Ninety-seven Spring Street, a construction project that’s intended to house as many as nine Vineyard Wind workers in a residential district, has caused a stir this year in Tisbury. After months of neighbors’ concerns that the project was improperly vetted, two town boards referred it to the Martha’s Vineyard Commission for further review — a process that could deny its future development.
Now, the planning board has launched a new referral just days after the initial referrals were rejected.
The planning board also recently discussed evidence that the home demolished in January to make room for the current project may have been over 100 years old. If true, this could present problems for the project, as any demolition of a property over a century old would have first required referral to the Martha’s Vineyard Commission. This did not occur at 97 Spring Street, as town assessors’ records indicated that the previous structure was 99 years old.
A key document discussed at a Wednesday planning board meeting was a Sanborn Map Company fire insurance map dated December 1914, which a town official and local historian says shows a structure at 97 Spring Street the exact location and shape of the structure demolished this January.
“[It is] the fact that a building of precisely the same footprint and arrangement existed on the 1914 Sanborn insurance map, which would put it at 110 years old at least,” said A. Bowdoin van Riper, a member of the Williams Street Historic District Commission at Wednesday’s meeting.
He also noted that Tisbury taxed that building at a consistent rate from 1912 to 1925, further evidence that the demolished building had reached 100 years of age.
The property has been a lightning rod for criticism, with many residents worried that the redevelopment project represents the industrialization of Vineyard Haven, or that the town is turning into a factory town of boarding houses for the offshore wind industry.
Plans filed in October for the Spring Street project describe a “proposed nine-bedroom house,” and plans filed under a week later describe a “proposed single-family residence” and nine-spot parking lot.
Planning board officials have questioned the previous structure’s age during their back and forth with the Martha’s Vineyard Commission, which began in June when the board asked the commission to consider whether the project was a development of regional impact (DRI).
On September 3, commission executive director Adam Turner told the planning board that the commission would not review the project, because the board’s initial referral failed to trigger the commission’s checklist for what qualifies as a DRI.
The board’s initial referral raised several checklist items to the commission’s attention. These included a project with five or more dwelling units, five or more individual or rental agreements for a room or rooms, five or more dwelling units, and demolition of a historical structure or structure over 100 years old.
“Having reviewed materials provided by the Town and other publicly available information regarding the proposed development,” Turner wrote to the board, “I have determined that the project does not meet any of the DRI Checklist triggers identified in your referrals. Accordingly, the project was improperly referred to the Commission and no further action by the Commission is necessary.”
“Should the project evolve in the course of local review such that in the future it meets one or more DRI Checklist items,” Turner did add, “you are welcome to refer it to us at that time and the Commission will review and take appropriate action.”
On Wednesday — fresh off the rejection — the planning board decided to submit its new referral for the Martha’s Vineyard Commission to consider reviewing the project. Board member Ben Robinson told The Times that this referral will have broader considerations in mind, such as the project’s potential impact on its neighborhood.
Board members also said the new referral differs in that it will require commissioners to discuss the matter during a concurrence review. The commission cannot simply kick this referral back to the town.
Robinson partly accepted and partly questioned Turner’s statements during the board meeting. “Given the MVC’s review of their checklist item, if they feel that this doesn’t fit that checklist item, I’m willing to take them on that piece,” he said.
He also noted that the issue of the previous structure’s age has come up since his board’s initial referrals. “It became clear that there [were] pieces in the record that alluded to that house being older than 100 years,” Robinson also said. “That’s where I wonder at the MVC’s non-acceptance, because that seems like a piece that needs to be vetted.”
Mary Bernadette Budinger-Cormie, a direct abutter to 97 Spring Street who has been a driving force behind scrutiny of the project, supported the discretionary referral in a statement to The Times.
“It is my sincerest hope that the MVC — whose difficult mandate it is to not only control the economic growth and development of the Island but at the same time to preserve our unique Island character, neighborhoods and prevent the development and ‘uses’ which would impair them — will do a thorough investigation and review of this project and how it ties back to the Island as a whole,” she said. “This particular case is an inappropriate use of land and is unduly detrimental to the historic R 10-zoned neighborhoods. I also feel it is critical that a full retroactive review of the demolition of a building built in 1902 also needs to be addressed to prevent this from happening again.”
Robinson also said that 97 Spring Street is linked to other DRI projects involving Vineyard Wind workforce housing, which could justify the referral’s acceptance.
“One important point of [97 Spring Street] is it seems connected to another DRI review that the commission did and issued a decision … this project isn’t named in the decision but the development is,” Robinson said.
He added that the role of Tisbury’s working class on the Island contributes to the regional nature of the project. “What we’re seeing with these types of projects is the displacement of the traditional community housing. And we need to recognize that Tisbury historically has supplied the working-class housing to the Island,” he said. “And if that community-based working-class-type housing is being displaced for a different type of housing that doesn’t feel connected to the community, for the benefit of the entire Island, that really makes it a regional concern.”
Board member Casey Hayward stated that 97 Spring Street appeared to meet several DRI checklist items. She also criticized Vineyard Wind for failing to hire enough Islanders. “Vineyard Wind hasn’t fulfilled its original promise, which was to hire Islanders. And we would not need to be building these corporate dormitory structures leased out by GE if they were able to follow through with the fact that they said they were going to be hiring Islanders, who, we could assume, would have housing,” she said.
Tisbury health agent Drew Belsky, whose board also referred 97 Spring Street to the commission, questioned the Commission’s decision as well. “There are a few issues [with the property] in water resources … I think there’s enough here and I’m here to help do any sort of joint discretionary referral if that’s what you guys decide to do,” he said.
On Wednesday, board chair Connie Alexander acknowledged that an issue with her board’s initial referral was that the project at 97 Spring Street is being built as a single-family dwelling for which a single lease will be given. As the DRI checklist states, all rooms covered by a single lease count as a single dwelling unit. This makes it difficult to weigh the project’s intended use, Alexander said, despite the fact that developer Xerxes Aghassipour told town officials in May that he intended to lease the property to house Vineyard Wind workers.
“Presently, it is still just a single-family residence with nine bedrooms, et cetera,” she said.” And it may stay that way. It may not get leased out to Vineyard Wind. It may not be any of the concerns that we have about the project. So you run into kind of this quagmire of it is and it isn’t,” she said.
On September 3, Turner also rejected the board’s referral of 123 Beach Road, an Aghassipour project intended to provide workforce housing. The board had questioned whether that project should have received its building permit as a single family residence.
The planning board decided not to send another referral for that Beach Road property, as it felt it could exert authority over the project during its special permitting stage.
Robinson noted that the MVC is currently reviewing its DRI checklist, which could end up altering how the commission reviews referred projects like 97 Spring Street.
The island desperately needs workforce housing. On my street in VH, there are several houses that seem to house many workers and it does not bother us at all. I think the protests are a case of “Not in my Backyard”.
Lorraine, agreed.
Thanks for your balanced viewpoint.
Lorraine, without knowing where in town you live, it’s hard to tell if you’re comparing apples to apples. However, from what little I know about 97 Spring Street, something appears to be rotten.
I hope the Town of Tisbury and MV Commission never approve this “single family
home” that includes: 9 bedrooms, 7 washer/dryer, 9 parking spaces and 11 bathrooms for Vineyard Wind employee housing.
How did you get your info so wrong?
Here info is accurate and straight fom the Tisbury Town website and building permit. Look at the plans and count. Also the VW connection came straight from the developer himself in a Lease supplied to the Town with GE renewables. Sorry she is spot on here
If the developer got an age decision by the Town when he applied for a building permit, and the town agreed the house was less than 100 years old at that time, it’s to late to reverse what has occurred unless the Town wants to award the developer lots of damages. However, one would think a 9 bedroom commercial structure would somehow qualify to be reviewed by the MVC. One single family home might have 2-3 cars, this might have 9 cars, or more. This is more like a rooming house or hotel.
It is not however too late to save future demolitions.
In this case, if a demolition permit was applied for, part of that process is a verification of the age of the structure. This did not happen in this case. No demolition permit was applied for or received. Just a modification of the building permit, which is not the same per the town site: “Demolition of a Structure Permit This application is used for complete demolition of a building and/or accessory building. For partial and interior demolition use the Building Permit application.”
. The assessors card specifically states on the towns website “This information is believed to be correct but is subject to change and is not warranted.” It is not meant for legal purposes. The responsibility is with the property owner to do due diligence and research and attest the property date. It is also the responsibility of the Construction Supervisor to also due the due diligence and attest to the actual researched age of the property. If a demolition permit had been filled out, the town would have gone to the archives to verify the age of the home. It was built and taxed in 1902 and has been for 120 years. They (town) were not given that opportunity by the builder nor the Building Inspector.
As the former Building Commissioner for Tisbury I can say that much of this is incorrect. If the Town property card shows that the structure is less than 100 years old, that is the end of the inquiry as both the owner and Building Inspector should be able to rely on this information for town business purposes. If the age is more than 100 years old on the property card, the owner may dispute that with other evidence to show that it is actually newer or accept referral to the MVC.
The obligation of the Construction Supervisor is to ensure the Massachusetts Building Code is followed and that the work site is safe. They do not have an obligation to research the property for information to rebut town records.
The different type of permit applications is merely an administrative matter as the Massachusetts Building Code makes no reference to a specific demolition permit, and the universal building permit application still used in many towns across the Commonwealth covers all types of work including demolition. The process of reviewing the age of the structure is the same with all permits; go look at the property card.
It seems unfair to punish the property owner this late in the game for facts not known to them or the building inspector at the time of permit application, and this strikes me as an effort to stop this project generally rather than to preserve a historic structure, which is now gone, as the MVC DRI for historic structures intended.
If Tisbury wants more oversight of old structures they can expand the historic district to encompass more of the Town, something Harold Chapdelain often discussed, otherwise you must accept the decisions of your Building Inspector and the MVC.
Are you sure you want to rely on a homeowner dating their own home? That is the towns burden. But if the applicant misrepresented the permit application that has serious consequences.
A smart decision by the MVC. The Island Towns regularly try to drag the MVC into issues that could and should be solved with the Towns’ zoning by-laws being updated to reflect prevailing views.
The bylaws that are presently in effect should be followed. If/should Tisbury chooses to update their bylaws in regard to housing, then the changes should be updated by the MVC. This process protects the people of Tisbury who expect transparency and enforcement of bylaws on the books.
I wonder how many boarding houses there were in Tisbury in 1910 or 1890 or 1912. Or single family homes housing more than one family? Would Workforce housing be more acceptable if it was called a boarding house? I’m all for hiring actual MV residents for actual jobs, but they too do have to have a place to live.
What was here back in 1890 or 1912 is irrelevant.
I am surprised at how many people thumb their noses at zoning and other bylaws on the books.
This is what happens you let your town get onto the slippery slope of becoming a company town.
You lose control of development in general and also specific developments that the bylaws are there to guide.
The town manager seems to be A-OK with this irresponsible scoff-law situation.
If it is the new owner’s legal responsibility to check boxes that he has not checked, then he has to pay the price. Taking such shortcuts is, quite simply, not professional conduct.
Many of us here are in the building trades or have family members who are. The latter can often be heard b–ching about the “convenient” ignorance of people who come here to make a buck off the Vineyard and pretend not to know the rules that the responsible locals follow.
It’s time to put a stop to this and make an example of a scofflaw developer.
The 97 Spring Street travesty is a perfect opportunity to do so.
Comments are closed.