Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Planning Board Minutes 09/30/09

P.O. BOX 602
(508) 696-4270


DATE:                   September 30, 2009      

TIME:                           7:08 P.M.

PLACE:                  Town Hall Annex

ATTENDANCE:             Peak, Seidman and Stephenson
ABSENT:                 Aldrin, Duart

BILLS:                  Patricia Harris...................................$879.60
                                Office Depot ………………………$  71.94
                                Postmaster …………………………$ 72.10
MEETING MINUTES:        As referred in the September 9, 2009 Meeting Agenda
        2 September 2009, 8 September 2009, 9 September 2009, and 16 September 2009 - AVAILABLE


7: 00 PM        Glenn Provost – Informal Discussion re Walter D. Sheble Trust, AP 53A2.40

Mr. Provost, at the Planning Board’s request briefly presented a proposal for a Form C application. He explained that his client wanted to divide a developed, four (4) acres parcel of land in the R50 District into two building lots via the Small Project application process.

Mr. Provost noted that the parcel was one of two lots at the cul-de-sac in the Deer Hill Road Subdivision, and had a 10’ to 12’ wide dirt driveway, over which the proposed 40 ft. wide road was laid over to create the frontage. The design minimized the impact to the existing topography and landscape.

Mr. Provost mentioned that there were two issues he wanted to present to the Board. He explained that one of the boundary lines traversed over a shed (No. 2) to create a zoning violation. Mr. Provost addressed the violation by adding the following notation to the plan:

Prior to the conveyance of either Lot 1 or Lot 2 into separate ownership,
the existing shed #2 will be relocated to meet the required zoning setback
or be removed from the site.

The second issue pertained to the condition of the private dirt road. Unless the Planning Board did not find the exiting traveled way (dirt road) adequate, the road had to be improved to meet the Board’s minimum standards. Mr. Provost understood this, and recommended a site inspection. He offered to make himself available to the Board on any date or at any time.

Mr. Stephenson inquired about the additional traffic impact.  Mr. Provost replied that the lot was at the end of Deer Hill Road in the cul-de-sac, so that there wouldn’t be any impact.

Mr. Peak noted that the Board’s subdivision rules and regulations required the proposed subdivision road to connect to a public way. In this instance the proposed road connected to Deer Hill Road, a private road, unless the applicant was proposing an extension. In that instance, the extension would then have to be named “Deer Hill Road”.  Mr. Provost agreed.

The Board inquired if the applicant had received the road or homeowner’s association’s endorsement.  Mr. Provost replied in the negative, and thought it was automatic. Mr. Peak advised him that in similar applications, applicants submitted letters from the association with their consent or disapproval. In one particular case, the applicant had to revise his proposal when the homeowner’s association did not grant him an endorsement.

Mr. Peak offered to review the decision for Deer Hill Road to investigate whether the document contained any language preventing his client from subdividing his property, prior to the hearing.

7:15PM  Jenik Munafo, Mobile Food Operation AP 09C12

Mrs. Munafo informed the Board that the proposal for the operation of a mobile food truck was in the preliminary stage, because she wanted to make sure she had a suitable location for the food operation before she invested in the truck. She explained that she was interested in operating the food service on property that was adjacent to the Texaco Station on AP 09C12.

She noted that she wanted to retail international street food for lunch and dinner from April to October. Mrs. Munafo learned from the Board of Health, that she was required to prepare the food at a stationary commercial kitchen. For the present, she was uncertain about installing a commercial kitchen on her property or leasing one. In either case, it would also provide a parking space for the mobile food truck after hours of operation.

Mr. Peak advised her that the site was within the Waterside Management Area, which was designed to be very restricted. The use was prohibited. The mobile food truck operation across the street at Art Cliff Diner’s was permitted because it was an expansion of an existing food service operation within the Commercial Management Area.

Mrs. Munafo inquired if the use would be permitted on Mr. Packer’s property between Winds Up and McCurdy Motors.  Mr. Stephenson noted that the Planning Board only recently allowed Mr. McCurdy to run the car dealership on the property temporarily. Once he vacated the premises, the use was no longer allowed.

Mr. Peak did not want to discourage Mrs. Munafo and thought a viable location for the proposed use could be the vacant lot on Beach Road east of Saltwater. She was encouraged to investigate the property, and to return to the Planning Board with any questions.

1. Municipal Needs Assessment

Mr. Stephenson was asked to keep the Board informed of all modifications to his reports. It was explained that the Board members had to be given the opportunity to comment and vote on the revision(s) before it became final and posted. The precaution was thought necessary in light of their recent discussions with the Board of Selectmen.   

Mr. Peak added that Mr. Seidman had the opportunity to read Mr. Stephenson’s April 29, 2009 draft report and uncovered a few typographical errors. The most significant error was located on page 14, in which the numbers listed in the paragraph preceding the sketch of the Police Department’s first floor did not correspond.

The Board Secretary was advised to modify the digital copy accordingly.

Mr. Stephenson noted that he had only made one revision since the report was made public. He explained that he had modified the paragraph relating to the proposed use of the DPW’s old highway barn on Spring Street and reflected the Board of Selectmen’s recent vote to give the property to the school for their use as a parking lot.  Mr. Stephenson assured the Board that none of the revised drafts had ever been disseminated to the general public.

Mr. Peak inquired if the report on the website is clearly marked as a draft.  Mr. Seidman recommended adding a disclaimer on their web page to make it clear to everyone visiting their site is make aware that the reports are proposals.

Mr. Stephenson did not want to give people the impression that they were “just” reports, because the Planning Board had the responsibility of generating these reports by state statute.  Mr. Seidman thought they could add language clarifying that they were possible scenarios that would require the vote of the town to implement.

Mr. Stephenson requested that the disclaimer made everyone understand that the reports and plans were serious documents.   Mr. Seidman recommended, “The Planning Board is charged with presenting possible scenarios to the town for their consideration, any of these require a town vote”.

Mr. Peak thought they could simply state, “Implementation of these plans is dependent on a vote at town meeting”.  Mr. Seidman thought they had to preface the sentence with a comment that the Planning Board is charged by the state to present options for future development.  

2. L. Anthony Peak
RE: Report of DPW’s meeting with Design Consultants (Connector Road)

Mr. Peak reported attending the meeting with Mr. Stephenson on September 24, 2009 for the presentation of the design consultants’ preliminary drawings for the connector road. He noted that they explained how they managed to work the design within the constraints of the location, and add the bike paths.

Mr. Peak mentioned that the 1.5-hour presentation was well attended and included a site inspection of the area with the Water Works Commissioners.

During the discussions, Mr. Peak advised the Board that he had approached Mr. Hoehn about the site plan he had requested, and learned that they had received them today. Board members reviewed the Plan of Land in Tisbury, Mass. prepared for the Town of Tisbury (Plan No. MV 9888) dated 03/24/09, and the Topographic Plan of Land (Plan No. MV 9888) dated 09/30/09 for the connector roads.

Mr. Peak noted that the depictions were a rough layout of the connector roads, and did not coincide with the engineers’ current proposal, since it was drawn long before they designed the roads. The topo was created to illustrate how the connector roads encumber the property, and more importantly what presently existed, so that the town could develop the property in a more planned manner. To this end, Mr. Peak asked the DPW Commissioners to consider thinking about any ongoing needs they may have.

Mr. Stephenson informed the Board that the MV Commission is preparing a 3D model of the property, and was interested in meeting with the Planning Board to discuss the project.

Melinda Loberg inquired if the Town was planning on adding a turning lane on Edgartown Road to accommodate the left hand turn into the connector road by IFP. Mr. Peak believed there was sufficient area to accommodate the turning lane, but did not ask the designers.

Mr. Peak indicated that the subject about the project’s referral to the MV Commission as a DRI was raised at the DPW Commissioners meeting. Mr. Peak did not see how anyone could argue that it did not meet the DRI Checklist.

Mr. Stephenson did not see an issue with the referral, noting that the MV Commission’s staff has not only been supportive but involved in the project since its inception, and were very interested in the development of the multi-use paths.

Mr. Peak noted that he had approached Mr. London about this issue and was advised that the Commissioners had made a decision some time back that they were not going to force the issue, if the town opted not to refer one of their projects as a DRI.

Mr. Peak believed they should follow the MV Commission’s rules if they support them. Mr. Stephenson concurred.
3. Town Hall Annex
RE: Copier

Board members were informed that they were being asked to co-sponsor an article with the Board of Health to replace the Town Hall Annex’ copier in the amount of $4500.00.
Mr. Stephenson so moved.  Mr. Seidman seconded the motion.

In the discussions that followed the motion, Mr. Stephenson noted that he was of the impression that the Special Town Meeting was supposed to be focused almost exclusively on the question of the Emergency Service Facility (ESF) and ancillary issues.  Mrs. Loberg understood that the Board of Selectmen had received several articles for Special Town Meeting.  The Board in additional discussions moved the motion, with the understanding that if all these articles were encumbering the special town meeting, the Planning Board could withdraw the article.   M/s/c   3/0/0

4.  Windmill

Mr. Seidman thought the water tower on High Point Lane was a perfect location for a windmill, and did not comprehend why the town had not pursued the arrangement.  Mr. Stephenson replied that the location was marginally adequate for many purposes. The state, following a study of the location decided against it because they did not feel the return would justify the investment. It is the reason they are now exploring other locations on island.


1.  Marian Halperin & Judson F. Shiebel Family Form C
RE: Submittal of Form F Covenant (Request for signature on Definitive Plan)

2.  Taylor Cooper, Preservation Planner for John Milner Associates
RE: Soliciting information (eligible properties that may be visually impacted by wind turbines)

3. Tisbury Board of Appeals
A.      Hearing Notice – Joseph El_Deiry, AP 5L5.1
B.      Hearing Notice – Yvonne C. Hines, Tr., AP 11A24
C.      Hearing Notice – Adam Darack, AP 5A15

4.  Oak Bluffs Planning Board
RE: Public Hearing Notice –  Zoning Map Amendment

5. Bill Veno, MV Commission
A.      CPTC Courses (Chapter 40B & Roles and Responsibilities of Planning & Zoning boards
B.      Proposal for the Island Wind Energy District of Critical Planning Concern, dated 18 September 2009
C.      18 September 2009 Extended Schedule

Mr. Peak informed the Board that the Land Use Planning Committee was holding a meeting on Mr. Dunn’s proposal to add a building at the Tisbury Market Place this Monday on October 5, 2009 at 5:30 PM.

He further noted that the Water Works Commissioners had a scheduled a meeting on Tuesday, October 06, 2009 at 7PM, which he planned to attend to discuss

6. Quinlan
RE: Zoning Bulletin, 10 September 2009

7. Clarence Barnes III
RE: Letter of support – Richards Bakery LLC

1. Planning Board
RE: Public Hearing Notice – Walter F. Sheble Trust, AP 53A2.4

PRO FORM        Meeting opened, conducted and closed in due form at 9:30 P.M.           (m/s/c  3/0/0)          
Respectfully submitted:
Patricia V. Harris, Secretary

APPROVAL:       Approved and accepted as official minutes;

______________          _________________________
Date                    L. Anthony Peak