A controversial redevelopment in Vineyard Haven is headed to the Martha’s Vineyard Commission, which voted 10-4 Thursday night to accept 97 Spring street as a development of regional impact (DRI).

This was the second time this year the Tisbury planning board has asked the commission to take up the nine-bedroom, 9.5-bathroom house, built after developer and landlord Xerxes Agassipour, also known as Xerxes Agassi, demolished a smaller home from the 1920s under a permit from the town building commissioner.

Executive director Adam Turner turned down a referral from the planning board in September, writing that the project did not meet commission guidelines for regional impact consideration.

The planning board then joined forces with the Tisbury board of health and health agent Drew Belsky in another appeal to the MVC, which held a public hearing Oct. 24 on whether or not to consider the project a DRI.

At the hearing, planning board members presented evidence that town records wrongly showed the former house was built in 1925 when it was actually years older. Under commission rules, demolition of a structure more than 100 years old is an automatic trigger for DRI review.

People living near the Spring street house told commissioners that Mr. Agassipour’s intention to use the building for workforce housing will degrade the character of their neighborhood. The commission’s DRI checklist includes potential impacts on “neighborhood character” among the elements that could trigger a review.

Mr. Belsky testified at the October hearing that he is concerned about the wastewater impact from so many bathrooms. Increased intensity of use, including wastewater, is another trigger on the DRI checklist.

The commission also has received nearly 50 letters from the community supporting a DRI review.

Debating the question Thursday, commissioners were divided between those who agreed with the letter-writers and others who saw the development as strictly a matter for Tisbury to resolve.

“This is a dispute within the town of Tisbury, between town officials and two boards,” chair Fred Hancock said. “I’m sorry that it’s come to that, but I don’t believe the Martha’s Vineyard Commission is the right entity to step into the middle of that dispute.”

Greg Martino and Brian Smith also firmly opposed a DRI review, while Mike MacKenty expressed concern that if the MVC concurred with the Tisbury boards’ request, a rash of referrals could follow.

“If we take this on, do we set a precedent here?” he asked.

“And I wonder what that precedent would be, as other towns and people and communities and neighborhoods look at this and say, if I don’t like what’s going on next to me, I can now take it here and have another hearing. I worry about that,” Mr. MacKenty said.

Linda Sibley, the commission’s longest-serving member, was among the majority who backed a DRI review for the Spring street house.

“The town has asked for our help,” Ms. Sibley said. “We’ve spent 50 years convincing the towns that we’re their ally and not their competitor. For the towns and for ourselves, we should really take that seriously.”

Douglas Sederholm said that while the building has already been completed, the commission still has a role to play despite the late referral.

“We may not be able to do much on this particular project, but we can give the public an opportunity to tell us what they think about workforce housing on the Island,” Mr. Sederholm said.

Jeff Agnoli, Trip Barnes, Michael Kim, Joan Malkin, Kathy Newman, Kate Putnam, Ernie Thomas and Peter Wharton also voted in favor of accepting 97 Spring street as a DRI.

"I'm not going to quibble with 50 or some-odd letters," Ms. Malkin said during the deliberation. "The public seems to sincerely believe, among other issues, that there is a significant character issue, and I'm willing to err on the side of 'Let's hear what you have to say.'"

Ben Robinson, who sits on both the commission and the Tisbury planning board, recused himself from the discussion and vote. Although the state ethics commission previously advised him it would not be a conflict of interest to take part, Mr. Robinson said it didn’t feel right to him.

Mr. Sederholm prefaced his own participation with a pair of disclosures regarding his son Luke Sederholm’s work with an engineering and design firm on the Island. The company worked at 97 Spring street during its construction, Mr. Sederholm said, but the job was completed before the project was referred to the commission.

His son’s business also has a contract with Mr. Agassipour for upcoming work on the former Educomp/New England Telephone building at 4 State Road in Vineyard Haven, but that arrangement has no bearing on the Spring street project, Mr. Sederholm said.

Speaking with the Gazette by telephone Friday, Mr. Agassipour summed up the conflicting views expressed during the deliberation.

"Some commissioners saw that it may be a road to nowhere, in terms of a bigger picture, and that it might be more prudent to not take it," he said.

"Some commissioners, I think, got swayed by the public pressure ... and also felt it would be beneficial to give the town some kind of road map or guidance," said Mr. Agassipour, who has steadily maintained he built the house by right according to Tisbury's residential zoning bylaws.

"It's a bit of an oddball test case because we’ve always said we’re happy to do what is right and legal," he said.

The public hearing on 97 Spring street will begin in January.

Updated to include comments made by Ms. Malkin during the meeting Thursday and statements from an interview with Mr. Agassipour Friday afternoon.