To the Editor:
Dear Copeland Plan District Review Board,
Please deny the Ocean View Hotel rebuild proposal, passed by the Martha’s Vineyard Commission (MVC) in December. It shuns replacing the Ocean View Restaurant, and is a misguided attempt to bring the Victorian era back to the neighborhood, whose longstanding residents are opposed. A three-story hotel feet from these neighbors compromises the community’s character and aesthetics, and dwarfs the previous beloved gathering spot regarding views, size, parking, traffic, activity, and noise.
The Ocean View neighborhood falls within the Copeland Plan District, designated a district of critical planning concern by the MVC. At its hybrid commission meeting on Dec. 4, 2025, some commission members said the MVC is not bound by a change to Oak Bluffs regulations regarding the Copeland Plan District. Per a Vineyard Gazette article of Dec. 5, 2025, “While town meeting voters had approved language that would prohibit buildings that block views from existing homes, that change was never approved by the MVC, hearing officer Doug Sederholm said.” Apparently the MVC’s failure to approve the language approved by voters was a clerical, procedural error, and otherwise it would have been approved, in line with the town meeting vote. To wit: a document on the MVC website, date-stamped Nov. 04, 2025, titled in part “Decision Designating the Copeland Plan District as a DCPC.” This must have been missed by the commissioners, but the failure to approve is an invalid reason for their decision, especially if due to an unintentional oversight not substantive to the issue itself. Crucially, it was approved by town meeting voters.
This large structure opposed by many displays little regard for the impact on the land and its neighbors. Although the site may be designated for commercial use, the MVC’s determination that the plan is “appropriate but not essential” contradicts the neighbors’ belief in its notable inappropriateness.
Gretchen Mayher
Oak Bluffs
It looks like there were several oversights in the MVC decision. As you point out, the MVC approved a project yet failed to determine if it was consistent with Oak Bluffs laws. They said compliance is “unknown”. The MVC Act requires the MVC to determine they are in compliance before a decision is rendered. (section 14(c) MVCAct). Also, a favorable MVC decision requires that the probable benefit from the proposed development will exceed the probable detriment. The MVC decision found the project is either neutral or detrimental to the island in the 8 reviewed categories … yet approves the project?? What’s up with that? And it’s even worse due to an error in the summary. In the Summary on page 12 the MVC concludes the proposal will have a beneficial effect on persons and property. Yet at A3 (Page 14) the commission finds the proposed development would have a detrimental impact on persons and property and details the reasons why.
We hope for a careful review by the Copeland review board and denial of this project on grounds.
Three story hotel? That’s a lot of sewage for the Town to accommodate.