A controversial housing development in Vineyard Haven, intended to house as many as nine Vineyard Wind workers in a residential district, is set to appear before the Martha’s Vineyard Commission on Thursday.
Many residents anxiously await the commission’s decision, and are worried that the building project could set a precedent in Vineyard Haven, leading it down a path to becoming a company town for offshore wind and other industries.
Tension between town officials and developer Xerxes Aghassipour is also ramping up before Thursday’s meeting, as he is claiming that in new documents he obtained, planning board officials are targeting him and treating him unfairly. To support this, Aghassipour has submitted to the record a number of unflattering text messages between planning board officials that he obtained through a records request.
Overall, Aghassipour’s plans for 97 Spring St. include a nine-space parking lot, and the property now has nine bedrooms and seven washer/dryer hookups, according to the referral. The previous house at that address had three bedrooms, and was demolished in January.
On Thursday, the commission will decide whether to take up the project for review as a development of regional impact, or instead decide to send the matter back to Tisbury officials. If the commission accepts the project for review, it will hold further public hearings, and can impose restrictions on the project.
The Tisbury planning and health boards’ referral touches upon a wide range of debates that residents and officials have aired this year. They state that town zoning bylaws prohibit the property’s use as workforce housing. The referral also claims that the demolished property was historic and demolition was improperly permitted, and that the project threatens the character of its neighborhood.
Some town officials argue that the commission is the last option they have before construction is ultimately approved. But the project’s developer, Xerxes Aghassipour, has said that there would still be time left for any concerned officials or residents.
When construction is complete, Aghassipour will apply for a certificate of occupancy. In this stage, the town building inspector has to ensure that the project complies with local bylaws before allowing people to move into the property. Aghassipour has added that if he receives this permit, there will be 30 days to appeal the permit to the zoning board of appeals.
But a planning board official disagrees.
“For the planning board, that would be it,” board member Ben Robinson said of the possibility that the commission sends the project back to the town.
“I think many people are hanging their hats on the occupancy,” he said. “It’s usually a foregone conclusion at that point.”
He added that it is atypical to wait until the occupancy stage to determine a property’s use. “There are not many residential uses in a residential district,” he said. “There are accessory apartments or guesthouses. The assumption is, you’re doing something that’s allowed. You don’t wait for the occupancy permit to see what’s allowed.”
And just days before the commission’s meeting, tensions increased as Aghassipour criticized planning board officials and called the referral inaccurate.
In a letter filed with the commission, the developer said that he initiated a public records request in July, as he was concerned by what he saw as falsehoods spread by town officials about 97 Spring St. and 123 Beach Road, another of his projects.
“The [public records] documents produced reveal a disturbing pattern of contemptible and offensive communications between the Planning Board Administrator, Ms. [Amy] Upton, and the former Planning Board Chair, Mr. Robinson, towards me and other town officials who may disagree with their viewpoints,” Aghassipour wrote, adding that he and other town officials have been falsely accused of colluding with each other to violate the law.
He also wrote that Robinson and Upton have repeatedly lied about his project and the timing associated with it in order to obstruct workforce housing development for Vineyard Wind.
The Times has not obtained the breadth of documents provided in that records request. Aghassipour’s letter includes five images of texts between Robinson and Upton from May, showing them discussing himself, concerns that his project appears to be dormitory housing, and questioning town officials’ objectivity.
A significant portion of the text messages concerns Upton’s reaction to a meeting this spring between building inspector Greg Monka, Aghassipour and town administrator Jay Grande. Monka requested this meeting after issuing a stop-work order on the project, as he wanted to review the building’s proposed use and occupancy. At the meeting, Aghassipour stated his intent to rent the building to a company to house Vineyard Wind workers. Monka lifted the stop-work order shortly after, reminding Aghassipour that he needed to comply with town bylaws in order to receive a certificate of occupancy.
Upton’s texts show her disapproval of the meeting. “Presumably you read the latest letter regarding 97 Spring st. and the meeting of the old boys [sic] club at 4 State Rd, deciding to ramrod ahead and lift the stop work order and then deal with the use question at a later date, knowing full well that the building inspector is already entirely in collusion with the developer and will never enforce or refer to the equally conflicted ZBA chair,” Upton wrote to Robinson.
Upton also uses pointed language in a later text. “It would appear that Jay, Greg, and [X]erxes are all in a big circle jerk,” she wrote.
Upton told The Times this week that her “circle jerk” comment was specifically in reference to the spring meeting, that she intended a meaning similar to “echo chamber” and that she did not understand the meaning of the term she used at the time.
When asked about Aghassipour’s statements that he and Upton had repeatedly lied about his project, Robinson told The Times that he had read the letter and did not understand what in particular Aghassipour was pointing to.
“I didn’t see what he was specifically talking about,” Robinson said.
In addition to the commission’s Thursday meeting, which will begin at 6:30 pm on Zoom and at the commission offices at 33 New York Avenue in Oak Bluffs, the commission will visit 97 Spring Street at noon on Thursday. No deliberation will occur during that visit.
