A 99-year-old house at 97 Spring St. was demolished in January. If it had made it to 100 years old, it would have qualified as a historic structure, and would have required a lengthy review by the Martha’s Vineyard Commission before demolition.
Now a project to rebuild the property into workforce housing has become a lightning rod for Tisbury residents. Many worry, with 97 Spring St. as just one example of several, that the seaside village could turn into a community of boarding houses, pointing to projects intended to house workers in the offshore wind industry.
And some residents and town board members point to the town building department for not doing enough to vet projects with the proper oversight, letting them sail through permitting and bypass local boards.
The dispute between nearby residents, town officials, and the developer comes in the crosshairs of a housing crisis on the Island, with repeated calls for the development of more workforce housing, and amid the growth of the offshore wind industry, with developers looking to house a workforce on the Island.
Tisbury planning officials have said that the latest developments unfolding have prompted the need for a greater discussion about where workforce housing would be most appropriate in town.
The issue came to a head this month, with the Tisbury planning board calling out town building inspector Greg Monka, and referring two projects to a regional planning agency for a much more extensive review.
Many of the projects discussed in town are owned by real estate developer Xerxes Aghassipour, who is developing multiple properties in Tisbury intended to house Vineyard Wind workers. According to town and Martha’s Vineyard Commission documents, his properties could house at least two dozen of the company’s workers.
Of Aghassipour’s properties in town, 97 Spring St. has likely garnered the most attention among residents.
In January, the town’s building and zoning department granted Aghassipour a permit to build a single-family residence at 97 Spring St. A permit for single-family construction typically requires only a sign-off from the town building inspector, compared to a much more thorough and complicated permitting process required for workforce housing. Town bylaws also state that a residential property cannot board more than three people without special permission from the zoning board of appeals and select board. If those permissions are granted, the owner must also be a town resident, and occupy and operate the property.
Designs submitted to the Tisbury building department suggested an intent to house a large number of people. Site plans filed to the department in October describe a “proposed nine-bedroom house,” and plans filed under a week later describe a “proposed single-family residence” and a nine-spot parking lot.
Aghassipour informed town officials, during a May 29 meeting, of his intentions to rent the entire 97 Spring St. building to a Vineyard Wind–affiliated company for workforce housing. A draft lease agreement for the property names as a tenant General Electric Renewables US LLC — a partner in the Vineyard Wind 1 offshore wind farm project.
Still, the building inspector did not refer the project for special permission to house more occupants than bylaws normally allow.
As 97 Spring St. began construction this winter and neared completion in the spring, residents started directing complaints at the town — worried about the overdevelopment of Vineyard Haven. Mary Bernadette Budinger-Cormie has been leading the charge of concerned Tisbury residents. She has been living at 93 Spring St. since 1996.
Budinger-Cormie told The Times she became alarmed by the building’s plans after this April, when residents were first officially notified that the owner was looking to re-establish the property’s porch.
After that April notification, Budinger-Cormie and more than half a dozen other Vineyard Haven residents wrote concerned letters to the town, many of them questioning whether the property was intended for use as a single-family residence. Some asked the town to order construction to stop.
“As neighbors, we are concerned that the proposed property, as designed, is unlikely to be used as a single-family residence,” wrote Spring Street residents Todd and Sandy Scott, asking the town to stop construction until boards review the property’s permits.
Budinger-Cormie detailed her concerns in a May 21 letter to Greg Monka of the town building and zoning department, who serves multiple roles as the building commissioner/inspector of buildings and zoning enforcement officer. In her letter, Budinger-Cormie asked the town to issue a cease-and-desist for the project and revoke its building permit.
Budinger-Cormie also raised traffic congestion concerns in the event that 97 Spring St. is inhabited, and called into question whether town bylaws would allow a large number of unrelated persons to live at the address.
Budinger-Cormie’s May letter also stated that construction and local permitting should not continue unless Monka determines whether 97 Spring St. qualifies as a development of regional impact (DRI) with the Martha’s Vineyard Commission regional planning agency.
Through the DRI process, the commission can review developments that will significantly affect their surroundings and impact multiple Vineyard towns. Any Vineyard municipal entity can refer to the commission a project that has applied for a permit and triggers the commission’s 19-page checklist. The agency then chooses whether to review the project.
After repeated attempts to reach Monka at the building and zoning department offices, over the phone and through email, The Times was not able to reach the building inspector for comment.
In response to Budinger-Cormie’s letters, the town in late May demanded a stop-work order on 97 Spring St., and requested a meeting to review the building’s proposed use and occupancy. This meeting was held at Aghassipour’s EduComp building offices downtown, and Monka as well as town administrator Jay Grande attended.
Grande favored the cease-and-desist two days before it was issued, according to an email obtained by The Times. “I think a cease-and-desist is in order simply for the fact of the developer’s clear intention to utilize the property other than as a single-family residence,” Grande wrote in an email to Monka.
The order was active for about a week and a half before it was rescinded on June 5, following a May 30 letter sent from Aghassipour’s attorneys to the town.
The developer’s attorneys argued that the order had been issued prematurely, and criticized “unsupported allegations” that the property would be rented to a single employer who would then impermissibly rent individual bedrooms.
It also stated that any questions about the property’s future occupancy are supposed to be addressed after construction begins, when town officials consider granting the certificate of occupancy.
The lawyers also stated that the intention to house workers at the property is subject to change. “The current intention (which may change prior to applying for an occupancy permit) is that the tenant will be an employer company, and the employer will allow its workers to live together in a congregant manner as a single household unit,” they wrote.
Monka, responding to the developer’s attorneys, stated that he allowed construction to resume due to how the site plan submitted to his office was labeled.
“The building permit was issued for construction of a single-family residence; the site plan submitted with the permit application labeled the building as a ‘Proposed Single-Family Residence,’” Monka’s letter stated. He said that Aghassipour told him that the building could be repurposed “to make it a more traditional single-family dwelling.”
Monka’s letter did state that though the stop-work order was lifted, the project must comply with town zoning bylaws in order to receive its certificate of occupancy. He added that the workforce/congregate housing detailed in the draft lease would not fit the definition of single-family use in town bylaws.
Days after the stop-work order was rescinded, Budinger-Cormie told The Times that she felt ignored by her town.
“My husband Leigh and I both felt that we did not have a voice in anything that was happening,” she said. “And we woke up the next day, and we looked at each other, and we’re like, ‘We can’t complain and be a victim. We have to be part of the solution.’”
Her concerns about housing-related issues in town led her to run for select board as a write-in candidate this past spring, in what she says began as a protest campaign. She ended up winning half as many votes as incumbent chair Roy Cutrer, who won re-election by 274 votes to her 139.
With word of residents’ concerns, the town’s planning board began scrutinizing not just 97 Spring St., but other properties that Aghassipour is developing, and other workforce housing developments.
Aghassipour’s properties in town currently include 97 Spring St., 123 Beach Road, 52 William St., and the EduComp Building at 4 State Road.
Some of these properties are named in public documents as proposed housing for Vineyard Wind workers. A 2022 commission DRI report for the operations and maintenance building on Beach Road summarizes some proposed housing arrangements, subject to change.
The report also described the jobs intended for the company’s building. “It is anticipated that 28 of the new jobs will be targeted toward Island residents in year one, increasing to 56 in year five, but there is no guarantee, particularly given current housing changes on the Island,” the report reads.
These jobs include 12 year-round onshore jobs, 24 year-round offshore jobs, and 20 seasonal offshore jobs.
Vineyard Wind proposed seven to 10 employee housing apartment units at the EduComp building at 4 State Road downtown (the EduComp building was also approved by the MVC’s development of regional impact process in May). The commission document also mentions five apartment units proposed at 52 William St., a short walk from 97 Spring St.
Aghassipour is also the applicant for a building permit at 123 Beach Road, a property that has touched off concern with residents. Planning board chair and Martha’s Vineyard Commissioner Ben Robinson told The Times the property is being used as workforce housing, and that the property will have to require a special permit from his board.
On Monday, Robinson and the Tisbury planning board filed a petition with the zoning board of appeals, challenging a residential building permit granted to the Beach Road property.
The planning board stated in the petition that Monka granted a residential building permit for 123 Beach Road on June 10. One week later, he granted the property a temporary occupancy permit.
The petition also asks the inspector to refer the project to the planning board, so that they can consider whether to grant it a special permit.
The petition also states that the project qualifies as a development of regional impact, and that as per the legislation creating the commission, the agency is supposed to review or decline to review a project before local development permits are issued.
The petition also calls out the town’s building inspector. “At no time has the building inspector been willing to discuss a referral to the Tisbury planning board for a special permit, nor has he indicated a willingness or intention to refer the development to the MVC,” the petition states.
“In the opinion of the board, this development by [Aghassipour] was pre-maturely [sic] issued a residential building permit, which is out of the proper order of typical procedure,” it continues.
The planning board also chose last Wednesday to refer both 97 Spring St. and 123 Beach Road to the Martha’s Vineyard Commission regional planning agency for review, following months of residents voicing concerns.
At last week’s meeting, planning board officials said that Aghassipour has a responsibility to familiarize himself with local zoning bylaws and the commission’s procedures, and to obtain permits in the proper order.
The referrals halt all work at the two properties until the commission decides whether to discuss them at a public hearing.
“We have a pretty big victory tonight,” Budinger-Cormie stated afterward in a message to neighbors.
Chair Ben Robinson stated at the meeting that despite 97 Spring St. being permitted as a single-family residence, its intended use is what can justify referral.
“You can come to the town and say, ‘I want to build a single-family home,’ and you build a single-family home, and you can use it as a single-family home,” Robinson said.
“If you were to use that as a boarding house, or a dormitory, where you have five individual leases or more, then it appears to require a mandatory referral and a concurrence review at the MVC,” he added.
The planning board expressed less interest in referring 52 William St. to the commission. That project was granted a commercial building permit in October 2022. According to Aghassipour’s lawyer Peter Brown during the board meeting, it was set to be occupied within one week. Robinson noted that this project has already been reviewed by the town zoning board of appeals and William Street Historic District commission.
Robinson also discussed the possibility of referring a project at 21 Causeway Road, for which applicant Michael Calheta was issued a residential building permit last June. Robinson noted that the property might be used for dormitory-type housing.
Reached by The Times prior to the planning board decisions, Aghassipour defended the project at 97 Spring St. He said that the Island sorely needs workforce housing opportunities.
Aghassipour said that he did not fully understand residents’ worries that workforce housing will impact their neighborhood’s character.
He also questioned if some of the animosity was directed at the class of worker: “They say it affects character and identity. I don’t know what that means. Would it be OK if there were doctors and nurses [at the property]? What if they were engineers maintaining the wind farm?”
He told The Times that the project at 97 Spring St. would offer convenience for workers, as it is within walking distance of the company’s operations and maintenance building on Beach Road.
“I’m somebody who’s one of the few people that is OK with developing property and leasing it out year-round to people who work and live on-Island,” he told The Times. “Given that I have a background in helping companies and individuals with housing needs year-round, it’s something I would consider doing.”
Aghassipour’s lawyers have also made a point that his intended use is allowed under single-family use. “This living arrangement is not a boarding house. It is not a rooming house. It falls within single-family use of the Tisbury ZBL,” the attorneys’ May 30 letter states.
Aghassipour told The Times that given the nature and frequency of workforce housing in Tisbury, he is also concerned about selective enforcement of his properties. “It’s been a bit of a gray area in zoning,” he said of workforce housing of more than three people. “We all know it occurs across the board.”
“If the town does not allow more than three unrelated people to live in the house, we will abide by the laws of the regulations of the town,” he said. “Then the town will need to enforce that across the board … “Will [the town] use one set of rules selectively, or enforce them? Will the town step back and say, ‘We need to clarify our zoning?’ That is really the question.”
The developer told The Times that he would not comment following the planning board’s decisions.
For Robinson, the controversy that has come up around 97 Spring St., 123 Beach Road, and other properties could lead to a long-needed discussion among town officials about workforce housing, even though the Spring Street property is somewhat of a special case.
“[97 Spring St.] does point to sort of a larger issue on the Island, where we’ve traditionally over the past 20 years seen business owners and employers basically buying homes to house employees. They buy an existing house, and put a bunch of people in it … [97 Spring St.] differs in that it is purpose-built. They’re not buying a home and turning it into workforce housing. This is somebody building a home purposely used for workforce housing,” Robinson said.
Monka, Robinson said, is a key safeguard in the town’s permitting process, as his office is the authority that decides whether to grant residential building permits.
Robinson said, however, that Monka has not been taking advantage of his discretion: “The building inspector is a powerful position in the town. It holds a lot of discretion. We have a new building inspector that doesn’t seem to understand the intent of the bylaws.”
“If [the department] is not clear on how to sort them out, they can seek advice from other departments in town. But frankly, we have a building inspector who is not doing that,” he also said.
Robinson added that when it comes to determining which districts allow workforce housing, the town and its voters have some work to do.
“Generally speaking, there is yet to be a determined area where it says this residential district could accommodate housing versus this type of district. That is part of the discussion we will have to think about. How much of our Island workforce do we want to see become transient and employer-owned — which is somewhat problematic?”
Robinson also understands “company town” concerns. “When you live where you work, your employer has a little bit of leverage over you. You are basically homeless unless you can find another employer. It’s what they used to call a company town,” he said.
The town zoning board of appeals will hold a public hearing on August 8 at 4:45 pm regarding the stop-work order decision at 97 Spring St. The hearing will occur at the town hall annex at 66 High Point Lane.
We need more people like Xerxes who are willing to invest in the community and provide much needed workforce housing. Why is his project any different than the hundreds of other homes on the island that are owned or leased by businesses to provide employee housing? The hospital alone spends a couple million dollars a year on renting out private homes for employees. Why aren’t we going after them?
John– don’t give them any ideas. There are enough idiots here
that they just might go after the hospital housing. And then of course
they would wail about the hospital being understaffed while rich people
occupied the current hospital housing with their “single families”
for a few months a year.
The Island needs more housing, more people?
Health professionals and law enforcement are a priority on this island, vineyard wind is only looking to take over our island and house there employees, while lining there pockets with the green new scam, I am tired of our island being scammed, biggest con job ever and corrupt business tactics
Suzie, what?!
Vineyard Wind is a turbine business that is producing electricity. That type of production has the ability to cool the planet. Are you aware that some birds 🦅 no longer migrate because places that used to be cold are now warmer? Or that ice sheets and glaciers are disappearing? Please, ask me specific questions and I will explain what’s going on all over the world. I’m absolutely heartbroken 💔 over some of the changes taking place. Take a walk in the forest and see the pine 🌲 trees being eaten by beetles—beetles that used to have their life cycles slowed by cold winter ❄️ weather and now they don’t. I’m begging everyone I know to vote against conservative oil companies this year.
Mary,
Please see the attached government link. It’s from NASA. We can’t reverse the damage as a result of climate change.
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/is-it-too-late-to-prevent-climate-change/
No amount of windmills will reverse all the things you say.
Islanders have demanded that Vineyard Wind hire Islanders.
Vineyard Wind Is not concerned with where their staff chooses to live.
Very few will be able to afford the Island.
Alternate energy has been highly politicized (wind mills are ugly, oil production platforms are pretty).
Vineyard wind wind does not want to have an Island facility.
Do you want it removed?
Please cite the scam and corrupt business practices.
How many times have we heard about the need for employee housing ?
How many times have we heard about the need for affordable housing ?
So here is a plan to address both of those issues. The town and some
town residents are determined to put a stop to it, based on some ridiculous
by law that does not take reality into account.
So I would actually love it if the wind projects bought 9 vacant lots and built
p single family homes on them. I guess somehow, some people would think
that’s a more environmentally friendly option. Don’t forget, we all care deeply
about the environment her. — Well, most of us anyway.
So lets build 9 individual houses with 9 kitchens, 9 heating
systems, and at least 9 bathrooms. There– Affordable housing,
worker housing and a saved environment all at once. Hmmmm
maybe I should re phrase that…
How about we do something rational and get off of the snobbery
horse ?
Interestingly, it seems John Axel and I are in agreement on this one.
Harsh response here, Donald.
One can certainly appreciate the need for affordable housing and still understand that the conversion of a single-family (? 3/4 bdrm) into a 9 bdrm home/ housing facility ( will temporary workers be tenants ?) will negatively impact the immediate abutters.
This is not “nimby” or ‘snobbery’. It’s understandable concern.
Yes, I’d prefer a free-standing 9 bdrm energy-efficient, new-construction home in a significantly less concentrated neighborhood. Maybe with it’s own windmill.
M Kelfer– I agree, a bit harsh.
I apologize if anyone took personal offense.
I meant my comment to be referencing the wider attitude of the
community here that often comes off as entitled, or snobbish
while trying to maintain the quality of life that we all
appreciate here. The reality is that the times , “they are a
changing” .
As far as a windmill on the roofs of houses in densely
populated areas, that’s a 100% no go
They make noise, they create a “flicker effect” shortly after
sunrise and before sunset over a wide area.
Some people even think they cause cancer.– ????
Better to have them 15-35 miles offshore, and have the people
who maintain them to be as close as possible to them.
No one likes a long commute to work, and it cost the
industry money since these well paid technicians are on the
clock during their commute to the site.
I appreciate your thoughtful feedback to my comment.
Feel free to put me in my place any time.
Haha – no worries.
I typically appreciate your knowledge and insight.
The windmill idea was tongue-in- cheek, Don Quixote….
I would like to address this as I am a tenant and business owner located at 123 Beach Rd. Martha’s Vineyard Tile Company has been in business for 28 years and we have been in the 123 Beach Road location for 12+ years. The front building at 123 Beach Rd has been a Mixed Use property for well over 30 years. Many islanders will remember Millie Briggs occupying the retail space and her relative living in the attached apartment.
There have been no changes proposed to the exterior of the building, just a slight reconfiguration on internal space which brings the entirety of my retail shop to the front side of the building facing Beach Road in exchange for my rear area which is more suitably repurposed for residential use.
The previous owner took no interest in the buildings or its upkeep. Mr. Aghassipour does and has already renovated the rear property in short order.
The new tenants in the single family residence walk to work as their office is conveniently located a short distance away. This reduces the number of cars parking on site and diminishes the impact to additional traffic on Beach Road.
It seems to me there is no love lost between the Planning Board and the Building Inspector thus, the Planning Board is jumping in at the 11th hour to fabricate a zoning issue in regards to 123 Beach Rd. They are piggybacking all of the Delano & Co.’s Tisbury properties to bully the Building Inspector into forcing Special Permits on all of Mr. Aghassipour’s projects.
Where does MV Tile Co stand in this conflict? All we did was swap out a portion of the back showroom for more frontage. Now with the actions of the PB we are at a standstill. This situation is adversely effecting my business and I am frustrated with the pettiness of this board. This project needs to move forward before legal action is warranted.
So the developer is building a large dwelling to accommodate approximately 9 individuals who will be able to easily walking to work. On top of that, the developer is providing nine parking spaces as well. I swear I do not see the issue besides NIMBYism. I am sure the same people complaining are also lamenting the lack of affordable housing for workers over cocktails, and feeling good about themselves. This is a win for the community and we need more of it.
We are fine with the changes to the building adjacent ours at 129 Beach Road. I was given a tour of the modificaions and and as I told the developer and tenant, it is an improvement and in no way could I see anything amiss… good taste, workmanship is in order, fine people. No problem on this end. I cannot speak for any other issues or properties, but this one seems A okay.
I thought. Vineyard Winds was going to hire islanders? If this building is for young islanders struggling to find housing, great. But it doesn’t sound like it.
Also, the building inspector should make himself available to answer questions from the press.
Vineyard Wind is actively recruiting skilled personal. To date just one Islander has applied. Hired at over six figures.
They won’t be living on Island, too expensive.
This is a great, thorough, and balanced article. Thank you for the good journalism!
By the way Mr Robinson, a building inspector does not have discretion, he has laws to follow. And his unrelated 3 person zoning law must be illegal. We can’t demand a blood test or ask for marriage crrticates from all renters?
of course he has discretionary powers. It’s necessary to get things moving swiftly, without it nothing would be accomplished. Some obviously use more than others.
Also, SFR single family residence only means one unit in home, not multiple apartments. Nothing about blood related tenants. That was banned in 1866.
The problem is the building inspector can not just ignore town bylaws. He doesn’t have the right or authority to just say ok. There are special permits and policies that he just ignored and threw out. Unfortunately now all of the projects are under review due to that. I’m sure the ones that don’t have issues will be cleared quickly while the ones that he ignored multiple town bylaws, not counting at least one should have gone in front of other island boards. Again he can’t just make decisions just because. He has policies and bylaws and Zoning he needs to follow. Even if he doesn’t believe he has to.
Yes, he actually has discretionary powers, this is nothing new. I’m not sure why you would think otherwise?
Looks like possibly we need a definition of “family”? I recollect a little furor when OB selectmen thought they might put something on the warrant about “three or more unrelated people”. Turns out a college kid bringing a few friends home might well define that equation. We waited till the end of the town meeting and that proposed warrant article was wisely withdrawn. Folks, we need more housing. Sorry if it bothers people already ensconced in paradise. If we’re going to feed or clothe or educate the folks who live here, we got to have places for people who do the feeding and clothing and educating to live.
Ernie Boch is undoubtedly laughing from his grave, the record breaking forerunner of deception and grandeur.
These amateurs needed to take a page out of his tried and true development efforts.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/1989/02/11/boch-builds-his-dream-palace/
Interestingly, Ernie Boch’s 15k square foot single family home, only had 5-bedrooms. 97 Spring Street’s 6,000 sq foot plans has 9 bedrooms, 11 bathrooms, 6 washer dryers, 400amp Service and a 9-car parking lot that situates it straight on the property line of 3 of the abutting properties.
This is excellent reporting. Thank you!
Unbelievable, 97 Spring street was a run down multi-family building for years. Finally someone comes along who obviously cares about the character of the area and does an amazing restoration adding property value to the abutters. Directly across the street from 97 is another multi-family dwelling. 97 has neighbors who rent a unit on their property arb&b. What is the real issue here?
Elizabeth Wild, You may be thinking of a different town….97 Spring Street has never been a multi-family home. It was owned by Francis Sumner a renowned botanist and professor and her family for decades and since her passing, has been used as a year round rental to a lovely couple (a home healthcare worker and a builder) who were forced to move off-island when it sold. There are no multi family units across the street either. All are single family homes. I know because I abut this property and I am proud to say my husband I have provided year round housing to islanders for over 28 years.(Tradespeople, Nurses, Hygienists, teachers, etc.). I am also proud to say that 11 of our neighbors also provide year-round housing to “workforce” islanders. And we all do this within the parameters of our town bylaws. What is being built is a commercial building in a residential area. There will be no islanders living there.
btw: There is no restoration at 97 Spring Street; The nearly 100 year old home was bulldozed without a single abutter notification.
Remember you all a single family septic absorbs 300 gallons a day and 20+ people require to the tune of 2000 gallons plus , a day !a lot to absorb. Hate to see the water running down your street now mosquito parading all over.
Enforcing bylaws doesn’t seem to be something Greg Monka cares much for or can handle. This is a theme.
Again, consideration must be given to the unique zoning of Beach Road. It is different from all other regulations on any town ion the island. From 100 feet from Lagoon Pond is a unique in the world zoning called Waterfront Commercial and it includes residential but all commercial activity must be related to the waterfront. Aftter 100 feet it is considered commercial of any kind plus residential. In addition, in either zone it is possible to subdivide both zones into separate bodies that can be boubnt and sold independently. Each unit can become a condominium and it is common practice. We did this on a commercial property in Oak Bluff to create four affordable housing units. It exists on file on our property on Beacn Road as 3 units on file but not active presently. It can be turned on or off as desired. In addition, the status of the Beach Road zones is being reconsidered according to press reports in both papers as being badly designed according to the consultants the town hired, and aftrt this announcement the conversation seems to have dissolved. it is very, very complicated. Is it a waterfront commercial zone 100 feet from the water leased to a company that produces offshore wind towers in the ocean considered waterfront commerical? If so, what is the deal? The zoning is unique in the world. What is the answer?
Interestingly, when Hector owned this home, he had stone veneer installed on his foundation. Some VH Historic Committee or other required him to remove it. Thereafter glue residue from the veneer remained on the foundation. Amusing that stone veneer is a prevalent feature of this renovation. An aspect of commercially used real estate in a residential zone: Mass General Law states, “real property used commercially in a residential zone is taxed commercially”. This law includes real property which is not rented year-round and is seasonally rented.
Yet all the homes around the Island housing 10-18 people illegally go unchallenged. Interesting.
Which homes are doing that?
If you see something say something at least to us, we will tell the authorities.
Comments are closed.