After heated debate, voters in Tisbury decided to keep a 75-night cap on short-term rentals after failing to meet a two-thirds majority vote on town meeting floor.
On Tuesday evening, Tisbury held its annual and special town meetings at the gymnasium of Tisbury School. While over 150 voters were able to get through the 26 special town meeting warrant articles, the contentious proposal to remove the cap on short-term rentals took up much of the night. The town was only able to get through six of the annual town meeting warrant articles and voters will need to gather once again on Wednesday.
Special warrant article 24, which sought to remove the cap on short-term rentals that was adopted at town meeting in 2024, was rejected after a spirited discussion.
Tisbury Select Board chair Roy Cutrer, who proposed the removal of the cap, said the restriction costs the town substantial potential income in short-term rental fees, noting that 64 percent of rentals in Tisbury exceed 75 nights which puts the town at a disadvantage compared to other Island towns who do not have a cap on short term rentals.
But there was pushback from voters. Former Select Board member Tristan Israel argued the cap helps protect the character of neighborhoods and encourages year-round residential housing. The affordable housing committee also opposed the change.
Additionally, a standing vote was called for special warrant article 6, which sought to create a 3 percent “Community Impact Fee,” on short-term rentals with two or more units under the same operator in Tisbury. It failed 115-46.
In the special, the first four articles, including obtaining bonds for the town and to elect a fish committee, passed without discussion. But article 5, which sought to adopt new Revolving Fund Bylaws,to place the Tashmoo Spring Building’s Revolving Fund in the select board’s authority rather than the Tashmoo Springs Building Committee, was amended after some discussion. The property is housing for Tisbury town administrator Joe LaCivita. Tashmoo Springs Building Committee chair, Lorraine Wells, opposed this specific change, and proposed an amendment that preserved the committee’s oversight of the building. The amended article 5 passed.
Article 20 in the special was also discussed heavily by residents. It sought to amend zoning bylaws to allow plumbing facilities in a third accessory structure, such as a garage or shed. Residents were opposed because they feared it opened opportunities for secret and unregulated additional living units. Although many residents were wary, and multiple amendments were denied, ultimately, Tisbury resident Nevin Sayre’s proposed amendment that the plumbing be allowed in the building but the structure cannot be used for habitation was passed.
Article 7, which sought to establish an affordable housing property tax exemption program, passed after Tisbury Affordable Housing Committee members cited a 122-person waitlist for affordable units and called it an incentive to encourage year-round housing.
“This is one tool, not a magic bullet,” said committee chair Victor Capoccia. “It’s an incentive. It can be used to have more year-round housing using our existing housing supply.”
Several zoning articles proposed by the planning board were approved, including new land clearing and grading regulations (Article 15) and protections for designated Special Ways (Article 14). A proposal to increase setbacks for detached accessory structures (Article 19) failed.
Articles 22 and 23, which sought to clarify limitations on the Town Administrator’s authority over independent boards and committees, were postponed indefinitely.
The annual town meeting also saw voters reject $100,000 for renovation of the Martha’s Vineyard Sharks’ baseball field, citing Title Nine concerns over equity for girls’ sports, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in education programs that receive federal funding.
Russ Curan, Martha’s Vineyard Sharks general manager, said the project, which will renovate the sharks degrading field, already received $100 thousand from Edgartown, $100 thousand from Oak Bluffs, $95 thousand from West Tisbury, and $50 thousand from Chilmark, leaving them with $345 thousand of their over $500 thousand goal. But voters were not moved to approve funding.
Big items left for Wednesday night include two Proposition 2 ½ override request’s, that residents will vote on at town election on May 12 at the Tisbury Emergency Services Facility. If approved, it would allow the town to bypass the state limit on how much it can collect through property taxes. Article 41 seeks to approve a $43.8 million budget for fiscal year 2027, which the town is looking to fill a $1 million funding gap through an override. Article 28 seeks $3 million for expansion of a sewer collection system in the State Road Sewer District (Article 28), which the town hopes to fund through an override as well.