Stone Bank additions won’t fly

A developer was called out for not being in compliance Thursday, after the Martha’s Vineyard Commission was tasked with making a retroactive decision regarding unapproved building features that have already been installed. 

Back in June, developer Sam Dunn faced scrutiny for several post-approval changes made to his old Stone Bank condominium project in Tisbury. 

Dunn first presented the project to the MVC in 2019. It involved renovating two existing buildings and construction of five more, along with transforming Tisbury’s historic fieldstone building — formerly Main Street’s Santander Bank — into a mixed-use condominium and commercial business development. 

The project was approved by the Martha’s Vineyard Commission in April 2021.

Dunn has returned to the regional planning agency a number of times since, seeking approval for several modifications, including an upcoming taqueria, slated for 16 Union St. That construction has been halted due to lack of permitting. 

In recent months, commissioners have been more concerned with changes made to the residential portion of Dunn’s development that had not been reviewed or approved by the commission during its initial developments of regional impact review. 

While most of the unauthorized modifications — like the relocation of staircases, changes to window proportions and building material, and added lattice work — were considered only minor deviations from the developer’s plan and retroactively approved, other, more significant changes required further review. 

After flagging certain changes to the condo project, such as the installation of metal chimneys, erection of a retaining wall, and additional fencing, the commission engaged a third-party group to determine whether some of those modifications would impact regional development, or if any mitigation would be needed.

On Thursday, commissioners were informed that a retaining wall connected to the foundation of one of the buildings — which had previously raised concerns about potentially blocking stormwater flow — does not pose any particular risks. 

“Significant impacts from the as-built structure were not identified, and therefore recommendations for mitigation are not provided,” a study by Woods Hole Group, an environmental engineering company, found.

Similarly, the development’s added fencing, which also had not been included in the initial review of the project, was found de minimis.

Both modifications were retroactively approved, and will not require a public hearing. 

But commissioners were unable to get past perhaps the most significant unauthorized change to the mixed condo development — the installation of several metal chimneys which connect to both propane and wood-burning fireplaces. Commissioners say that while initial plans did show four chimneys throughout the development, fireplaces were never mentioned. 

Commissioners also noted that three additional chimneys have been installed, although they had never been approved.

Per the latest documentation submitted by Dunn to the commission, three of those chimneys are connected to gas fireplaces; four are fitted for wood.

Upon inquiry into whether Dunn would consider changing the propane fireplaces to wood-burning — as wood can be procured locally, and requires more effort than propane, which may incentivize lower usage — Dunn explained that the residential units have already been sold to people who already had their preferred fuel source installed. 

Additionally, electric appliances like stoves and water heaters have been installed in a couple of units, in lieu of gas-fueled, he said. “I am using less gas than I’m allowed to use,” Dunn said.

He added that he’d need to confer with the unit owners on whether they’d be willing to change fuel sources.

Commissioner Ben Robinson reminded his fellow commissioners that a condition was placed on the project’s approval, which states that all internal heating ought to be electric. 

Ultimately, when it comes to the approved plans, they didn’t show the chimneys, commission chair Joan Malkin said: “Having them there represents a compliance issue.”

The commission subsequently voted against holding a public hearing on the matter, and in favor of denying Dunn’s three additional chimneys and corresponding fireplaces in a 9-0 vote with five abstentions. 

Dunn is encouraged to return to the commission as soon as possible with alternative options, or risk having to remove the chimneys and fireplaces entirely.

Echoing statements from earlier meetings, commissioners expressed frustration over needing to keep reviewing Dunn’s projects, as what he builds is often inconsistent with the plans presented — and reviewed — beforehand.

“It’s one thing after another,” Commissioner Kathy Newman noted. “The next time you’re designing a building,” she said to Dunn, “you [ought to] draw it, and bring it into us.”

Commissioner Kate Putnam agreed, and took issue with Dunn’s self-described “design-build” approach. “He seems to ask forgiveness [for] a modification, rather than telling us upfront what he’s going to do,” she said.

In response, Dunn said he could have done a better job with providing the commission with accurate plans, and sticking to those plans. However, “I do things that I think are in the best interest of the project,” he said. “I do apologize for perhaps not following the process exactly as it should be. But I stand behind the product.”