Redevelopment of EduComp building denied

Sep 25, 2023

After multiple public hearings and lengthy deliberations, the commission came to a split decision.

The months of mulling over the proposed redevelopment of Tisbury's EduComp building came to an end Thursday night as the Martha's Vineyard Commission ultimately denied the request in a 10-6 vote.

The proposal was subjected to numerous revisions since first brought before the commission in October of last year, but the owner struggled to quell ongoing concerns regarding adequate workforce and affordable housing, and questions about whether it conformed to Island character.

Owner Xerxes Agassi's request to redevelop and convert the building into a mixture of a handful of office spaces and 14 residential units had been a focal point at MVC meetings, with commissioners painstakingly working through lease conditions and rental agreements.

The proposed gut renovation job would increase the size of the building nearly threefold, a concept that few commissioners felt comfortable with.

From heated opposition from the site's abutters to discussions concerning how the proposed construction could impact nearby trees, Agassi's project was met with a stream of questions, often bearing contentious undertones.

Agassi's redevelopment consisted of three market-rate rentals, with one affordable housing unit. The building would have consisted of nine market-rate workforce housing units, to be leased to employees of Island-based businesses; with the caveat of a sunset clause — a time limit for tenancy, not exceeding a decade — subsequently triggering commissioners to lean toward requiring rentals in perpetuity.

At Tuesday's LUPC meeting, commissioners were made aware of an additional offer by Agassi, providing five additional offsite workforce units which, due to vagueness, was met with a mix of opinions.

"We don't know exactly what it is," Commissioner Fred Hancock said at Thursday's meeting. "But we’d look pretty foolish not accepting an offer of housing units."

Commissioners Christine Todd and Ben Robinson disagreed. Without any details, Robinson noted that "it's not an offer that bears on this project."

"We have no enforcement mechanism in place to even evaluate … I don't see it as holding any ground, quite frankly," said Todd.

The commission deliberated on possible pros and cons of the project at length; from economic impacts to maintaining viability of the cherry tree on site.

Requests to conduct a straw poll were sidelined, as commissioner Joan Malkin cited a need to continue thumbing through the material to ensure thoroughness — and thorough they were. In the end, the decision came down to the size of the building, and in an informal majority vote, a majority of commissioners subsequently determined that the character of the proposed redevelopment was a detriment to the community.

Not every commissioner agreed. The project aligns with "what the commission has always championed," said commissioner Brian Smith. He noted that despite the unprecedented size of the proposed building, housing needs supersede consideration of other detriments. "In order to get a big amount of housing, we have to have a big building," he said.

"I cannot understand any way it can be turned down," said commissioner Trip Barnes, in agreement, emphasizing the need for Island housing.

"I usually believe if we have to put a bunch of conditions on a project to make it better that we should just deny it, and have the applicant come back with offers," said commissioner Jim Vercruysse. However, he said, in this case, applying further conditions on the proposal might be a better alternative to denial. "I don't think we need to deny it," he said.

"We have zero evidence that the town wants this big of a building," said commissioner Linda Sibley. "It is totally out of scale with the character of Vineyard Haven."

Exercising the commission's "interpretive power" is crucial for decision making, said commissioner Michael Kim. Pertaining to this project, Kim said, "the housing need is essential. The building is inappropriate."

The denial was conditioned as without prejudice, waiving the two-year waiting period for resubmittal, and permitting Agassi to return to the commission with a more palatable proposal.