Updated Jan. 8.
At town meeting on Tuesday evening, Tisbury voters criticized the town for failing to maintain important buildings, saying they are upset with the large price tags for renovations they now face as a result of the lack of upkeep.
Despite frustrations and a lengthy discussion, voters approved several key articles at the special town meeting, including the $4.8 million borrowing request for the library’s renovation and expansion, and $600,000 on professional services toward the consolidation plan for town hall.
Voters will now have to approve the spending request for the library through a ballot question at the special town election currently set for January 7.
But while voters also supported a measure for the library, allowing accessory dwelling units and another article that restricted short-term rentals, a portion of the meeting focused on maintenance of buildings.
During a discussion regarding article 5, the consolidation of the town hall to 66 High Point Lane, residents immediately questioned the location saying it wasn’t fitting for a town hall facility. Town officials argued that the consolidation was needed because of poor communication between staff with the current layout.
“We need a town hall. There’s no question. But I don’t think the location decided upon is the right location and I don’t think there is very much discussion done about this,” said voter Tony Peak. “And the lack of communication isn’t entirely about the distance between offices.”
Resident Justin Lucas, who said he worked in the Tisbury annex trailers for three years, said communication wasn’t the problem.
“My concern is the spending or lack of spending on building maintenance,” Lucas said. “If we maintained our buildings we wouldn’t be looking to build a town hall, we would find other avenues to do this. It’s an issue we are having with the school and an issue with the library. If we don’t take care of the toys we already have then we should not be getting new toys. It’s absolutely insane that we are going to spend this money when we don’t even maintain the stuff we have.”
Lucas made a motion to use the funding on maintenance of all town buildings, and it was quickly seconded. But the motion was deemed not in the scope of the article by the moderator and thus an invalid motion.
Other residents agreed they think High Point Lane was the wrong location. The fate of the article seemed to be sealed when Connie Alexander from the Tisbury planning board said that the board was not consulted about the location.
Select board chair John Cahill responded that they had conversations about it with former planning board chair Ben Robinson. But Robinson chimed in saying that this has never come in front of the planning board as a discussion.
Alexander added that the planning board voted Monday night to not support this article.
An amendment to change the location of the town consolidation to a location to be determined then passed. The article passed as amended.
Also on Tuesday’s warrant, an article to update the description and responsibilities of the Tisbury town administrator’s job was denied by voters.
Cahill spoke first on the topic. “We knew back in the summer that we would be looking for a new town administrator and we saw it as an opportunity to rewrite the job description for that position,” said Cahill.
He said they created a group of stakeholders who worked diligently to codify the new job description into the bylaws. “It strengthens the job description, making it clear for the new town administrator what their responsibilities are,” said Cahill
A town resident showed concern that the town was giving more power to the town administrator, one of the few non-elected positions in the town, and thus taking away power from the town’s elected officials.
“This article is fatally flawed beyond belief,” Peak said from the town meeting floor. “Part of the reason this should not go into effect is because tomorrow the [new] town administrator will be selected.”
Peak asked to call for a vote to take no action on this article, leaving the current job description and responsibilities of the town’s administrator the same.
The article was then defeated by voters.
Voters also approved an article allowing Accessory Dwelling Unit’s (ADU’s) in Tisbury, bringing Tisbury bylaws in accordance with new Massachusetts regulations.
An article presenting new short-term rental regulations, aimed at addressing growing Islander concerns about the impact of short-term rentals on the local housing stock, initiated some debate among voters.
Some Tisbury residents did not like the idea of only being allowed to rent out one short term rental per person, saying it interferes with many residents’ income.
Pressed by voters, planning board members said that they did not know how many short term rentals are currently in Tisbury.
“Why would you create a regulation when you have no data on it?” asked Lucas. “What will happen to people who are using multiple short term rentals?”
Another resident proposed an amendment to increase the limit for residents from one-short term rental to four; it did not reach the 2/3 rds majority needed. Select board member Roy Cutrer then proposed to amend the article from 75 nights a year for short term rentals to 120 nights a year, citing that the summer season goes for longer than 75 nights.
The vote was overwhelmingly denied. Cutrer then recommended to go to 90 instead of 120. In a much closer standing vote, the amendment was denied again, 74 in favor and 84 opposed.
The article passed as proposed with the majority 2/3rds needed.
And the most energetic “aye” of the night came from the most anticipated vote, the vote to adjourn.
This story was changed to reflect the correct requested amount for the library construction project. It is $4.8 million, not $4.4 million.
