 |
APPROVED
Chilmark Planning Board
October 24, 2016
Present: Janet Weidner, John Eisner, Joan Malkin, Mitchell Posin, Chris MacLeod, Peter Cook, Rich Osnoss, Chairperson
Not Present:
Public: David Handlin, Holly Handlin, Flip Harrington, Doug Hoehn
Staff: Jennifer Christy, Admin. Asst.
Meeting called to order at 4:35 PM
- Preliminary Discussion, Doug Hoehn, Mayhew/Peckham, Map 13 Lot 42:
- Mr. Hoehn presented the preliminary discussion of a proposed division of 14.5 acres on Middle Line Road before the affordable housing area.
- The MV Land Bank would purchase a part of the lot and members of the family would also be able to build. Mr. Hoehn noted the division would be utilizing and adhering to the Flexible Siting zoning bylaw.
- Mr. Hoehn described the concept as taking the lot, without the acreage needed for the access road, and dividing the remaining lot into 6 equal parcels with three undersized lots and three lots that are sold as one piece to the MVLB.
- Mr. Osnoss asked if Mr. Hoehn could indicate on a future plan where the Middle Line Housing structures are located.
- Ms. Malkin inquired how the “owner-occupied” area of the Flexible Siting bylaw may be enforced.
- Ms. Malkin inquired whether the clients of Mr. Hoehn are aware that a guest house might not be allowed for each of the undersized lots. Mr. Hoehn noted he would speak with his clients about his issue.
- Mr. Cook asked that clarification be gathered before a decision is made of whether a guest house could be approved for these lots.
- Ms. Malkin inquired where the walking paths may be placed by the MVLB.
- Mr. Hoehn stated that the proposed division would technically need to be sent to the MVC for approval due to the fact that the division is over 10 acres. He did note that the fourth lot that would be going to the MVLB would be an unbuildable lot and the remaining lots are 7 acres approximately. He noted this as possibly a reason why the division may not have to be reviewed by the MVC.
- Mr. Osnoss noted that the approval of this would be as a special permit which is unusual for the Planning Board.
- Mr. Posin noted the last line of the Flexible Siting bylaw notes the need for building envelopes noted on the plan.
- The Board inquired what the intent was when the Flexible Siting bylaw was passed.
- Mr. Posin inquired about the wetlands in the area. Mr. Hoehn stated he would ask his site crew to provide input on this topic. Mr. Eisner asked for a formal determination of the wetlands on the parcel.
- Ms. Malkin summarized that, provided there are no wetlands, the proposed division would not create a great amount of density in the area and the plan appears reasonable.
- Ms. Malkin and Mr. Eisner noted that building envelopes and topography are what the board will need to properly evaluate the plan.
- Ms. Malkin noted that the Board needs to decide in what format the Board wants to send the plan; with specific evaluations or as is.
- No other action was taken by the Board.
- FORM A, George & Robin S. Rivera, Map 13 Lot 21.1:
- The plan was reviewed by the Board.
- Mr. and Mrs. Handlin and Mr. Harrington gave a history of the lots in the area.
- Mr. Harrington noted that the surveys of the lots along Magee’s Path are all incorrect. It was noted that the acreage stated on the plans may be incorrect.
- Mr. Osnoss suggested the Board consider sending the Form A to the MV Commission. Discussion occurred. Ms. Malkin noted that the Board may only consider frontage and road adequacy in the case of a Form A, but the MV Commission is not restrained by those two topics and may consider the history of the parcel, for example. Discussion occurred regarding the rationale for referring the plan to the MVC.
- Mr. Harrington stated that he does not want electrical lines buried along abutting roads to the Rivera parcels.
- Discussion occurred regarding how the Board may disapprove the Form A. It was noted that since there is frontage for the lots shown on the plan, then the only other criteria for disapproval is the adequacy of the road.
- Ms. Malkin inquired if the parcel is within the Coastal DCPC. She noted also that a subdivision of more than 10 acres would normally go to the MVC automatically, but this rule does not appear to apply only because the division has been done in a piecemeal fashion.
- Mr. Handlin noted that the area is in a zone called Prime Agricultural soils and the area is also a particular habitat and the Form A should be referred to the MV Commission based on those criteria in addition to the fact that the parcel was originally more than 10 acres and was farmland.
- Ms. Weidner stated she was in favor of referring the plan to the MV Commission for the reasons stated so far.
- Ms. Malkin stated that the Board believes that the plan would have regional impact due to the fact that the parcel was originally farmland over than 10 acres and is prime agricultural soil and habitat.
- Mr. Harrington reiterated the fact that the boundaries shown on the Rivera plan are uncertain and possibly not correct and the parcel may not be the size stated on the plan.
- Ms. Malkin stated her desire to refer the plan for the stated reasons and also due to the fact that she does not want to be in the position of endorsing a plan that shows acreage that is incorrect and that may create parcels that are undersized.
- Ms. Malkin made a motion to refer the Form A to the MV Commission “at a minimum as a discretionary referral” and the basis for which the referral is made is for:
- Prime agricultural soil
- The parcel was originally a parcel of 10 acres+ and should have been referred originally.
- The boundaries of the parcel is uncertain.
- The motion was seconded by Mr. Cook.
- The motion came for a vote and the Board voted unanimously to approve the motion.
- Mr. Posin made a motion to ask the applicant for an extension to January 9, 2017. Ms. Malkin seconded the motion. All ayes.
- Ms. Malkin made a motion that if the extension is not agreed to by the applicant that the Board ask counsel for guidance on what remedy there is if the Board has referred the plan to the MVC and not gotten an extension of time from the applicant. Ms. Malkin suggested that the Board go to view the road. Mr. Posin agreed that a viewing of the road as a Board would be helpful. No action was taken on this motion.
- Ms. Malkin made a motion to schedule a meeting to view the road on Wednesday, November 2, 2016 at 4:30PM if an extension is not granted by the applicant. Mr. Posin for clarification of the MVC schedule of review of referrals. The motion was seconded and voted unanimously.
- Mr. Posin asked Ms. Christy to call the MVC to ask the schedule for reviewing of a referral submitted by the Town.
- Menemsha Master Plan Review & Update:
- Next Regularly Scheduled Meeting:
- No correspondence was reviewed.
- The minutes for Sept. 26, 2016 were not reviewed.
- Documents:
FORM A, Reid Silva, VLSE, for Fulenwider, Constance, 35 Harlock Pond Road, Map 1 Lot 12, Certificate of approval
FORM A, Reid Silva, VLSE, for New Property MV, LLC (formerly Harris property), Map 9 Lot 2.1, Certificate of approval
Form A: Vineyard Open Land Foundation (VOLF) at Squibnocket, Certificate of approval
Preliminary plans for Mayhew/Peckham proposed division: Plan of land for Eileen S. Mayhew Irrevocable Trust- 2000
Section 6.7 of Chilmark Zoning Bylaws, Flexible Siting
Middle Line Road Affordable Housing plan
George & Robin S. Rivera Form A Plan, Map 17, Lot 21.1
George Rivera endorsed plan dated
Letter submitted by David Handlin
SPDAC reports, Sept. 28, 2016
Public Hearing Notices, West Tisbury,
E-911 notice, 50 Putnam Road
ZBA Special Permit Applications & Permits, Sept. 29, 2016
Meeting adjourned at 6:08 PM. Minutes respectfully submitted by Jennifer L. Christy
| |
