As with my resignation from the Tisbury planning board, I have deliberated long and hard whether there would be any value to my comments on the volatile situation that is occurring at 97 Spring St., and the effect it is having on our town and Island.
All communities deal with issues of governance, growth, internal interaction, differences, and mutual goals. Martha’s Vineyard as an Island, and Tisbury in particular, as the year-round gateway to the Island, has issues not just for itself, but is also responsible for the year-round needs of the rest of the Island.
All are familiar with the circumstances surrounding this project, because it has been well-covered by our local papers. I had hoped that our boards, departments, and committees would have been able to acknowledge a difference of opinion or an error, and come up with an amiable solution, rather than legal action, but that did not occur. At a ZBA meeting it was suggested that both parties meet and work out an acceptable solution. The meeting did occur, however it was not between the direct abutter and the applicant, but between approximately 15 neighbors, and led to a great deal of dialogue, but no resolution.
The applicant has consistently said that he will abide by the final decision of the town, but here we are at the Martha’s Vineyard Commission, after a second referral by the planning board of a matter that was not even before them. The first referral was denied by the MVC. The planning board filed a second discretionary referral, which was accepted.
I attended the MVC meeting, and it became clear that the MVC was unsure of its role and was responding to public pressure, rather than to clear and persuasive reasons. In an attempt to validate the overview by the MVC based on the DRI checklist, commissioners worked diligently to find conditions that fit into the DRI checklist. Upholding the “character” of the neighborhood was brought up; however, that is a broad term that is vague and undefined, that allows independent, personal interpretation, thereby creating more gray area, and no specific guidelines.
Now that the MVC has decided to participate in assisting the town in what should have been a town matter, I hope its focus will be on the need for workforce housing for the entire Island. We are an explosive economy with a large portion of our economic stability coming from tourism, which requires a much larger workforce in the summer months. Our year-round population is not capable of providing all the services we need. Part-time and transient employees have been part of the service fabric of our economy for years, and it has become acute. We need to acknowledge the need for workforce housing, and amend our zoning bylaws to allow it in certain zones; and if there are no such zones, or there are not enough zones, we need to create them with all parties participating.
It is likely that many homes in the Spring Street neighborhood already provide some form of housing to year-round workers, transient workers, short-term rentals, or weekend vacations. A full evaluation of the current use in the neighborhood needs to be conducted by the MVC in order to make sure any potential change in bylaws will accommodate these current uses.
Another issue raised by the planning board is the age of the home as over 100 years old. Town assessor records are constantly referred to and depended on. If this is an error, then the correction needs to occur within the recordkeeping system.
Vineyard Wind is a project that was approved by all six Island towns, and required a housing plan thoroughly outlining the role of the 77 employees and the need for 32 beds to accompany them. The housing issue for workforce housing is no surprise.
A member of the Tisbury planning board, however, made a statement printed in The Times on Sept. 12 (“Was a Vineyard Haven home 100 years old? And why it matters”), that “Vineyard Wind hasn’t fulfilled its original promise, which was to hire Islanders.” It does not help in resolving these issues when members of our planning community make charges of bad faith rather than recognizing realities and assisting in finding solutions. Planners are problem solvers, and are required to find solutions for issues communities deal with.
To date we seem to be saying no to many projects because of lack of bylaw clarity, an attitude that we want to keep life as it was, or we are just not sure of what direction to take. We originally said no to the Hale relocation of a segment of its marina services because of sea level rise. It is a three-generation, full-time maritime business that employs 28 people year-round. We said no to the 97 Spring St. project. Both were sent to the MVC.
As planners, “no” needs to be accompanied with, “Then where?” The biggest part of our planned growth is to determine where these Island needs can go. No is the easy part of the situation. but it is not adequate or responsible until we acknowledge that these issues are with us, and we need to combine our efforts to collaboratively work to find a solution. Our new Master Plan directs us to preserve and protect, and we need to provide.
Collaboration of our planners and community is required. To quote the applicant in the same article in the Nov. 14 MV Times, “Berni’s stand,” “The opposition on Spring Street put a light on the fact that there is no process, there are no bylaws for workforce housing … I’m hopeful, now that Berni is a commissioner, we can roll up our sleeves and figure out how to do this.” That implies all of us together — generational Islanders, wash-ashores, retirees, newcomers, and businesses. It’s not anyone’s fault, and it is everyone’s fault, for not working together. We cannot afford the luxury of pursuing independent interests. We need to determine the needs and how they fit into the big picture of a healthy, happy, and prosperous Island where we have found the middle path that works for all.
Elaine Miller is a former member of the Tisbury planning board. She resigned in August.
