TOWN OF TISBURY
P.O. BOX 602
TOWN HALL ANNEX
VINEYARD HAVEN, MASSACHUSETTS 02568
DATE: June 11, 2008
TIME: 7:00 P.M.
PLACE: Town Hall Annex
ATTENDANCE: Aldrin, Douglas, Duart, Stephenson and Peak
BILLS: Patricia Harris...................................$843.80
Cartographic Assoc………………...$ 34.75
MEETING MINUTES: As referred in the May 28, 2008 Meeting Agenda
30 April 2008 Deferred
15 May 2008 Deferred
21 May 2008 Deferred
28 May 2008 Deferred
7:00 PM Douglas R. Hoehn, SB& H Inc. – Form A Application, AP 23A19.3+
Mr. Hoehn submitted a plan reconfiguring the property lines of two lots within the BII District to create three building lots. Board members were advised that the BII District did not have any dimensional requirements for frontage, lot depth and land area.
Mr. Peak noted that any endorsement however did not exempt anyone from any of the setback requirements required in zoning. He thought it important to annotate the plan to state that their “Endorsement was without regard to buildability or permitted occupancy, and does not stay enforcement of zoning violations, and is subject to other notations thereon”.
Mr. Hoehn agreed to revise the plan to incorporate the notation on the mylar. Copies of the revised plan were to be submitted to the office tomorrow morning.
There being no further comment, Mr. Peak entertained a motion to endorse the Plan of Land in Tisbury, Mass. prepared for Douglas R. Hoehn, dated June 11, 2008 (Plan No. MV10290) as an ANR under the subdivision control law as amended. MR. Duart to moved. Mr. Aldrin seconded the motion which motion carried. m/s/c 5/0/0
7:25 PM Public Hearing: An Application for a Special Permit, Tisbury Wharf Co Inc., AP 09C13
Attendance: Noreen Baker, Henry Stephenson, Jeffrey Kristal, and Melinda Loberg
Hearing commenced in due form at 7:25 PM. Mr. Peak, Planning Board Co-Chairman read the public hearing notice into the minutes and introduced the Board Members.
Following the introductions, Mr. Peak, asked the applicant and/or agent to come forward to make the presentation. Mr. Stephenson, noted that he would be making the presentation and asked if he should recuse himself from the Board if they believed it was a conflict of interest.
Mr. Peak and fellow board members thought it was best to step down from the Board for this application, if he would be making the presentation. Mr. Stephenson obliged the Board and began the presentation stating that Ms. Baker was interested in hosting a Farmer’s Market where local farmers and artisans would be selling island grown produce and island made products at the Tisbury Wharf property.
They were proposing to hold the open-air market on Tuesday mornings, from 9A to 12P and were targeting the local boating community and cruise lines that docked at the Tisbury Wharf property on Tuesdays.
Mr. Stephenson noted that Mr. Packer was cleaning up the property, so that in laying out the market he was able to incorporate a pedestrian access to the waterfront. Public access to the waterfront was one of the most important goals within the Waterfront Commercial District.
Mr. Stephenson added that they were planning on having anywhere from ten to fourteen vendors, and no more than twenty vendors. He noted that he was able to create fourteen (14) parking spaces right behind the display area just to the west of the building on AP 09C13. Just north of the display area, where vendors will be allowed to set up some tents and tables, will be the pedestrian walk. Other than for the vendors, no vehicular activity was going to be allowed in the area. The site plan (Plan No. 31-1), Mr. Stephenson designed the display area to be exclusively for pedestrians. Parking was limited to the westerly entrance from Beach Road, where twenty-two (22) parking spaces were created for the market’s use. The twenty-two (22) spaces did not include the seven (7) spaces that were reserved for
the commercial uses on AP 09C14.
Mr. Stephenson noted that in addition to the Market, the applicant wanted to have a visitor’s tent on the north side of the existing building to disseminate information about the town’s amenities and businesses. Since this will be the first Farmer’s Market in town, and a completely new experience for the applicant, and property owner, Mr. Stephenson believed that the event would change on a week-by-week basis throughout the summer season.
Mr. Duart asked Mr. Peak to clarify what section of the bylaw applied to the proposed use. Mr. Peak noted that the applicant was allowed to conduct accessory uses to water dependent uses by special permit in section 06.06.09. In this particular instance the applicant’s target population was the boating community.
Ms. Baker noted that the informational booth was intended to bring a variety of information to the island visitor. MVOnline was interested in manning a table and providing information about the entire island.
Mr. Duart inquired if the applicant was willing to address any parking issues in the future, should the Farmer’s Market became popular. Ms. Baker replied in the affirmative. Mr. Stephenson thought a staff person could monitor the lot.
Mr. Peak inquired if they planned to advertise the market. Ms. Baker replied that she was planning on advertising the event in the local newspapers, the VH launch and at the harbormaster’s office. Mr. Peak thought the applicant should encourage people to walk, bus or take a boat to the site as part of the advertisement.
Mr. Peak inquired if the property was going to be cleaned up temporarily for the event, or if the clean up was a permanent arrangement. Ms. Baker noted that the property owner had been re-organizing and cleaning up the premises, with further plans to relocate the lumber along the westerly corner. Mr. Packer was also making plans to relocate the granite to another location to eliminate any safety hazards.
Mr. Peak did not think they would want the general public to walk around the construction materials. Ms. Baker agreed, and explained that they intended to maintain the property clear of building materials because other events were held on the property throughout the summer.
Mr. Aldrin inquired if the venders were supplying their own tents and tables. Ms. Baker replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Douglas inquired how they were going to accommodate the boaters. Ms. Baker replied that the boaters could disembark at the fuel dock, the south dock or the west dock. Mr. Douglas asked how they planned to prevent customers from utilizing the seven (7) parking spaces that were reserved for Mone Insurance. Ms. Baker replied that the businesses were open at least half an hour before the market opened, so that it would not be an issue.
Mr. Peak recommended submitting a letter to the Planning Board affirming that they would hire staff for the purpose of controlling traffic flow in and out of the property during market hours if it was warranted. Mr. Stephenson directed the Board to the fourth point on the second page of the Letter of Application, which stated that they would hire a traffic officer to direct traffic as needed.
Mrs. Loberg, thought the Farmer’s Market was a great idea, and as a member of TWI offered to provide the applicant with copies of their recently revised Boater’s Guide. Mr. Stephenson thought they should also develop a questionnaire that could be distributed to their patrons to solicit their impressions about the market.
Mr. Krystal, Board of Selectmen and businessman spoke in support of the Farmer’s Market, hoping that the event would encourage the cruise lines' patrons to visit Vineyard Haven and its business community.
There being no further comment from the board, the applicants and members of the general public, Mr. Peak took the opportunity to read in their entirety the correspondence that was received by the Board. The correspondence was entered in the following order, and all commented in favor of the Farmer’s Market:
1) Ralph M. Packer, property owner,
2) Thomas McCurdy, McCurdy Motors,
3) Philip Hale, President of the MV Shipyard,
4) Larry Conroy, Courtesy Motors,
5) Louis Larsen, The Net Result,
6) Nat Benjamin and Ross Gannon, and
7) Nancy Gardella, Chamber of Commerce.
With nothing further to add to the presentation, Mr. Stephenson deferred to the Board. Mr. Peak therefore entertained a motion to close the public hearing and to enter into deliberations. Mr. Duart so moved. Mr. Aldrin seconded the motion, which motion carried. 4/0/1
The hearing was duly closed at 8:00 PM.
8:00 PM Deliberations: An Application for a Special Permit, Tisbury Wharf Co Inc.,
Mr. Peak opened the deliberations at 8:00 PM and asked the Board if they had any questions or requests for clarifications about the previously heard testimony.
Mr. Aldrin inquired if the vendors would have access to electricity. Ms. Baker replied in the affirmative, but did not think they would need the amenity.
Mr. Peak inquired if any of the vendors would be preparing food on site. Ms. Baker replied in the negative, noting that all of the vendors were required to file with the local Board of Health office.
Mr. Peak referred the Board to section 06.09.00 of the Tisbury Zoning Bylaw~and read sections 06.09.01 to 06.09.05 to determine if the proposed use complied with the criteria. Board members agreed that the proposed use was suitable for the site because it aimed for the boating community. The applicant in her testimony to the Board agreed to ameliorate parking and traffic issues arising from the market through the provision of a duty officer to direct traffic in the area as needed. Mr. Peak further noted that the proposed use was of a temporary nature and limited to a few hours one day a week.
Mr. Peak believed the view of the market was a definite improvement over existing views to the property from the road and harbor.
Mr. Douglas thought the applicant should prepare for the possibility that the parking needs of the event could exceed existing parking accommodations, and suggested leasing parking space from Mr. Hale, who was just across the street. Mr. Peak inquired if Mr. Packer could provide additional parking accommodations on his property, across the street. Ms. Baker replied in the affirmative. Mr. Peak noted that there was a crosswalk there so that people could cross the street safely. He thought it would make sense to have the traffic officer over there since the street narrowed over there.
There being no further comment, Mr. Peak believed that for the purposes of this application all the findings have been met. He therefore entertained a motion stating that the Planning Board finds that the proposal met the criteria listed in sections 06.09.01 to 06.09.05. Mr. Duart so moved. Mr. Aldrin seconded the motion, which motion carried. 4/0/1
Mr. Peak entertained a motion to approve the special permit for a Farmer’s market at this location one day a week, from 9AM to 12 PM for a period of time to be defined, subject to conditions and restrictions which may be developed in subsequent conversation. Mr. Duart so moved. Mr. Aldrin seconded the motion. And the motion carried 4/0/1
Mr. Peak recommended the following findings:
A) The applicant offers and the Planning Board accepts that should any traffic problems arise they will provide a duty officer to facilitate the movement of traffic through that area.
B) The applicant proposes to accommodate overflow parking on property owned by the Packer Company on the south side of Beach Road, just across the street.
Mr. Douglas wanted to be assured that the Planning Board reserved the right to enforce any condition and restriction, so that if parking or traffic became an issue during the market’s hours, they could have the applicant comply with the terms of the special permit. Mr. Peak explained that the Planning Board had the ability to refer the violation to the Zoning Code Enforcement Officer, who would then pursue the complaint.
Mr. Peak asked Ms. Baker about the market’s time frame. She replied that she was planning to run the Farmer’s Market from July 1st until September 30, 2008. Discussions ensued, and Mr. Peak recommended extending the date until October 31, 2008. And this was acceptable to Ms. Baker.
There being no further comment, Mr. Peak entertained a motion to continue the deliberations on June 18, 2008 at 7:15 PM in the Town Hall Annex to review a draft decision. Mr. Aldrin so moved. Mr. Duart seconded the motion, which motion carried. 4/0/1
The Planning Board resumed their regularly scheduled session at 8:20 PM.
8:00 PM Deliberations: Small Project Division of Land - AnnMarie Cullen Et Al, AP 24A22
The continuation of the deliberations was duly opened at 8:35 PM. Board members were advised that the Board Secretary had utilized the template for their decisions to list information about the proposal that may be incorporated into a draft decision, once they voted on the proposal.
Board members reviewed the section entitled Findings to determine if the information was pertinent and accurate. During the discussions of the information listed in the section, Mr. Peak amended the third entry by adding language to the second paragraph, as follows: “ The applicants … in its natural state with the exceptions of some plantings and hardscape improvements at the entryway on Lake Street.
Mr. Peak revised the fifth entry to read “ The 18 ft. wide …14ft. At that point the lane is one way around the circle eliminating passing traffic.
Mr. Aldrin and Mr. Peak recommended a few revisions for the 8 th entry. The first paragraph was to end at “observations:” and additional language was added as follows: C) While on site, the Planning Board members witnessed the use of the walking trails on the property by the neighborhood children as discussed below.
Mr. Peak recommended adding language into the ninth entry under Findings that pertained to the walking path. He suggested adding, “The applicant offered and the Planning Board accepted a proposal to retain a walking path through the subdivision by designating an area along the shared boundary of Lots 3 & 4, to the adjacent property and thence the Town Hall Annex property and the school. “ and ‘There are no street lights being proposed”.
Mr. Peak entertained a motion, if the Planning Board agrees that the application meets the criteria listed Section 331 of the Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land in the Town of Tisbury to qualify for consideration as a Small Project. Mr. Duart so moved. Mr. A1drin seconded the motion, and the motion carried. 5/0/0
Mr. Peak entertained a motion to waive the requirement from section .02 of the Planning Board’s Subdivision Rules and Regulations, pertaining to the width of the traveled way for the cul-de-sac from 18 ft. to 14 ft. as depicted on the Overlay Plan dated May 29, 2008. Mr. Duart so moved. Mr. Aldrin seconded the motion. And the motion carried. 5/0/0
Mr. Peak entertained a motion to waive the requirement from Section .06 of the Tisbury Planning Board’s Subdivision Rules and Regulations relative to the 40 ft. road layout, to allow the proposed 30 ft. wide road layout. Mr. Duart so moved. Mr. Aldrin seconded the motion. The motion carried. 5/0/0
For Conditions and Restrictions, Mr. Peak recommended the following language:
8. The applicant shall include the name of the subdivision, as approved by the Planning Board prior to endorsing the Definitive Plan.
9. Any exterior lighting, including that required by code, will be directed or shielded down to minimize the impact on the public, and
10. A 4 ft. wide swath shall be maintained in a recognizable condition as a walking path along the boundary line of Lots 3 & 4 from the cul-de-sac to the property lines.
There being no further recommendations, Mr. Peak entertained a motion to accept the draft document as their written decision with the aforementioned amendments. Mr. Douglas so moved. Mr. Duart seconded the motion, which motion carried. 5/0/0
At the conclusion of the discussions, Mr. Peak entertained a motion to close the deliberations. Mr. Duart so moved. Mr. Aldrin seconded the motion, which motion carried. 5/0/0
The Planning Board resumed the regularly scheduled meeting at 9PM.
1. Tisbury Board of Selectmen’s Meeting on June 3, 2008
A. Peter Duart’s Report
B. Subjects for the Board of Selectmen’s meeting on June 17, 2008 (Tony Peak)
Mr. Duart gave the Planning Board a detailed report of his discussions with the Board of Selectmen pertaining to the consultant’s response, and the addition of a ‘turning bay’. The Board of Selectmen never clarified or responded to his questions, and instead suggested that the Planning Board had to reach out and communicate with the Emergency Facility Service Committee (EFS hereinafter) , and possibly consider a joint meeting.
Mr. Stephenson informed the Board that the EFS met earlier this afternoon at 4PM to discuss the consultant’s results. He mentioned that the sketch raised more questions than answers, but learned that the site was in fact suitable for a four (4) bay fire station. He understood that the proposed facility could accommodate all of their equipment, and had the potential for expansion. It also had the ability to accommodate drive-thru bays (not turning bays).
The Committee members were interested in the estimated construction cost, and were advised that it could run as much as 4.3 million dollars just for the building, It did not include any of the costs for a new Town Hall Annex, the parking lot, or sewer line, Mr. Stephenson noted that it was still nonetheless much more inexpensive than locating the Fire Department at the DeBettencourt property on State Road.
Mr. Duart inquired if the Planning Board was interested in accepting the Board of Selectmen’s recommendation for a joint meeting with EFS. Mr. Douglas questioned the benefit or purpose for a joint meeting. Mr. Stephenson agreed. He believed the Planning Board was well represented on the Committee. The Planning Board as far as he was concerned, the Planning Board fulfilled their obligation when they found a viable alternative site as part of their assessment. It was the Committee’s responsibility to pursue the use of the lot and the building’s construction with the Board of Selectmen. Board members agreed.
Mr. Peak noted that he would be representing the Planning Board at the Board of Selectmen’s meeting on June 17, 2008, and asked if there were any subjects they wished to raise. Mr. Stephenson offered to substitute for Mr. Peak, since he was scheduled to meet with the Board of Selectmen on the Spring Building Committee’s behalf to report their progress. Mr. Peak accepted Mr. Stephenson’s offer and thanked him.
2. Nathaniel Orleans
RE: Policies, Regulations, etc. on the use of containers for storage, extension of businesses i.e. Carroll’s (R), Shirley’s (B2), Ace Hardware (WC)
Mr. Orleans noted that several applicants at the MV Commission were utilizing containers to store their inventory island wide. He was especially concerned that the use of the containers was proliferating in the Town of Tisbury. He inquired if they were regulated at all and if they were considered structures. The MV Commission needed the information, so that the Commissioners did not exceed any restrictions imposed by local regulations.
The Planning Board Secretary could not find language to regulate containers, and offered to raise the subject at the Planning Board’s meeting to solicit their impressions or recommendations.
Mr. Duart agreed, and thought they had an adverse impact on the visual character of the properties. He was in favor of regulating the use. Mr. Peak noted that they were starting to proliferate in residential districts, but was curious to learn if the Building Inspector viewed them as structures. It was his impression that they should write Mr. Barwick a letter asking him for his opinion, but thought that the they should postpone the letter until they had the opportunity to contact the MV Commission to inquire if other towns regulated the use of the containers as structures.
The Board Secretary was asked to provide the information as soon as possible.
3. Topics for the Planning Board’s Work Session
A) Revising the Waterfront Commercial District regulations
B) Deciding what the next step will be to move forward on the improvements for Owen Little Way,
C) Looking into alternative sites for the fire station if the Town Hall Annex site if found to be unsuitable, and possibly regionalizing services,
D) Alternative sites for the Town Hall Annex personnel,
E) Revisiting the improvements for the Stop-N-Shop and Post Office’s parking lots,
F) Investigating legal and planning options impacting their Special Permits such as federal and state regulations
Board members agreed to limit the topics for next week’s agenda so that they could discuss them in depth. After some discussions, Mr. Stephenson recommended limiting the agenda to the first three subjects (A-C), and the Board agreed.
4. Harbor Management Committee
Mr. Peak reported that Mr. Strock, the Harbor Management Committee Chairman had asked him to include his committee in the Board’s discussions on matters relating or impacting the harbor. Mr. Peak agreed and asked the Board Secretary to email their agendas off to Mr. Strock
Mrs. Loberg, a member of the Harbor Management Committee was asked for assistance in asking the Harbor Management Committee if they would consider revising their meeting schedule to an earlier hour so that fellow board member, Mr. Douglas could attend the meetings. Mrs. Loberg was happy to oblige and report on their decision
5. Walking Paths
Mr. Douglas thought the Planning Board should log and map the walking paths the Planning Board requests of applicants, so that they can link them and promote them to the genera public.
Mr. Stephenson agreed to draft them on a plan for the Planning Board.
1. Tisbury Zoning Board of Appeals
RE: JGFC LLC, 31 Hatch Road, AP 5H2
The proposed expansion of the pre-existing, non-conforming structure was referred to the Planning Board because the applicant owned two adjacent lots. Board members were referred to the plan that was submitted with the notice, and advised that the applicant basically wanted to demolish a portion of the existing house, and retain the back end of house to create a pool house. The same plan made reference to a guest house that did not exist, and showed the pool house’s landscape design to overflow into the adjacent lot.
Mr. Peak noted that the two lots were being developed as one. He did not understand why the Zoning Board of Appeals would entertain such a proposal, when the non-conformities could easily be resolved by the elimination of the shared property line or the applicant applied for a special permit for multiple dwellings.
Mr. Peak believed the Board of Appeals did not have any options other than to deny the application if they remained within the intent of the bylaw, and felt he had to attend the hearing to express his concerns.
2. John Bugbee, Town Administrator
RE: Town Hall Annex Site Plan (As revised by Kurt Raber)
3. Alycelee Pigman, Adm. Secretrary
Tisbury Board of Assessors
RE: Street Address Change – Mary & John Kenworth, AP 16K3
4. Mrs. Nancy Cox
RE: Letter of Appreciation (AnnMarie Cullen Subdivision)
5. Timothy S. Mathiesen, Executor of the Estate of Catherine Mathiesen
RE: Right of First Refusal – 20 Stoney Hill Road, AP 46A01
6. MV Commission
A. 30 May 2008 Extended Schedule
B. Bill Wilcox re: Wastewater Management Study Committee Meeting, 11 June 2008
7. Reynolds, Rappaport & Kaplan, LLC
RE: Request for an Ad judicatory Hearing re: Martin & Kathleen Crane, AP 5H19
8. Congressional Quarterly Inc.
RE: Governing, June 2008
PRO FORM Meeting opened, conducted and closed in due form at 10:00 P.M. (m/s/c 5/0/0)
Patricia V. Harris, Secretary
APPROVAL: Approved and accepted as official minutes;
Date L. Anthony Peak