Tisbury officials are warning the Martha’s Vineyard Commission that a controversial development in Vineyard Haven could open the floodgates for similar types of transient workforce housing across the Island. But if commissioners are going to make any changes or modifications to 97 Spring St., they want town leaders and residents to be more specific on what kind of mitigation measures they should take.
At a continued hearing on Thursday evening in front of the commission, Tisbury officials and residents continued their pushback on the nine-bedroom housing project, which developer Xerxes Aghassipour has expressed an interest in renting to Vineyard Wind workers. A common complaint against the project is that inhabitants would be transient — working at periods of time on the Island, and then leaving.
Tisbury select board chair John Cahill, who said that he was speaking as an individual and abutter to the 97 Spring St. property and not as a town official, underscored that the project would set an irreversible precedent for the Vineyard.
“I know you want to call this a Tisbury issue, but if you allow this to happen, this could happen in your neighborhoods easily,” he said, pushing against the “substantial change” to the neighborhood, and the transient nature the residents of the proposed project would have. “All they would have to do is point to 97 Spring St.”
He also objected to Aghassipour’s statement at a previous meeting that many of the town’s leadership were aware of the project’s intent.
“If I’m considered — as a select board member, as leadership — I never knew,” Cahill said, saying he only found out about 97 Spring St. after his neighbors came to him, “distraught, disturbed, upset.”
Tisbury officials and residents raised objections to how Aghassipour sought approval for his project with the town. He proposed the demolition and rebuild as a single-family home, despite plans to rent the rooms to nine unrelated individuals employed by a corporation. Many have considered the project instead to be workforce housing, which requires additional oversight.
Connie Alexander, Tisbury planning board chair, who sat next to Aghassipour during the hearing, read a letter she submitted to the commission on March 31, which called for the commission to place restrictions on the project so it would be limited to five bedrooms; she also called for the protection of historic houses.
“If this had come to you [before demolition], you would have never allowed the demolition to occur,” she said, pointing out other demolition proposals the commission had blocked in the past for being deemed detrimental. She used 43 Look St. as an example: “You would have conditioned something appropriate for the project.”
She also took a swipe at Vineyard Wind’s housing plan, outlined in a 2022 commission document, noting that Tisbury would be burdened by its housing requests.
“You might want to reconsider your Vineyard Wind DRI and [recognize] the unintended consequences,” Alexander said. “You might consider specifying distribution of their housing developments. Without regard to that reality, Tisbury will continue to bear the brunt of the Vineyard Wind decision for the entire Island.” But Doug Sederholm, West Tisbury commissioner and chair of the commission’s Land Use Planning Committee, clarified that the commission has “no authority” to revisit the Vineyard Wind plan, as it had already received its approval.
Other Tisbury residents also resisted the project, saying the building was larger than what was once there, and making assertions that the building demolished by Aghassipour was actually more than 100 years old. Alexander said that the building was over 100 years old, and was verified with help from Martha’s Vineyard Museum research librarian Bow Van Riper. Buildings 100 years or older require commission review before they can be demolished.
Several neighbors characterized the transient nature of the proposed workers, namely for Vineyard Wind, as similar to a hotel, and said it wasn’t appropriate for a neighborhood consisting of single-family homes. While there had been workers housed at the now-demolished version of 97 Spring St., residents said these consisted of a few summer employees.
“Four, five J-1 visa girls coming in for a few months is a very different scenario than what is being proposed at this point and at this juncture,” said Mary Bernadette Budinger-Cormie, a Tisbury commissioner who recused herself on Thursday, and who has fought against the project for months.
At several points, commissioners posited that some of the concerns raised, like how Tisbury defines a family, and permitting issues, were not in their purview, and should be dealt with at the town level.
Aghassipour pushed against the project being so heavily associated with Vineyard Wind — a company that is also scrutinized by Islanders — saying they are just one potential business to rent to.
“There was a lot of friction with regard to — and [Alexander] asked you point-blank — with the Vineyard Wind DRI,” Aghassipour said, saying he is “tenant-agnostic,” and that Vineyard Wind was just one option.
He also said the project would be beneficial to workforce housing, and expressed frustration that there was so much pushback.
“I still haven’t heard of one issue at 52 William [St.], and that’s a very similar type of use,” Aghassipour said, referring to another project he owns consisting of five units. “I know there’s a lot of angst regarding this project, but I’m thinking it’s more just fear of the unknown.”
After hearing from both sides, commissioners asked Tisbury officials and residents to explain more specifically what they want to see being done about the project. Michael Kim, the governor’s appointee to the commission, said he has heard hardly any “benefits” from the community regarding the project.
“What can [Aghassipour] do as a compensating amenity and offer to us, the MVC, as a benefit?” said Kim. “You would know the best what’s the benefit to your neighborhood, and it can be on the site, it can be outside the site.”
Several designs for the house’s façade presented by Aghassipour were also reviewed by the commission with Eric Dray, a preservation consultant the regulatory body hired.
The hearing was continued to May 15, where Aghassipour will give final remarks. Vineyarders will still be able to send in written comments to the commission up to a week after this date. Afterward, a decision will be made by the commission.
Housing the world over is Hotel De Facto.
I remember years ago when we lived in Oak Bluffs a house was built next to us. It was about ten feet in violation of the setback limitations. The builder was required to move the house.
It would be appropriate for this owner to reduce the massive size of this house. Yes, it should be reduced to a more appropriate square footage. Unless the town passes a bylaw allowing multiple units for multiple unrelated people to live in, it should be firmly stopped. “Workforce housing,” indeed.
Vineyard Wind and other large projects should be required to incorporate employee housing on their own property.
Stop expecting Tisbury to allow this- and the William Street apartment house- to be the new unapproved standard. Our bylaws say that no more than three unrelated people may live together.
The whole island needs to have a unified approach to “workforce housing.”
Why are people chastising a man for providing affordable workforce housing??? Isn’t that EXACTLY what everyone claims the island needs? A business is housing workers on its own dime and not requesting anything from the town. The building looks nice… stop complaining about everything! The solution to the island housing problem is exactly this. Just because you bought your house for $100k back in the ’70s doesn’t mean you get to dictate everything on the island.
Comments are closed.