A state Land Court judge has tossed out one of the claims at the center of a lawsuit over a controversial home in Vineyard Haven.
A state Land Court judge has tossed out one of the claims at the center of a lawsuit over a controversial home in Vineyard Haven.
Judge Robert Foster last week dismissed the charge levied by Tisbury homeowners Bernadette and Leigh Cormie that claimed Tisbury’s zoning board improperly denied their appeal over the newly built home at 97 Spring street.
The ruling is the latest decision over the home, which has riled neighbors, resulted in several lawsuits and spawned a lawn sign campaign with the slogan “Save Our Neighborhoods.”
Developer Xerxes Aghassipour says the only real work the property needs is landscaping
Developer Xerxes Aghassipour says the only real work the property needs is landscaping
The Cormies live next door to the nine-bedroom home in question and have been locked in a legal battle with the property owner Xerxes Aghassipour since November. They have argued the home will be used for housing Vineyard Wind workers, a violation of the town’s bylaws.
But Judge Foster pointed out that the court can’t make a decision on the use, because the owner hasn’t started using it for anything.
“[T]he Cormies ask the court to make a determination regarding the intended use of the property,” the judge wrote. “However, no application for an occupancy permit has been submitted, which means that the town has not yet made a final determination of the property’s use.”
The case has had a winding road up to this ruling. The Cormies sought a stop work order five months after the town issued a building permit on the basis that the home was not intended to be used as a single-family residence. The stop work order was initially granted by the town, but then later lifted.
The Cormies appealed the lifting of the order to the town’s zoning board of appeals, which upheld the building inspector’s decision to allow work to continue.
The abutters were appealing that decision to the state court, but in his 11-page Oct. 24 decision, Judge Foster reasoned the Cormies can’t be aggrieved by something that hasn’t happened.
“Until the town acts, either by granting or denying a certificate of occupancy, the Cormies have nothing to challenge,” he wrote.
Bernadette Cormie and Tisbury town administrator Joseph LaCivita did not immediately return a request for comment on Tuesday.
In an interview Tuesday, Mr. Aghassipour said the home has been completed, but he has not made a decision on how to use it while the court case plays out.
“Any legal use,” was his reply when asked about the plans.
The Land Court has scheduled a November 10 status conference over the case, which still has an outstanding issue of whether the Cormies filed their challenge in a timely manner. The Cormies also recently appealed the Tisbury board of health’s decision to approve the home’s septic plan and Mr. Aghassipour filed a challenge in the state appeal’s court.
Comments
Let me reiterate what I wrote
Here We Go Again Vineyard HavenLet me reiterate what I wrote in the comments on the last story that was written. 97 Spring Street stands for workforce housing, a lifeline that keeps our island thriving with young, hardworking people who support our community, our institutions, and our way of life. If 97 Spring Street were being developed for teachers, volunteers or paid firefighters, or police officers instead of for wind energy workers, would we all be rallying behind it? Would we be calling it a sensible cause then? There are many people quietly championing this project right now and it’s often the silent majority doing the right thing while a loud minority tries to drown them out. This Judges ruling shows us, the silent or afraid to speak out majority, that support of this workforce housing is sensible and the lawsuits by the neighbors and the lawn signs, just spread negativity, or letting their properties decay doesn’t strengthen our neighborhoods it drags them down. Mr. Aghassipour is doing the opposite, he's investing, improving, and making the area more attractive one lot at a time. That should be celebrated, not attacked with frivolous lawsuits. Don’t let a handful of loud voices and laughable lawn signs hijack a transparent and a legitimate process. The ZBA ruled and was vindicated by a judge. Whoo paid for that representation of the Board? Town Taxpayers? The loud voices that put in motion these suits should pay. 97 Spring St. owners, Please don’t give up. Don’t throw in the towel like so many of us have before. Keep fighting against the injustice that the instigators started. 97, you have uncovered the truth, vindicated by one Judge so far and know that many of us deeply appreciate your persistence and courage. We may not all have the strength to stand on the front lines but we see what you’re doing, and we’re grateful. If, by the grace of God, we can continue to live and work here and if our children and grandchildren can still call this island home, it will be because of people like you. Don’t let the noise distract from the truth: In the end, 97 Spring Street will stand as a win for everyone.
Excellent assessment of what
Annie Bradshaw West TisburyExcellent assessment of what is really happened.
Are we reading the same
Jarrod WilcoxAre we reading the same article? Nothing was “vindicated.” Judge Foster didn’t bless the project — he just ruled that the developer hasn’t yet violated zoning, so the case isn’t ripe for enforcement.
If you actually read the decision, Aghassipour himself described it as workforce housing under a single-company lease. That’s exactly the kind of commercial use the zoning bylaw prohibits in an R-10 residential zone. If he goes through with it, it’s a violation; if he doesn’t, the neighbors get what they wanted.
For everyone trying to spin this as a win for affordable housing — it isn’t. This isn’t housing for Islanders. It’s a nine-bedroom dormitory designed for transient corporate employees. That takes a house out of the community housing supply, the same way an Airbnb does.
Call it what it is: investment lodging, not a home. And if courts start allowing that under “workforce housing,” the precedent will go far beyond zoning — it edges into corporate personhood territory Mitt Romney himself might blush at.
Judges don’t bless projects,
Here We Go Again Vineyard HavenJudges don’t bless projects, they rule on the facts. The paper writes “Judge Robert Foster last week dismissed the charge levied by Tisbury homeowners Bernadette and Leigh Cormie that claimed Tisbury’s zoning board improperly denied their appeal over the newly built home at 97 Spring street.” I would say that dismissal of that particular charge is vindication of that charge. I would assume the Town defended the charge and was vindicated in the judgement. It is actually housing for island people. Maybe not Islanders but really what constitutes the Islander moniker nowadays? On the two islands, I would say that precedent of workforce housing existing with non family members has been set for over 50 years.
Catch 22. It’s much like
Tom Engley West TisburyCatch 22. It’s much like police departments they can’t do anything for you unless a crime is committed
Rather than facilitate the
Trim the fat Vineyard HavenRather than facilitate the transiency of alternating Vineyard Wind crews, capitalize on the commercial nature of the space and lease/sell it to the Town of Tisbury to house its smallest offices. Doing so would reduce the scale and cost of the proposed Town Hall project as well as the overall impact on the neighborhood. Designate the upper floor as a multi-bedroom condo for the Town Administrator’s residence and scrap the Water Works renovation project entirely.
The Vineyard crews are not
Albert GosnoldThe Vineyard crews are not transients.
Some are Island born.
My son.
He owns his own home.
The position around workforce
Slippery slopeThe position around workforce housing is scary and dangerous at best. A ruling that renting this to workforce housing is illegal with decimate any and all workforce housing in town. The hospital, the grocery stores and any other entity that is responsibly renting for workers to live would be in jeopardy. I hope the property is rented to workforce housing and it is a quiet wonderful use that help support Peace for the Cormies
Slippery slope, you’re
Here We Go Again Vineyard HavenSlippery slope, you’re correct. The main issue you didn’t mention is that if this property isn’t allowed to be rented as workforce housing, despite the fact that many others currently are and exceed limits that have never been enforced, it would make sense for a lawsuit to be filed for being arbitrary and capricious. The law would essentially be applied to one individual rather than to everyone equally.
I think this is a small skirmish that’s gotten out of hand. The Cormis can’t save face and haven’t yet figured out how to do so. It reminds me of the dreaded and feared roundabout. A lot of bluster at first, but in the end, it works for everyone in one way or another
Let more workers commute.
Mark Allen VHLet more workers commute. Why should neighborhoods be inundated with foreign workers which is upsetting to the peace, balance and quiet. Just add faster more frequent boats.
a short walk to the bus route
Tim Johnson Tisburya short walk to the bus route, a walk to the market, a walk to the boat. What better place for a dignified homeless shelter year round?
Add new comment