Tisbury’s top official is worried that recent scrutiny of some workforce housing projects in Vineyard Haven could lead to a wider loss of employee housing.
Town administrator Jay Grande — noting in a letter to regional planners — that he is concerned that the town planning board has not laid sufficient groundwork to meet housing goals identified back in 2017.
Grande voiced his concerns after the town planning board last month referred two Tisbury properties intended for workforce housing to the Martha’s Vineyard Commission, namely 97 Spring Street and 123 Beach Road. The properties were referred to the commission for review as developments of regional impact (DRI). If the commission decides the projects qualify according to a 19-page checklist, it can accept them for a more thorough review.
The construction at 97 Spring Street, in a residential district, has become a hot topic in town. Neighbors criticized town building inspector Greg Monka for not referring the project to the commission earlier, despite developer Xerxes Aghassipour stating his intention to house Vineyard Wind workers there — up to nine workers at once.
The project, located in a residential district, has spurred discussions about the town’s zoning bylaws, particularly those for residential districts that cap unrelated residents in a dwelling at five people.
After the planning board referred the properties to the commission last month, Grande shared concerns with Adam Turner, the commission’s executive director, and Laura Silber, the commission’s Island housing planner.
He argued that more consistent enforcement of workforce housing projects could impact many properties beyond 97 Spring Street and lead to unintended consequences. “Tisbury cannot be inconsistent and selective in the application of zoning regulations,” Grande wrote. “My understanding from those I have spoken with, is there are many instances of homes not only in Tisbury, but Island-wide, that are situated in residential districts with more than five unrelated individuals living in them and that this is nothing new or surprising. We are after-all a ‘resort destination’ and ‘island.’”
He also worried about a potential future shift in how officials look at workforce housing, noting that the renewed focus could ultimately displace seasonal workers. Grande also argued that the planning board has not done enough in recent years to update town bylaws to pave the way for town housing goals identified in 2017.
But planning board members cautioned against certain reactions. “Anytime we have a bylaw and we are looking at it, I think there is fear that because we are looking at this one instance, that ‘Oh my gosh, everything will be impacted across the entire town.’ That isn’t really how it works,” said Connie Alexander, planning board chair. “There are lots of preexisting non-conforming uses out there. I don’t think we need to be as fearful.”
In comments to The Times, Alexander also defended her board’s decision to turn its attention to the two projects. “I have to say that the reason those two are on our radar is because they are in the new-construction phase,” she said. “You can’t ignore that. You can’t say ‘Everyone else in town is doing it, so we just let this one come in and follow suit.”
She also said that 97 Spring Street was referred because the project triggered the commission’s checklist for review, and that her board did not determine any violation regarding whether 97 Spring Street is being built as a rooming or boarding house. “[The] referral really had to do with a trigger to the MVC,” she said. “It wasn’t so much a trigger of our town … we were only acting on the DRI checklist.”
She also hopes the commission can provide informational resources. There are still legal issues to figure out with the controversial project. “I understand that the developer will be leasing to one lessee [and] that [there] will be multiple parties living and dwelling in individual units. How is that legally defined? That was why we sent it to the MVC … they have a lot of assistance in their research departments.”
If the commission accepts a project’s application into its DRI process, it then holds public hearings and decides to approve the project, approve with conditions or simply deny it. The town then must enforce any conditions the commission sets, and cannot issue a development permit on a project the commission has denied.
Grande also shared with The Times workforce housing goals in the Tisbury Housing Production Plan, released in 2017. Grande, town administrator since 2013, said that the planning board has not laid proper groundwork for some of the plan’s goals, specifically the private development of dormitory-style seasonal workforce housing and affordable year-round rentals to support year-round workers. The plan also recommended fostering creation of mixed-use development/redevelopment in commercial areas such as Main Street.
The planning board, Grande said, could have addressed the goals by altering the definition of a family in town zoning bylaws, which the plan identifies as a regulatory barrier.
Responding to Grande’s concerns about the housing production plan goals, planning board member Ben Robinson said that the plan discussed a need specifically for seasonal workforce housing. “We specifically talked about seasonal [housing]. Mostly [for] restaurants and hotels and things of that like, there might be a need to have some sort of dormitory-type housing in the appropriate setting, which is undefined.”
Speaking to The Times, both Alexander and Robinson expressed general interest in reconsidering town bylaws, and noted that Tisbury is in the process of recodifying its zoning bylaws.
“All sorts of things in bylaws have grown over the last 50 years,” Robinson said. “Some are hard to interpret; some might not be as clear. We are going through the process of recodification … ‘How do we update the bylaws so they are more user-friendly?’”
Alexander also cited the master plan as highlighting room for possible amendments. “We just finished the master plan,” she said. “Through that … we definitely saw areas where one may want to write amendments to better tackle these concerns.”
Recodifying bylaws comes first, she said, before looking to the master plan. These steps will require a broader conversation among town bodies. “The process will unfold slowly over the next several years,” she added, noting that the master plan involves step-by-step, multi-year processes.
Alexander added that the town makes sure to consult legal counsel before taking any action. “We are always talking to legal counsel. Always,” Alexander said. “We never act without some type of advice. We try to be extremely careful because we understand how important all of these decisions are.”
Meanwhile, Mary Bernadette Budinger-Cormie, the direct abutter to 97 Spring Street who asked the planning board to refer the project to the commission, began last month to ask town select boards to write letters to the commission asking them to accept the project as a DRI.
Budinger-Cormie has so far been turned down by Edgartown town administrator James Hagerty, on the grounds that it is the town’s unwritten policy to not submit correspondence for or against a project in another town.
The Dukes County Commission also declined to write a letter during a Wednesday meeting.
Cormie’s request did garner interest at the last Aquinnah select board meeting. Officials in the up-Island town asked for more time to familiarize themselves with the matter before voting on whether to approve a letter.
The Tisbury Planning Board is way out over their skis on this referral to the MVC. It’s almost comical. The MVC required Vineyard Wind to provide employee housing and when VW found someone who could build the housing, Tisbury gets all riled up and sends the project to the MVC. We can’t have it both ways folks. There are hundreds of homes on the island that are rented or owned by businesses, especially the hospital, for workforce housing. Will they now all be refereed to the MVC?
When will you join the Tisbury Planning Board and fix things?
Comments are the cheap seats of politics.
Often a town’s referral to the MVC is a discreet way of saying to the developer, “We don’t have the capacity to understand your project, or we don’t like your politics”. What a town does not realize is the MVC has very different and varying interest than a town, and a town might not like their decision. The MVC was designed solely for regional impacting projects, not a place to send projects a town is afraid to decide on, or to punish somebody. Concerning workforce housing, the issue is what effect it might have on a community. If there are no neighborhood complaints, leave it alone. At most a town could have a yearly review of any workforce housing, and the right to revoke such housing only if there is a bonafide negative impact to the neighborhood. Guidelines must be in writing.
The entire thing is a bit of a mess. On Beach Road for example we have a town bylaw of Waterfront Commercial that consulants said should be removed. In fact, it is absurd to refer to Beach Road as suitable for marine use expansion except for a couple of locations. But we still have it. Also, we ran a doemitory on Circuit Avenue in Oak Bluffw very successfully. Cheap rent, twin beds, 5 or so per room so we had around 20 people in 4 rooms and common utilities. It works. One year we hosted Norhern and Southern students from Ireland. That was very interesting!
Comments are closed.