The Tisbury zoning board is asking a developer to try to reach a compromise with the abutter of a controversial project who is trying to obtain a stop-work order against the redevelopment.
Ninety-seven Spring Street, where developer Xerxes Aghassipour intends to house up to nine Vineyard Wind workers at a time in a residential district, has been scrutinized for receiving a building permit for a single-family residence. Tisbury’s zoning bylaws have also been roundly criticized as too vague, as they neither specifically define workforce housing nor define a single-family residence.
This month, the town planning board also referred the project to the Martha’s Vineyard Commission, following the commission rejecting previous referrals made this summer.
The purpose of the ZBA’s recent meeting on September 12 was not to hear residents’ questions about the project in general. It was to address an appeal of the town’s removal of a stop-work order on the project in June. This stop-work order was in effect for one week following a request by Mary Bernadette Budinger-Cormie, a Tisbury resident and direct abutter.
Dozens of townspeople came to the meeting with questions about 97 Spring Street. And this time, the project’s developer was there to answer when he hasn’t been for many public meetings.
Attendees packed a room in the Tisbury Senior Center, and Budinger-Cormie and developer Xerxes Aghassipour both attended with their legal counsel.
Board member Jeff Kristal welcomed residents’ questions, noting that other boards should have already given them opportunities to ask questions.
“This town has never had a discussion about this,” Kristal told attendees. “This zoning board is not really the correct place to hear it … this should have happened well before. It should have happened with the planning board, the select board, Martha’s Vineyard Commission.”
Attendees asked how Aghassipour intends for the property to be occupied, whether he intends to house transient workers there, and why the project received a building permit as a single-family residence.
While Aghassipour has stated intentions to house Vineyard Wind workers at the property, and town officials have obtained a draft lease with GE to house Vineyard Wind workers there, Kristal noted that the building’s occupancy is not set in stone. How the project will be inhabited is officially decided when the developer applies for an occupancy permit, which has yet to occur.
Answers at the meeting from Aghassipour and his counsel, Peter Brown, received mixed responses.
Aghassipour pushed back against perceptions that he is an outsider in Tisbury, and assured residents that he has yet to determine the use of the property. “I’m really only interested in doing what is an as-of-right use for that single family dwelling. And when we are finished we will be chatting with the town to determine what that is,” he said.
Budinger-Cormie pushed back against many of his responses, and raised issues with the permitting process thus far. “This should not have been permitted as a single-family residence from the get-go. Because of that, it did not get referred to the MVC. Because of that, it also didn’t get site planning. Because of that it didn’t go in front of the planning board.”
When asked how workforce housing intentions for the property could be considered single-family housing, Brown replied that Tisbury zoning bylaws do not define a single-family residence, nor workforce housing.
“What does it mean to be a single-family residence?” Brown posed. “Are you a single-family residence if your family looks different from the family next [door]?.”
Brown’s reply was interrupted by a negative crowd reaction, but he went on to cite a 1990 Massachusetts Appeals Court decision, from the case of Hall vs. Zoning Board of Appeals of Edgartown. “‘Whether a zoning violation exists will depend on whether the tenants live together as a single housekeeping unit in a family-like situation,’” Brown quoted.
The board decided to continue the meeting until October 10. It will be held in person and on Zoom in order to allow more questions from townspeople. The location is yet to be announced.
Kristal also pushed the meeting in order to give Budinger-Cormie, Aghassipour, and their lawyers time to decide whether they can reach an agreement on the property’s future use, which he said could eliminate the need for another meeting.
“We can stop this all right now if you put a permanent deed restriction on that property that this property will never be used other than a single-family residence,” Budinger-Cormie said at the meeting.
The board also took up an attendee’s suggestion to look into whether the property had insufficient frontage.
The full September 12 ZBA meeting can be viewed here on Martha’s Vineyard Community Television.
How could the questions be asked of other boards when it wasn’t put in front of those boards? This has been shoved down the town’s throat with their blessing. And frankly I’m very surprised by Mr Krystal’s comments back. Isn’t he the same one that told the abutter that she needed to stop
Asking questions at another meeting and that that meeting wasn’t the place for that? So what place is it? When you don’t follow protocols how can people ask questions concerning these things. Like isn’t the house that was torn down over 100 yrs old? How did that happen? How did they or did they get a demo permit? And sorry if you can’t tell me how the house is going to be used we all understand what that means. It means you know exactly how but will let the town tell everyone that they are doing plot out of best interest to save money for you instead of being honest up front. Since with 7 washing machine connections we all know what that means. And how does a property that size have a septic big enough for 11 bathrooms ?5 “wet bars” (kitchenettes) and 7 laundry hook uos? Has the board of health approved that? I know other projects they wouldn’t allow bathrooms to go in because they said no you have too many. This whole project has never followed the same rules the rest of us have to. Why?
The building is on town sewers-and you as a MA licensed plumber should be aware septic is based upon bedrooms- not the number of plumbing devices
Yes, why is this project (87 Spring) and in particular, this one developer (97 Spring, 123 Beach, 4 State Rd, 47 Carls Lair, 40 Delano) spared any review? This property is not on Town Sewer. It is however applying for a 9-bedroom Septic system and the the tank that was installed already was NOT the same one as on the septic plans that were submitted and the Septic plans did NOT meet the setbacks either. Once again how could this possibly have gotten through without ANY review? Is there sufficient frontage? That is in question as well. Kristal is right on one thing….This should have gone to the PB, this should have had a site review, this should have gone in front of the MVC from the get go. But the Tisbury BI made the decision not to to have this project reviewed and this is where we are because of his decisions. No one else in this town would have been afforded the same decision from the BI. Why? This is not a “grey” area in zoning, it is clear the town’s bylaws state that anything that is not included in the bylaws is “not allowed”
.
This building is not on Town Sewer. And the potential occupants per BOH regulations is 18, not 9. That’s one big family.
I hope someone answers your questions, Asa, but don’t hold your breath . . .
The TOWN should NOT authorize this request. When the town issued the “single family residence” permit, were they aware of Mr. Aghassipour’s intentions? If the town deems it to be a “single family residence” let it be just that! To not follow the proper channels to explore his request has raised the question, “does the right hand know what the left hand is doing”?
I do not wish to see MV become another Nantucket!
Excuse me, but I think we all know what a single family house is. The town has bylaws and building codes governing development, and redevelopment, as well as bylaws governing multiple people living together who are not related. What we don’t have is the willingness to enforce them. If this isn’t stopped now it will happen again, perhaps in your neighborhood, Jeff.
We are not fooled by efforts to pretend this is meeting any kind of single family home definition.
Since we have multiple places where this can be stopped, and it should be stopped, please do not issue an occupancy permit until we see this house functioning as a single family residence, not an apartment/boarding house. Workforce housing, indeed.
By the way, I believe there is a statement in the town’s bylaws that states that anything that is not included in the bylaws is not allowed.
Big Wind + Xerxes Aghassipour = Big Bullies
None of them are friends of Martha’s Vineyard. Motivated by money, nothing else.
The building is not on Town sewer.
How did this not go to the MVC? We are losing our town and our property values are going down thanks to some bad decisions by town leadership. There are single family homes being used as workforce housing all over the island. There are two on my street. I realize we have a housing shortage, but Tisbury should not get dumped on because Edgartown is enforcing their zoning bylaws. This is a regional problem. Meanwhile, my tax assessment has gone up 35% in 2 years and larger houses on either side of me have gone up over 43%. However, some assessments actually went down? To make matters worse, I am also in the zone that I have to replace my septic if I sell my property. I am watching my hard-earned equity melt away. We definitely need some oversite and some checks and balances.
I for one hope this man gets stopped. He is taking full advantage of the lack of backbone of the Tisbury Planning board. He is on track to doing this to the properties cited by Ms. Budinger-Cormie. The Tisbury Planning board seems to be completely ineffective (boat yards on Holmes Hole road anyone?)
Why should the abutter reach a “compromise” with a rogue developer?
That puts the onus on the victim, the abutter.
Actually, the whole town is the victim here.
The “compromise” proposition is absurd and sounds like the Zoning Board is trying to dodge litigation and just get this t— out of its in-box.
This situation stinks.
Jeff Kristal appears to be running interference for the developer.
Attorney Brown subjects neighbors and the Town to “angels-dancing-on-a-pinhead” legal hairsplitting performance.
They should not be expected to return such stinky serves.
Everyone with any common sense in addition to five normal senses smells a rat with this project (and others with similar “footprint”).
More than one rat, AAMOF.
The public needs clear answers from its local boards and authorities (and town counsel), not can kicking.
At this point, this whole project must be investigated from beginning to end.
By an external entity.
With subpoenas of emails and other communications between the developer and all town entities involved with this.
Who will send the FOIAs?
Until an investigation is completed, hit “pause.”
Comments are closed.