To The Editor:
Mr. and Mrs. Cormie’s lonely battle to enforce Tisbury’s zoning ordinance at 97 Spring St. against Vineyard Wind’s improper attempt to inject workforce housing into a single-family residential zone is heading to the Martha’s Vineyard Commission for a hearing on Sept. 9. The Cormies seem to have a gathering tailwind of evidence in support of their position.
The original house at 97 Spring St. (torn down to make way for Vineyard Wind’s project) appeared on both the 1904 and 1914 editions of the Sanborn Fire Maps for Vineyard Haven, meaning that the demolished building was at least 119 years old at the time of its demise. The MVC has jurisdiction over all Island buildings that are 100 years or older. Destruction of the building without MVC approval was illegal from the outset.
Further, those Sanborn Fire Maps are admissible in evidence for the truth of their content as “Ancient Documents.” [See MASS. R. EVID. 803(16); Massachusetts Guide to Evidence, Section 803(16), Feb. 1, 2024].
The new building at 97 Spring St. was constructed under a permit for a “single-family residence.” Reportedly, however, the new building contains nine bedrooms, 11 bathrooms, and perhaps most telling, seven hookups for washers and dryers. This place is destined to be Vineyard Wind’s version of Motel 6 or, perhaps, the building permit application will be found to be incorrect or intentionally misleading.
Destroying a 119-year-old building in violation of MVC regulations, and then erecting a new building having only the most tenuous similarity to a “single-family residence,” entitles the builder to no consideration at all. Tisbury’s zoning bylaw provides that no building shall be built and no structure shall be used for any purpose not allowed under that law: “[A]ll uses not specifically permitted shall be considered to be prohibited.” [Tisbury zoning bylaw, Section 4.01]. The owner appears to have assumed the risk of his own conduct at every stage in the process. If either the MVC or Tisbury blocks this ill-advised project, the owner will have no one to blame but himself.
Tisbury’s zoning bylaw provides that rooms in a single-family home may be rented to not more than five unrelated people, if a special permit is issued by the zoning board of appeals. Importantly, that ordinance also states, “The house, property, or premises shall be the owner’s legal residence, owner-occupied and owner-operated.” [Tisbury zoning bylaw, Section 04.03.01]. Under Massachusetts law, the term “resident” is ordinarily limited to “natural persons.” For example, Mass. G.L. c.62 §1(f) defines “resident” or “inhabitant” as 1) any natural person domiciled in the commonwealth, or 2) any natural person who is not domiciled in the commonwealth but who maintains a permanent place of abode in the commonwealth and spends in the aggregate more than 183 days of the taxable year in the commonwealth.
By contrast, corporations are “citizens” (either of the state where they are incorporated or where their principal place of business is located). But because a corporation is not a “natural person,” it cannot be a “legal resident” as that term is used in the Tisbury zoning bylaw. Therefore, a corporation (such as Vineyard Wind, or Delano & Co, LLC, or 97 Spring Street, LLC) cannot legally lease rooms to anyone at a house in a “single-family residential” zone in Tisbury. This conclusion may be inconvenient for Vineyard Wind, but a requirement that a flesh-and-blood human being be the “legal resident,” “owner-occupier” and “owner-operator” of a five-tenant rooming house is eminently reasonable, because corporate ownership and corporate responsibility can be easily sold, transferred among subsidiaries or affiliates, or merely concealed in a web of paper filings, none of which makes zoning enforcement easy or efficacious, especially for objecting abutters. This also strongly suggests that Vineyard Wind’s corporate leasing of rooms at 52 William St. may have been improvidently allowed, and should be further investigated by both the MVC and Tisbury.
This leads, finally, to Jay Grande’s inappropriate and self-defeating, ex parte email message of July 23, 2024, addressed directly to the members of the MVC and copied indirectly to the members of the Tisbury planning board and the Tisbury zoning appeal board (by sending copies of that email to the respective secretaries of each board). An ex parte communication is an attempt by a person not involved in a judicial or administrative proceeding to influence the outcome of that proceeding by corresponding or speaking (either directly or indirectly) with members of a decisionmaking body about any aspect of a matter pending before that body.
Mr. Grande’s message begins by suggesting that “the trajectory of 97 Spring St. [may lead] to unintended consequences which could be costly in terms of time, money, and reputation for Tisbury.” (Translation: “These pesky abutters may be correct about this one.”) Mr. Grande then goes on to discuss various attempts to accommodate “workforce or employee housing,” but ends by proposing an utterly illegal solution: “an interim policy to avoid the above-referenced adverse impacts.” (Translation: “Let’s make it up as we go along. We can outlast these objecting abutters.”)
But that’s not how the law works. The only zoning ordinance Tisbury can enforce is the one that exists today; and that ordinance does not allow nine, 10, 12, or 18 corporate employees — related only by their paychecks or corporate ID cards — to reside in a “single-family residence” in the town of Tisbury.
What’s at risk here? The right of every owner of a single-family home in Tisbury to enjoy equal protection of the law. Zoning and zoning enforcement are the bedrock of “ordered liberty” in every American town. The zoning bylaw provides clear notice to everyone about the structures and activities that are allowed or prohibited in each zone. The Cormies are performing a public service for every property owner in Tisbury. They deserve our support.
- Kenneth Wainwright
Vineyard Haven
