Frustration boiled over in a discussion about apartments proposed behind Dairy Queen after an Edgartown official accused the developers of not providing information needed to finalize an agreement that could mean the project’s approval.
The Martha’s Vineyard Commission (MVC) continued its review of a project called Housing Behind the Dairy Queen, which is proposed to be constructed at 238, 240, and 242 Upper Main St., right across the street from Stop and Shop. The proposal includes 15 year-round rental units and has a U-shaped, one-way driveway.
“This project will provide year-round living opportunities within walking distance to the Upper Main Street District, the Main Street District, the Park and Ride, and the largest grocery store on the Island,” the applicants’ project narrative reads. “The Island is in desperate need of opportunities such as this to enable more Island residents and employees of Island businesses, places to live on a year round basis.”
Edgartown officials are currently in negotiations with the developers for a buydown agreement, an arrangement in which the town would have control over the parameters of who gets to rent the apartments. The units would still be privately owned, and the proposed agreement is similar to a lease. Under this arrangement, the town pays the difference of what the developer would have made with a market rate versus a subsidized rate. In this case, the subsidized rate is 80 percent of the area median income (AMI).
Melissa Vincent, Edgartown affordable housing committee chair, said the project applicants didn’t provide a comprehensive market rate analysis, and the report showed the “comparables” with houses rather than apartments.
And there’s still uncertainty on how much the town’s costs will be, if the project is approved.
According to Vincent, the proposed monthly rates of the apartments from the developers, not including utilities, are $3,625 for a one-bedroom unit and $4,625 for a two-bedroom unit. She said, based on the calculation that housing should only cost 30 percent of a person’s monthly income, a one-bedroom unit would be accessible to a person who makes $159,900, or 140 percent of the area median income (AMI).
But Edgartown wants to secure four units for those who make up to 80 percent of AMI, or $74,800 for one person, and under the prospective agreement, the town would need to fill the gap up to the market rate. Vincent said a one-room unit for someone at this income level is $1,672. She also said, based on numbers from local housing organizations like Island Housing Trust, the market rate is actually estimated to be roughly between $2,700 (for a one-bedroom) and $3,500 (for a two-bedroom).
Geoghan Coogan, the attorney representing the project, called Vincent’s comments “inappropriate” and “extremely disingenuous” to be aired out in a public meeting without prior communication, which he said hadn’t happened since September. Coogan noted that the discussion over rental rates hadn’t occurred yet and raising it in public forces the applicants to defend themselves. He also said the committee asked for a market rate analysis of comparable units, not to provide rental rate numbers.
There are also plans to utilize the state’s Local Initiative Program’s (LIP) local action units (LAU), which helps spur development of affordable units but requires municipal contribution to a project, for the buydown agreement but it’s not something that has been done on-Island before.
“They don’t know what they’re doing,” Coogan said of the committee. He added that the applicants are happy to provide more details if asked, but he said it was “extremely frustrating” to be forced to defend themselves in a public hearing over a discussion that hadn’t occurred yet.
Laura Silber, MVC Island housing planner, noted that while there are examples of LIP LAU housing on the Vineyard, there’s no state regulatory framework that also includes the buydown model.
“There’s plenty of [precedent] for this on Nantucket, but again, there is no state regulatory framework in finding that delta,” Silber said.
Vincent, who was silently shaking her head as Coogan spoke, said she was not trying to blame the applicants, but the rental rates were needed for the town to calculate what are feasible costs.
“I’m trying to make it work for everybody,” Vincent said. “For it to be a benefit to the Town of Edgartown, Edgartown has to get something from it. Right now, there is no betterment.”
Coogan again expressed frustration, but this time said Edgartown officials have essentially said “this project means nothing” to the town without the four units. He underscored that the Edgartown Master Plan calls for the development of year-round housing, not just affordable units, and argued the rest of the housing would be a “huge benefit to the town.”
“To hear these comments like the rest of the project means nothing … Give me a break,” Coogan said.
Commissioners said the town and applicants need to come together to come to an agreement.
“You guys need to have not a ‘he said, she said’ conversation, but a ‘How do we get to yes?’ conversation,” Doug Sederholm, West Tisbury commissioner, said.
But Sederholm noted that this is a challenging project because of its location and other concerns, like septic connections.
A concern that persists for the project relates to traffic, which was raised by both commissioners and neighbors. The project is next to a busy roadway that gets especially congested during the summer months. A point raised by commissioners included whether commercial trucks, like those for Dairy Queen’s deliveries and trash pickups, will have trouble with the tight turns of the residential parking lot. This also adds to congestion concerns for trucks exiting the area considering as vehicles drive in and out of Stop and Shop across the street and the Triangle, which frequently sees snarled traffic during the tourist season.
“It’s gonna get gridlocked. It’s not going to move at all,” Jannette Vanderhoop, Aquinnah commissioner, said. Some commissioners called for a traffic manager to be hired for the development, if constructed, to mitigate traffic concerns and questioned whether this was the right spot for apartments.
Coogan highlighted that the parking lot will be primarily used by year-round residents once the project is built, so commercial traffic wouldn’t impact the area as much as commissioners fear.
“I just think maybe we’re overstating the additional traffic that’s really coming in here,” he said.
Commissioners also reviewed other parts of the plan, which included the planting of a “privacy hedge” around the rear segment of the project’s perimeter, which are near residential homes on Pinehurst Road, and exterior lighting for walkways.
The hearing will continue on Dec. 3.
Meanwhile, the MVC unanimously gave retroactive approval for the demolition of the home at 741 Main St. in West Chop that was destroyed by a fire in 2024. Tisbury Fire Chief Patrick Rolston told The Times the fire is believed to have been sparked by an issue with the chimney. The homeowner is building a new home in the same spot where the previous building was demolished.
Dear Edgartown officials,
This is a hard no. To add more congestion to this already nightmarishly over developed section of town and have the taxpayers subsidize the developer by paying them to rent a few apartments and at an affordable rate? Again, hard no. And there’s also this: the developers are advocating negotiations for using public dollars in private. No, just say no.
I’ve commented on this before, and these latest developments only reinforce the question: When is enough enough?
Anyone who uses Upper Main Street knows congestion isn’t limited to summer. During the Stop & Shop expansion, plans called for moving its western driveway roughly 65 feet to align with Pinehurst Road, creating a four-way intersection where there had been a three-way junction. So now I find myself waiting two or three minutes just to get through.
Add 15 apartments, changes to parking, a one-way driveway, and commissioners discussing a traffic manager. If that’s being considered before construction, what does it tell us about this location?
Then there’s the money. The developers propose rents of $3,625 for a one-bedroom and $4,625 for a two-bedroom, while Edgartown considers subsidizing four units. Yet the parties disagree over comparable market rents. What would this cost taxpayers each year, and for how long?
I’m not against year-round housing. But housing need doesn’t erase traffic problems or excuse financial uncertainty.
Before everyone asks, “How do we get to yes?” shouldn’t we know exactly what we’re saying yes to?
You can subsidize rents. You can’t subsidize away gridlock.
The buildings are too big with too much asphalt for the site. The buildings are 5 feet from neighbors’ yards.