Tisbury denies short-term rental cap removal

Updated May 4

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.

The town of Tisbury held its annual and special town meetings on Tuesday at the gymnasium at the elementary school. While more than 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 with other Island towns that do not have a cap on short-term rentals. 

“Short term rentals produce $44 million for our rental economy … what the 75 nights does, it limits our rental tax,” said Cutrer. “Capping it at 75 nights is causing us to give up more than 50 percent of that short-term rental tax income.” 

And short-term rental tax income could help the town fill out an ever-increasing budget that made an override a necessary ask in this town meeting cycle. Cutrer said that according to the Tisbury College Report, Tisbury has no way of raising income and revenue unless more property taxes are raised or short-term rental income is discussed. 

But there was pushback from voters. Former select board member Tristan Israel argued that the cap helps protect the character of neighborhoods and encourages year-round residential housing. 

“Short-term rentals have eroded the neighborhood fabric of many of our communities,” said Tristan Israel, former select board member. 

Residents also said the issue isn’t a limit on the rentals, it’s the lack of enforcement and regulation regarding the current short-term rentals. Victor Capoccia, chair of the affordable housing committee, said that 31 properties in Tisbury are unregulated. 

“We do not need to change this. What we need to put in place is some enforcement and monitoring mechanisms to see and make this work, not further erode the housing stock that is already committed to short-term rentals,” said Capoccia.

Cutrer responded that the money they lose from the 75-night limit is much greater than that from the 31 unregulated properties.

“The 31 properties that they are saying aren’t enforced is a drop in the bucket compared with what we are going to lose,” said Cutrer.

But residents ultimately decided on a more methodical approach, which was proposed by Ben Robinson. Robinson highlighted that they voted on the current 75-night bylaw a year ago and have not been enforcing it, so there is no way of knowing the effect it could have on revenue. 

“I think we need to be a lot more methodical. I think we need to enforce that [75-night cap]; if that’s too much for people, then we can come back with real numbers and real understanding and adjust that number,” said Robinson. “We voted this a year ago, and it hasn’t been enforced. I think we should see how it plays out.” 

“We are a year-round town on the Island. We have the highest percentage of year-round residents in our homes, and limiting short-term rentals opens up rental opportunities for year-round renters,” he added. 

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. 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 additional secret and unregulated living units. Although many residents were wary, and multiple amendments were ultimately denied, Tisbury resident Nevin Sayre’s proposed amendment that the plumbing be allowed in the building but that 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’s 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 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 IX concerns over equity for girls’ sports, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in education programs that receive federal funding. 

Russ Curran, Martha’s Vineyard Sharks general manager, said the project, which will renovate the degrading field, already received $100,000 from Edgartown, $100,000 from Oak Bluffs, $95,000 from West Tisbury, and $50,000 from Chilmark, leaving them with $345,000 of their more than $500,000 goal. But voters were not moved to approve funding. 

Big items left for Wednesday night include two Proposition 2½ override requests that residents will also 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, where the town is also looking to fill a $1 million funding gap with an override. Article 28 seeks $3 million for expansion of a sewer collection system in the State Road Sewer District, which the town hopes to fund through an override as well.

Editor’s note: A previous version of this article stated Tisbury town administrator Joe LaCivita lives in the Tashmoo Spring Building due to an editing error. His living accommodation is at the town’s old waterworks building.