVC decision could set a precedent for future development on the Island. 

In a brightly lit meeting room Thursday night, commissioners deliberated the merits of the project as nearly a dozen Islanders lined teal chairs and watched in silence. More than 40 people observed the meeting over Zoom. Before the last “no” vote echoed in the room, the energy was increasingly charged. The final vote was 10 to 3 with one abstention from West Tisbury Commissioner Ernie Thomas.

Behind the scenes of the historic decision were emphatic letters of both opposition and support, expert testimony, pending lawsuits and state rulings, hours of deliberation, and board member recusals that all surfaced during regional review of the proposal. As the chips fall, there remain profound questions about the subdivision which at one point was supposed to include up to 52 lots for residential housing, and what a denial to the developer means for the Island. 

From broad policy implications to the acute need for more housing that year-rounders can afford, Katama Meadows unearthed a needed examination around sustainability for the people who live and work on Martha’s Vineyard, and what type of housing the community actually wants. 

“Without a clear vision and priorities associated with that, every circumstance is going to be a challenge,” said Ewell Hopkins, president of Vineyard Conservation Society, which opposed the project. “What is the common vision?”

The proposal did align with many of the MVC’s policies, but it was found by commissioners to be an overall detriment to the Island in multiple categories, such as environmental impact, and alignment with the MVC’s 18-year-old set of community goals called the Island Plan. 

“Tonight, the Martha’s Vineyard Commission squandered a golden opportunity to provide ‘missing middle’ housing to police officers, teachers, firefighters, and EMTs. They did so despite the proposal complying with their housing, nitrogen, and open-space policies, and having the support of the Edgartown Select Board and Affordable Housing Committee,” the legal representative for Katama Meadows, Robert Moriarty, told The Times on a phone call immediately after the decision. “It’s a sad day for the ever-dwindling, important members of our community who earn too much to qualify for ‘big A’ affordable housing but make too little to pay the skyrocketing cost of market-rate housing.”

Developments that include only affordable units, such as those built by nonprofit developer Island Housing Trust, have seen their share of community pushback, but many Islanders largely approve of projects that are available to lower-income families for rent or purchase. 

The policies in each Island town and the MVC don’t restrict projects to be affordable to the extent of IHT developments, but instead leave the option open for developers to plan for housing that is partly affordable and partly market rate — or in the case of Katama Meadows, filling a need, town officials said, for moderate-income, “attainable” housing. 

Katama Meadows was originally envisioned across 54 acres and would have included homesite lots proposed for Edgartown located along Meshacket Way and Division Road. It included the allowance of 52 homes to be built by the future buyers of the lots. Half of the lots were proposed as market rate at 4,000 square feet each and would have allowed homes with up to five bedrooms. They would have been available to buyers regardless of seasonality, and commissioners estimated could have included homes valued at around $5 million each. 

The other 26 lots were proposed as “attainable” and “affordable” lots available to mainly moderate-income earners and municipal workers in the town of Edgartown. Twelve lots were planned to be sold at $225,000 each, with one of those to Habitat for Humanity, and 14 were set for donation to the town of Edgartown, with another one of those for Habitat for Humanity. 

After the decision, commissioners assured that the land will remain undeveloped for now. But the parcel is still owned by the developers, and as indicated during Thursday’s session by commissioners, it’s highly likely they will submit another proposal. It’s currently unclear whether a future proposal will better address the affordability concerns of the Island community, and pending lawsuits and rulings complicate the issue. 

The MVC’s ability to review large developments specifically proposed under Chapter 40B, which require a quarter of units to be affordable, was thrown into flux by a state ruling in April, which the MVC is actively appealing now. The state ruling was initiated by Falmouth-based developer William Cumming in relation to a Chapter 40B project he proposed called Edgartown Gardens. 

Although Katama Meadows was not a Chapter 40B project, the active ruling by the state that the MVC is appealing and open suits with Cumming were referenced during Katama Meadows review. Commissioner Michael Kim primarily commented on the appeal with phrases like, “In fear of a lawsuit, I vote yes”— which he said during a vote on a condition for the project — and “We know there will certainly be an appeal,” as he stated during the final meeting last week. 

Commissioner Brian Smith said at a League of Women Voters Martha’s Vineyard panel last week that if the ruling stands, it could result in the “demise of the Island.” 

But the ruling, while it was raised during deliberation as a potential push to approve Katama Meadows with conditions, did not ultimately sway the commissioners on how consequential the proposal would be for the area. For the majority of the MVC board, the impacts were too detrimental to approve the project. On Thursday night, commissioners debated aspects of the proposal, from environmental concerns to qualms with the cost of the housing options and its actual attainability.

“I find it quite offensive that the design of this project is income-segregated,” West Tisbury Commissioner Linda Silbley said Thursday. “I find that repulsive.” 

Chilmark Commissioner Joan Malkin asked: “Do we need more missing middle at the expense of affordable housing?”

In response to Malkin, Moriarty told The Times that the proposal was adjusted to meet the needs of middle-income earners at the request of Edgartown officials. He said that Katama Meadows was criticised when the proposal included affordable units for not being attainable enough, and when it was adjusted, it was criticised for not being affordable enough. He added, “The common denominator is that the opponents to this project do not want housing of any kind.”

The developers of Katama Meadows, Richard Matthews and Douglas Anderson, are based in Salt Lake City, Utah. They purchased the acreage in 2017 for $6.6 million. Soon after, they crafted a proposal, then a second, then a third. The third iteration of their plans, called Meetinghouse Place, was for 24 market rate homes. In 2020, it was denied by the MVC. 

The developers appealed, and in a settlement with the MVC, they went back to the drawing board and came up with a proposal for a mix of market-rate lots and affordable lots. Then, they brought that fourth iteration proposal to the town of Edgartown. Town officials stated that the need in Edgartown was for “missing middle” housing and urged the applicant to adjust their proposal accordingly. So, the Katama Meadows project was changed to include “attainable” housing under a form of missing-middle housing called the McCarron Model. 

Eventually, through talks with the town, Katama Meadows included the donation of 14 lots that would be available to moderate-income families and municipal workers and 12 “attainable” lots, which appealed to town officials. Due to state-subsidized income restrictions for affordable housing projects, municipal workers often make too much to qualify. 

Cumming stated to The Times over text that he doesn’t think the MVC decision on Katama Meadows will “withstand judicial review” from an appeal by the applicant. “The MVC’s denial of Katama Meadows seems to be more about competing visions of what the Island should be than the merits of the project itself.” 

Last summer, the Edgartown Affordable Housing Committee, Edgartown Select Board, and the town’s fire department signed letters in support of Katama Meadows before it went before the MVC to be evaluated as a development of regional impact.

But Islanders and environmentalists have not been so convinced of the need for a project like Katama Meadows. There has been widespread criticism of the development plan; opposition has argued the proposal goes against the character and needs of the Island by putting environmental pressure on the area and building market-rate homes that could be seasonally owned. 

The nitrogen that the proposal would have inevitably introduced into the nearby Edgartown Great Pond would likely be the tipping point for the pond’s health, conservationists said in February. Throughout the review, Moriarty maintained that the project met the MVC’s water quality policy and the homes were slated to be connected to town sewer with nitrogen mitigation. But as Malkin pointed out Thursday, community members, testimonials, and letters were “overwhelming against this project,” largely because of the environmental concerns. 

“The location is wrong for this,” Tisbury Commissioner Ben Robinson said on Thursday. He explained that the land Katama Meadows is proposed for needs environmental protections, not development. He said the parcel is a wildlife corridor, meaning animals frequently pass through the area.

“I’m having a hard time supporting it,” Oak Bluffs Commissioner Brian Smith said during deliberation of Katama Meadows. “When is enough enough?”

Smith referenced a quote from MVC housing planner Laura Silber when she said, “We can’t build our way out of this.” Smith said, “Sooner or later, we have to come to that realization and look to other paths to get people into housing that don’t destroy the environment.”

On the Island, there’s limited land, so there’s intense pressure to make the housing built here count. Building with the intention of lowering prices isn’t seen by planners as the first choice in a community where the value of those homes appreciates over time because of less availability of land. And many luxury homes are seen by locals as a diversion from character standards for seaside New England communities. 

Community members, some commissioners, and conservation groups have pointed to acute concerns that Katama Meadows is an example of the dangers of allowing luxury development solely for the sake of needed units. 

“The housing crisis is not a lack of abundance,” Aquinnah Commissioner Jannette Vanderhoop said on Thursday. She referenced that more than half of seasonal homes sit empty for most of the year. She said the housing crisis is, instead, “a lack of access.” 

But to other commissioners, the exchange of affordable housing for market-rate homes is an unavoidable reality as the cost to build continues to rise. 

“To secure housing for 26 Island families and preserve forever about 32 acres of woodland … is worth losing those 22 acres of woods. The price we’re going to pay … and I’m not going to sugarcoat this … is 19 luxury homes for off-Islanders,” Sederholm said. “I firmly believe that if this project is denied, what will come next will be worse.”

In the final vote on Katama Meadows, three commissioners were either recused or unable to vote for other reasons. 

Jeff Agnoli recused himself during the review process on Katama Meadows because of his opposition to the previous plan by the developer, Meeting House Way LLC; Mike MacKenty was not present for one of the meetings during final deliberation on the project, which made him ineligible to vote; Elaine Miller was sworn into the MVC after review on the project began. 

Additionally, Kate Putnam was removed from the commission in February, for what she said at the time could have been related to Katama Meadows. She told The Times on Wednesday, however, that her opposition to the project began after she was removed from the board and saw the full materials submitted by the applicant. Putnam was appointed by the Edgartown Select Board in 2022, and was replaced in 2026 by Daniel McGinn, who was in favor of Katama Meadows and voted to approve the final plan. 

In regard to town boards, Julia Livingston, an Edgartown Planning Board member, was asked to recuse herself by Moriarty, who represents Katama Meadows, during review of the project, because of her staunch disapproval of the plan. She maintained that the proposal was unnecessarily harmful to the environment and not enough of a benefit to the year-rounders who lived in the town; Moriarty wrote in a letter that she was opposed through different iterations of the project despite the inclusion of affordable units through different iterations of the project.

On Oct. 15, commissioners made their decision. The effect on the future of development or the ways policy could be affected because of that decision is yet to be seen. 

“Our plans and policies have not kept up with the needs of the Island, and they need to be revisited,” Putnam told The Times. “I think we need more people to step forward and be clear about what they want.”

Final vote: 10–3–1

For denial: Ben Robinson, Joan Malkin, Mary Bernadette Budinger-Cormie, Jannette Vanderhoop, Brian Smith, Peter Wharton, Bill Lake, Willa Kuh, Mark Gauthier, Linda Sibley

For approval: Doug Sederholm, Dan McGinn, Michael Kim

Abstained: Ernie Thomas

Editor’s note: Added additional context from Robert Moriarty.