 |
APPROVED
Chilmark Planning Board
Sept. 8, 2014
Present: Dan Greenbaum, Janet Weidner, Joan Malkin, Mitch Posin, John Flender, Rich Osnoss, Chair
Not Present: Andrew Fischer
Public: Sergio Modigliani, Bridget Montgomery, Michael Spangler
Staff: Jennifer Christy, Administrative Assistant
Meeting called to order at 4:31 PM.
- Discussion occurred regarding the town paths proposal. The Board reviewed the documents provided by Tim Carroll.
- Chairman Osnoss asked Jennifer to inform Tim that the Board is interested in providing feedback and participating in the discussion of the town paths. Janet asked what the status of the project is at this time. It was not known. Dan provided some updates, but had limited information.
- Quenames Road: Spangler/Montgomery:
- Rich recognized Mr. Spangler and Ms. Montgomery. Ms. Montgomery submitted a letter to the Board.
- Rich read the letter submitted to the Board. Mitch asked to view a map. Jennifer showed the map from the latest Form A, submitted and approved in 2013 for George Rivera. Rich continued to read the letter submitted. Discussed occurred.
- The Board members reviewed the files for the Rivera subdivision. Rich read from minutes from October 23, 2006. He noted, at the time, the Board was concerned with the condition of the Quenames Road and had requested the Riveras contact their neighbors/ abutters to seek approval from them to allow the upgrade of the road.
- The Board reviewed maps and the history of the subdivisions.
- The Board reviewed the 2013 Form A that was approved. It was noted by Joan that the Board could have denied the Form A in 2013 if it had determined the road was not adequate.
- Mr. Spangler & Ms. Montgomery stated their intention is for the Planning Board to recognize that the Riveras did not obtain approval from neighbors regarding the improvements to the road. They are concerned that more building will occur on the road and they do not want more building and traffic on the road.
- Mitch inquired whether the Board, if a mistake was made in the approval of the Rivera Form A, would initiate an investigation of the records to determine exactly what occurred at the Planning Board meetings. Board members agreed that the minutes should be thoroughly reviewed and a report be made at the next Planning Board meeting on September 22, 2014.
- Ms. Montgomery noted they have sought the advice of counsel. Their counsel advised if the approval of the Form A was given under misunderstanding or misrepresentation then there would be grounds for rescission. She also noted that the lot is on the market now but that the lot could be deemed undevelopable due to an inadequate access. Joan noted that even if the question of whether the lot is developable is determined, there is still the question of whether the road improvements on the first part of the road were allowable without the consent of the neighbors. Rich noted his questions of whether the Board may rescind a Form A for the reasons discussed, or approve an undevelopable lot, or whether the Board may ask the Riveras to return the road to the previous condition. Joan noted the Riveras could have given access
to the 2013 Form A lot through the first lot. Janet noted there would still be traffic on the 1st part of the road. John noted they had suggested to the Riveras, at a previous meeting, that they could enlarge the road, on their side, at the point where their land begins.
- Joan noted the importance of finding what the minutes say and the importance of seeing what has been done. Rich proposed a letter be sent to the Riveras to state that Lot 2B not be developed until the Board sees the permission letters from the abutters to improve the road. Joan suggested that the statement be made that there appears to be issues with the lot and with access to the lot. Mitch suggested that counsel be consulted. Janet stated the need to thoroughly review the minutes and noted the need to see the Form A cover letter from 2013. Janet noted a letter may be sent only after the facts are gathered. Ms. Montgomery asked who the road agents are. It was noted Mitch is the road agent. Mitch stated he did go to look at the Quenames Road in 2013, with Andrew Fischer, and he remembers the approval of the
adequacy of the road only up to the entrance to the lot being created by the Form A.
- Mr. Spangler noted the need to resolve the issue quickly.
- Sergio noted that it may be important that a seller should be informed of the fact that the subdivision is the subject of a discussion occurring at an open meeting of a regulatory body (the Planning Board) in the town. Joan stated that no conclusions should be drawn, but that the letter should state “issues surrounding the development of Lot 2B have been brought to the attention of the Planning Board”. Joan explained that a seller would have to alert the buyer to this issue. Joan again suggested the letter say that questions concerning the develop-ability of Lot 2B have been brought to the attention of the Planning Board and the Board is beginning to investigate the merits of those questions.
- Joan noted that the Board’s intention is to investigate what the files say and the minutes show on the Form A from 2013, particularly concerning the adequacy of the access to the two lots (2A & 2B). She made a motion, stating “in response to issues raised about the adequacy of the access and who owns it and who has the right to grant authority to improvements to it, that we send a letter to the owner of these two lots advising him that questions concerning the develop-ability of Lot 2B have been brought to our attention and that we are currently investigating these questions.” Sergio noted he heard more in the issue brought by Mr. Spangler and Ms. Montgomery. He noted that there appears to be an allegation of fraud or deceit that the Board was misinformed. Joan noted this is a separate issue. She noted
the purpose of this letter would be to put a prospective buyer on notice that perhaps there is a cloud on the title. Joan further noted the allegation of fraud or deceit is not relevant to the develop ability to the lot. Rich disagreed. He noted the owner never got the approval of the neighbors for improvement of the road. Janet stated she needed to see what exactly the Board was told by the Riveras and is not comfortable with an allegation being stated, the validity of which has not been confirmed by information in the minutes.
- Joan noted the letter is to put a buyer on notice. Joan further noted that misrepresentation may not have occurred and that research of the minutes needs to be done before statements are determined to be true or not.
- Joan suggested that the wording of the first part of the sentence could be:
- “Questions have arisen over the develop-ability of Lot 2B.”
- “Questions have arisen over the appropriateness of the Form A.”
- Mitch inquired who the letter would be sent to. Joan stated the owner of the lots, Rivera. Ms. Montgomery asked if the letter would be a public record. It was stated it would be a public letter.
- Mitch suggested counsel be called to review letter before it is sent. The Board agreed to this.
- Joan offered to draft two letters: One that would be state that questions have come before the Planning Board which bear on the develop-ability of Lot 2B. And, one that says that questions have been brought to the attention of the Planning Board involving the improvement of access which may be unacceptable and we are investigating this issue. Discussion occurred. Mitch advocated simplicity and suggested counsel should assist with this. He advocated that just the first statement be made in a letter only.
- Rich asked Joan to draft the letter. Joan drafted a first draft at the meeting:
- “Questions have been raised at the Planning Board concerning the develop- ability of Lot 2B as shown on the plan A for March 11, 2013. Questions have also been raised concerning the improvements to the access to Lot 2A & 2B. Both of these questions are being investigated by the Planning Board.”
- Dan suggested just the first part be sent. Joan agreed. Janet & Mitch also agreed.
- Jennifer was directed to draft a letter with this statement:
- “Questions have been raised at the Planning Board concerning the develop-ability of Lot 2B as shown on the plan A for March 11, 2013. These questions are presently being investigated by the Planning Board.”
- Sergio suggested that in making the motion to send this letter that it be stated that the wording may be amended by counsel. Joan modified her motion, stating, “I move that we send a letter, as I just read into the record, however it would be subject to any changes counsel believes are appropriate.” Rich asked Joan to read her motion again. There was no more discussion and the motion was seconded. The motion was brought to a vote and it passed unanimously.
- Planning Board Subcommittee Update:
- Accessory Apartment Bylaw Draft:
- Janet gave a brief update of the progress. The subcommittee has reviewed draft #14 and Jessica Roddy is drafting #15 with changes made. Brief discussion occurred. Discussion occurred regarding the proof of residency requirement within the amendment. It was determined that the residency requirement must be consistent with the DCRHA’s requirement.
- Historic Structure Bylaw Draft:
- Janet also gave a brief update of the progress of this bylaw amendment draft. A brief description of the intent of the amendment was made. Brief discussion occurred.
- Rivera Form A Questions, Cont’d:
- The Board reviewed the discussion again and determined that Jennifer, in the next two weeks and before the meeting on the 22nd, will review all of the March 11, 2013 Rivera Form A documents and report back to the Board on the 22nd. Jennifer is also directed to draft a letter to Rivera, using the wording in the motion above, and to send that letter to counsel for review before sending to Rivera.
- August 25 draft minutes were reviewed. Rich discussed a sentence, “After lengthy discussion, the Board advised Ms. Weldon that it appears she may build up to 800 sq. ft. of living area onto her garage/studio, a structure without living area.” He wanted it to be clear that the living area must be separate. The 800 sq. ft. needs to be separate, Rich again stated. There was further discussion regarding the wording of the covenant and whether the minutes are correct. Joan stated the need for the minutes to be more elaborate in the description of the discussion.
- Approval of the meeting minutes of August 25, 2014 was postponed.
- Next Meeting: Sept. 22, 2014
Meeting adjourned at 6:15PM. Minutes respectfully submitted by Jennifer L. Christy
| |
