The M.V. Commission got some clarification last Thursday on the 97 Spring Street project, a hotly debated Vineyard Haven development under their review.
The nine-bedroom structure, intended to house Vineyard Wind workers in a residential district, has been criticized by town residents and officials since last spring for obtaining a building permit for a single-family residence.
Commissioners did not reach a decision regarding any restrictions on the property in their three-hour hearing last week. They asked developer Xerxes Aghassipour to clarify his intentions for the project, and heard from nearly a dozen public commenters. The hearing was continued to April.
Developer Xerxes Aghassipour told commissioners on Thursday that the most likely use for his house will be as a rental for nine workers — one in each bedroom.
“It’s always going to be a single household unit living in the property,” he told officials. “It will never be a rental of any rooms within the building.”
Aghassipour also told commissioners, however, that he reserves the right to other uses as the property’s owner. He said that this could include dedicating one or two of the bedrooms as accessory dwelling units once he goes to the town government for an occupancy permit.
As per the project’s review as a development of regional impact, referred to the commission by Tisbury’s planning and health boards, the regional officials are also concerned with whether the previous, demolished structure at 97 Spring Street was over 100 years old.
Preservation consultant Eric Dray told commissioners that the demolished four-bedroom house was likely over 100 years old at the time of demolition last January, an age that would have qualified the house for mandatory referral to the commission.
Aghassipour also told commissioners on Thursday that he would welcome their requirements concerning his building’s occupancy, as well as its number of parking spaces, and exterior details and lighting. “We’ve purposely left the outside without much done to it so that we can incorporate any of your desires and recommendations, whether they be in the landscape or parking,” he said.
Dray and commissioners also expressed interest in altering the exterior of the building to better integrate with nearby homes. Dray said that the current structure is the second-largest in its neighborhood, and that it would be better integrated into its surroundings with the addition of window shutters and trim around its front door.
Two Tisbury commissioners, Mary Bernadette Budinger-Cormie and Ben Robinson, involved in lawsuits with Aghassipour, recused themselves. Aghassipour filed a lawsuit last month in Dukes County Superior Court, alleging a conspiracy to harm his reputation and property rights. Budinger-Cormie also lives next door to 97 Spring Street, and is suing Aghassipour and Tisbury in an earlier case over the project in Massachusetts Land Court.
Tisbury residents have been resisting the project, and opposition arose again from public commenters last week, including former M.V. commissioner Dave Ferraguzzi, who argued that the property should have been denied in Tisbury and not reached the commission. “This is a Tisbury local issue, and not regional,” he said.
Others took issue with the transient nature of Vineyard Wind workers, described by the offshore wind company in a commission document from a 2022 review of their on-Island workforce housing. “Thirty-six people will put their head on a pillow in the first month,” he said. The document details housing arrangements for offshore technicians, in which two teams of workers will rotate off- and on-Island every two weeks.
Public comment, including from Budinger-Cormie, will continue on April 3.
“It will never be a rental of any rooms within the building.”
From the next paragraph: He said that this could include dedicating one or two of the bedrooms as accessory dwelling units once he goes to the town government for an occupancy permit.
sounds odd… If the statements are accurate, the second seems to be the opposite of the first; why need an ADU if you’re not renting it?
A single family residence is not the same as a boarding house for 9 unrelated individuals. How did this use even pass muster with the Planning Board??
I agree with you Carla. I have no idea how this was ever approved as a SFR with a 9 BR septic. Furthermore, this is not helping the work force housing issue because none of the tenants will be living here for more than 2 weeks. Will they be allowed to have over-night guests or children? Are they all sharing one kitchen or will each room have a microwave & mini fridge? Just because you have one lessee this will never be a “single housing unit living in the property”.
Comments are closed.