• Skip to main content
  • Home
  • Contact
  • About
  • Search
    • Search US
    • Search Global
  • Global Litigation
  • U.S. Litigation

Meeting House Way, LLC v. Martha’s Vineyard Commission

Filing Date: 2020
Case Categories:
  • State Law Claims
    • Other Types of State Law Cases
Principal Laws:
Martha's Vineyard Commission Act
Description: Challenge to denial of proposal for a residential project at a 54.26-acre site that included 28 single-family house lots and 14 affordable townhouses and was largest residential development considered by the Martha's Vineyard Commission in a decade.
  • Meeting House Way, LLC v. Martha’s Vineyard Commission
    Docket number(s): 2020-33
    Court/Admin Entity: Mass. Super. Ct.
    Case Documents:
    Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary
    04/20/2023 Judgment Download Martha's Vineyard Commission's decision affirmed. Massachusetts Court Upheld Denial of Approval for Martha’s Vineyard Residential Project but Rejected Project’s Propane Use as Basis for Denial. A Massachusetts Superior Court upheld the Martha’s Vineyard Commission’s denial of a proposal for a residential project at a 54.26-acre site. The project included 28 single-family house lots and 14 affordable townhouses and was the largest residential development considered by the Commission in at least a decade. The Commission found that criteria for project approval under the law governing the Commission were not met, including the criterion that “the probable benefit from the proposed development will exceed the probable detriment” based on an evaluation of eight factors. Regarding one of those factors, “impact upon the environment,” the Commission found an overall detrimental impact, including because the project would contribute to greenhouse gas emissions through use of “considerable amounts of propane” even though it also would include on-site renewable energy generation. The court found that to the extent the conclusion regarding a detrimental effect on the environment was based on use of propane, it was “contrary to the parties’ stipulation that energy was not a factor” in the denial of approval. The court found, however, that other findings by the Commission of detrimental impacts to the environment were supported. The court also found that evidence supported the Commission’s central conclusions that the project was an inappropriate form of development because it “would commit significant acreage towards luxury homes in a suburban setting, which would not be a prudent use of the island’s dwindling supply of remaining developable land.”

© 2023 · Sabin Center for Climate Change Law · U.S. Litigation Chart made in collaboration with Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP

The materials on this website are intended to provide a general summary of the law and do not constitute legal advice. You should consult with counsel to determine applicable legal requirements in a specific fact situation.