CHILMARK PLANNING BOARD
Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, May 26, 2009 @ 4:30 PM
Draft
Present: Janet Weidner, chair, William Meegan, Tim Lasker, Mitchell Posin,
Russell Walton, Rich Osnoss, Todd Christy, Administrative Assistant
Absent: John Flender,
Public: Glen Provost, Robin Hyde, Perry Ambulos, Jim Feiner, Frank Yeomans, Riggs Parker, Bob Kenney
Call To Order:
Janet Weidner, Chair, opened the meeting at 4:37 p.m.
Meeting Minutes
There was no quorum of members to review and vote on draft minutes from May 11, 2009.
New Business:
-Glen Provost ~ Vincent Property Preliminary Discussion
Mr. Provost brought to the committee a Preliminary Plan on behalf of William and Robert Vincent, Assessors Parcel 11- 1.2, proposing the division of a parcel of land off of South Road in Chilmark. This Division would create two parcels, one of 12.10 acres and one of 4.89 acres. Mr. Provost described for the board the process of creating this division and related his findings that the current access to this single parcel predates Zoning and Subdivision Law as it is in town. Mr. Provost explained that in the past there had been some discussion of the access road and the safety concerns surrounding that egress. He told the board in his opinion the road will not be changed and as it exists currently, is absolutely fine for the matter of dividing this parcel as shown. Mr. Provost very plainly described his
sole concern is the dividing of this parcel, as shown, for the Vincent brother’s and that what may, or may not, happen in the future is not his concern. He also commented on the fact that this division of parcel would actually be reducing the possible density of the existing parcels from 3 possible homes to two. Mr. Provost proposed that if the Planning Board does not protest, he will return with a Form A subdivision. Mr. Walton and Mr. Meegan voiced their concerns over the current access should there be future development of the 12.10 acre lot. In their opinion, the current access is unsuitable for such a development.
The discussion included the possibility of this proposal being sent to the Martha’s Vineyard Commission as a DRI. Mr. Feiner asked what kind of development could the current road support and should this proposal include moving the road to a more appropriate location that would create a safer egress.
-Robyn Hyde: Informal Discussion pertaining to youth lot.
Mr. Hyde came before the Planning Board to present a proposal for a youth lot on his property located off Middle Road, Map 26, Lot 121, where he would carve off 1.0+ acres for his son. In the past there had been some question about the shape of this 1.0 acre youth lot, and it appeared to have been addressed by Mr. Hyde. The presented lot showed frontage, adequate setback and would require a septic plan and an approved well by BOH for final approval by the Planning Board.
Public Hearing: WECS
Ms. Weidner opened the Public Hearing at 5:24 p.m. by reading the notice in the Newspaper.
Ms. Weidner read aloud two letters submitted to the board. One letter by Chris Murphy, which included specific suggested changes to the proposed bylaw. One Letter by Rebecca Gilbert encouraging the board to support turbines.
Mr. Yeomans was asked by the Chair if he would like to lead off as he needed to leave shortly. He suggested that the current bylaw should use language that is tighter and less interpretive. He suggested that the Chilmark Plan Review should hire a consultant at the applicant’s expense. Mr. Yeomans would like to see the permits for WindTurbines have a limited life span, maybe coming back to the Planning Board after 10 years for review, agreeing that 15 or 20 years before review would not be disagreeable. He would also like to see a bond for each turbine, COLA adjusted over the life span of the turbine to afford the dismantling of the turbine, should that become at any future date. Mr. Yeomans also questioned the use of the word “Windmill”, as he describes the acronym WECS confusing. Mr.
Lasker, as a member of the audience, would like to see the word ‘Wind Turbine’, in place of “Windmill.” Windmill refers mostly to water pump systems, as opposed to energy creating turbine systems.
There was some discussion as to the make-up of the Site review Committee and whether or not a quorum of that committee was needed to approve a turbine. As Mr. Parker was present, he responded to the discussion of that designated appointee/selectperson by the Selectmen as a representative of that body. Mr. Parker explained how the Site Review Committee’s composition is made up of the members of the Planning Board and Selectmen, but these members vote as members of a separate committee. They do not represent the planning board as the Planning Board.
Noise: Ambient noise
It was noted that one of the concerns of the ZBA is the radius of abutter notification, which currently is 300 ft. It has been suggested that the notification go two layers and or 500 ft. The thought being that if the notification layer goes to 1000ft. it may be too burdensome. It was proposed that the depth of notification be dependant upon the topography, or terrain dependant. Also, mock up should mainly be Photoshop simulation of turbine to scale in proposed environment. With that, Mr. Yeomans ended his suggestions.
Robert Kenney added to the discussion with his concern for skyline and his opinion that allowing turbines was an infringement on everyone’s rights to the pristine skyline. He asked why there should be different standards for turbines rather than for cell towers. Mr. Kenney suggested that the negligible individual gain should not outweigh the environmental skyline damage.
Ms. Weidner spoke to the visual problem and how each case is different and unique, providing challenges of placement and site evaluation. It was suggested that a possible town turbine or turbines would address the proliferation of turbines by providing a central location that had the best wind with the least neighbor intrusion.
Mr. Hyde also commented on the visual and noise problem. His thought is that there has to be some economic gain to turbines and that we shouldn’t disregard the future potential for technological improvement in both size and sound. Mr. Lasker agreed and commented on the turbines in the works that are much smaller residential turbines that have great potential and are cheaper and quieter.
The WECS Public Hearing was continued until June 8th @ 5pm
Updates:
The Board was presented with an informal preliminary plan from Deb Silliman and Jeff Wass. The board had a question about the shape of the lot, which appeared to be the result of having a septic in the far right corner. The question of frontage along the access road was also brought up and it appeared to have 100’ along the road with the turn-out design. The board had no problem with the preliminary plan as long as there was frontage and well/septic plan. (Zoning requires 100’ of frontage in a straight line from the driveway easement within lot).
~The Administrative Assistant informed the board of the well status in Middle Line Road Housing project. Seven wells are in and the remainder of the wells are expected to be completed by the end of two weeks, June 12, tentatively.
~Administrative assistant informed board of Demolition Application and scheduled Public Hearing for Vagelos property of the Tilton/Weckman house, pre-revolutionary dwelling that has become a liability. Engineers report suggests demolition.
~Board discussed the request by Vineyard Land Surveying to assess the road to Windy gates as to its suitability for further development. The board had discussion with town road agent, Mitchell Posin, who suggested the road needed serious changes to be brought up to being suitable for future development. The board voted to approve letter stating that the road is unsuitable for such development.
~The Board signed the VLS on DEP Conservation Commission order of Condition~ Cottle Dock in Chilmark Pond replacing existing pier with new pier.
With no other business to discuss, Ms. Weidner closed the meeting at 6:52 p.m.
Minutes respectfully submitted by Todd Christy, Administrative Assistant.
| 
