Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Planning Board Minutes 10/07/09

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


DATE:                   October 7, 2009 

TIME:                           7:07 P.M.

PLACE:                  Town Hall Annex

BILLS:                  Patricia Harris...................................$879.60
                                Box Rental Fee…………………….$  44.00
                                MV Times…………………………$ 100.55
MEETING MINUTES:        As referred in the September 9, 2009 Meeting Agenda
                                2 September 2009        Deferred
               8 September 2009        Deferred
9 September 2009        Deferred
16 September 2009       Deferred
30 September 2009       Deferred


7:07 PM         House Business

A. ~Mr. Aldrin informed the Board that the Community Preservation Committee’s deadline for applications was October 26, 2009.
B.~ 2. Tisbury Water Works Commission Meeting on October 06, 2009 at 4PM

~Mr. Peak advised the Board that he and Mr. Stephenson attended the Water Works Department’s meeting, and submitted SB&H Inc’s topographical and site plans illustrating the general configuration of the connector road, and all existing and proposed uses.~ Mr. Stephenson utilized the opportunity to submit a packet of information he had prepared to describe the Planning Board’s proposal for a multi-purpose municipal building. Mr. Peak thought the exercise at the very least would get them to start thinking about the possibility of relocating their offices and operations to High Point Lane.
Mr. Duart asked how receptive the Commissioners were to the possibility of having a new facility added to the site.  ~Mr. Peak replied that the Commissioners’ reactions varied.
Mr. Peak informed the Board that the Commissioners did however gave Birney Marshall, the new superintendent, and Patricia Diamond permission to fill out the municipal needs assessment on their behalf.

Mr. Peak indicated that the Board of Selectmen were present at the same meeting to discuss the temporary relocation of the Town Hall Annex personnel on High Point Lane across the street from the standpipe.  They discussed a couple of other locations managed by the Water Works Department, but noted that the Water Commissioners appeared to prefer the site across the street from the standpipe.

Mr. Peak wanted to meet with the Water Commissioners once again to discuss with them if they would consider moving their operations to another location in the next five years, or to come up with any reason(s) preventing them from relocating.  He wanted to “plant a seed” to get the Commissioners and the superintendent to think about it.
C.      Town Hall Annex Relocation

Based on their discussions with the Water Works Commissioners, Mr. Stephenson noted that the Board of Selectmen had decided to use the trailers at the High Point Lane site near the standpipe for the town hall annex personnel’s temporary quarters.

7:15 PM Public Hearing: Kate Rickard – Rickard’s LLC, AP 22C02
Attendance:~ Gage and Kate Rickard, proprietors; Barbara Flanders
Prior to opening the hearing, Mr. Peak thought it would be prudent to start giving Mr. Duart the experience in conducting the proceedings, given that he’s expressed a willingness to serve as Planning Board Co-Chairman at a future date.~
With the Board’s consent, Mr. Duart opened the hearing at 7:19 PM, read the public hearing notice into the minutes, and asked the Board members to introduce themselves to the applicants.
Following the introductions, the applicant, Kate Rickard explained that she had submitted an application for an appurtenant sign on assessor parcel 22C02 to advertise the bakery she and her husband operated on Cook Road. Mr. Rickard added that the sign was to help delivery personnel and customers locate the bakery at 114 Cook Road..
Mr. Duart inquired if the bakery served other customers in addition to the commercial retailers. ~The applicants replied in the affirmative. Mr. Seidman asked the applicants if they knew what percentage of their clientele were walk-in as opposed to commercial. The applicants believed that the majority (95%) of their business was commercial. The foot traffic into the bakery at this time was mainly from employees working in abutting businesses, and from customers picking up pre-ordered cakes.~ Mr. Rickard did not anticipate much foot traffic into the bakery because they were too far back from State Road. One would have to know the bakery was there to pay them a visit.
Mr. Peak inquired if he should read the applicable regulation. Mr. Duart thought the Board would benefit from the information. Mr. Peak then read section 05.23.01 of the Zoning Bylaw in its entirety.
Mr. Duart inquired about the maximum allowance for signs in the district and property.~ Mr. Peak referred the Board to section 07.06.~
Mr. Seidman inquired about the size of the sign. Mr. Duart replied that it was listed as 42.5 X 22. Mrs. Rickard advised the Board that it had to fit existing post.~ Mr. Peak read section 07.06.04 to note that the applicants were allowed one square foot of signage for each lineal foot of frontage. Hanging signs were not allowed to exceed 8 square feet, and the maximum allowance for signs in the BII District was 32 square feet for the entire property.

Ms. Flanders was of the impression that retail was not allowed in the BII District. Mr. Peak referred to sections 05.11 and 05.21of the Tisbury Zoning Bylaw to advise her that retail, and wholesale was permitted. She was also informed that the application was for an appurtenant sign on State Road under section 05.23 of the Zoning Bylaw.

Mr. Aldrin thought the sign should be much more consistent with the shape, color or size of the grocery store’s sign.  Mr. Rickard noted that the difference was intentional, so that the people understood the bakery was a separate and distinct operation from the grocery store. Mr. Seidman agreed with the applicant

Mrs. Rickard noted that the sign was a duplication of the labels they used on their baked products.

Mr. Duart inquired if the one member of the general public had any comments for or against the proposal. There being none, Mr. Duart took the opportunity to read the following correspondence into the record of the minutes:

a.      John Cimeno, notorized on September 8, 2009 granting the applicant permission to hand a sign on his property denoting the location of the bakery,
b.      Elio Silva, dated August 19, 2009 granting the applicant permission to hang the appurtenant sign on his post, along side his sign., and
c.      Clarence Barnes, dated 9/24/09 in support of the proposal.

There being no additional comment from the applicant, board or one member of the public, Mr. Duart entertained a motion to close the public hearing so that the Board could enter into deliberation.  Mr. Seidman so moved.  Mr. Aldrin seconded the motion, which motion carried.  5/0/0

7:41 PM Deliberations – Special Permit Application by Kate Rickard –for Rickard’s LLC, AP 22C02

The deliberations were duly opened at 7:41PM at the conclusion of the previously held public hearing.

Mr. Stephenson initiated the discussions indicated that he did not have any objection to the application. It was the reason the Planning Board adopted the applicable regulation.

Mr. Peak couldn’t help but notice the amount and types of signs on State Road, and wondered what the balance was for having a pleasant diversity of signage as opposed to having a cacophony of signs. In that vein of thought, he wanted to suggest to the property owner if he would consider a more uniformed, ladder type sign, should the opportunity arise to make it a bit more formal.

Board members indicated that they did not see any reason for not voting in favor of the applicant.  Mr. Stephenson therefore moved to approve the application of the appurtenant sign. Mr. Seidman seconded the motion, which motion carried. 5/0/0

Mr. Duart noted that he would like to make sure the applicants complied with section 07.06.04.  Mr. Stephenson added that he’d like to see the applicants consider a directory style sign should the sign need to be rebuilt.  Lighting constraints were built into the regulations.

Applicants were advised that the Planning Board had to draft a written decision reflecting their vote and any conditions or restrictions they may deem necessary. Following the decision’s endorsement, the document would then have to be recorded with the Town Clerk, at which time the 20-day appeal period begins. The applicants were advised that the decision had to be recorded at the Registry of Deeds at the expiration of the appeal period. Once the decision was recorded they were allowed to exercise the permit, unless the Building Inspector issued them a sign permit prior to the expiration date (“At Risk”).

Mr. Duart entertained a motion to continue the deliberations to review the draft decision. Mr. Stephenson moved to continue the deliberations on October 14, 2009 at 7PM.  Mr. Seidman seconded the motion, which motion carried.  5/0/0

The Planning Board resumed their regularly scheduled meeting at 7:50 PM.

7:50 PM Jeffry Thompson Re: Associate Member

Mr. Thompson indicated that he was interested in serving as Associate Member, and was available immediately.

Discussions ensued with regards to the administrative process, the Associate Member’s official duties, the Board’s expectations, etc.

The Board at the conclusion of the discussions requested a letter of interest from Mr. Thompson to submit to the Board of Selectmen. They explained that the Board of Selectmen and the Planning Board had to approve jointly Mr. Thompson’s appointment.

As soon as their appointment with the Board of Selectmen was confirmed, the Planning Board were to contact Mr. Thompson.


1. Land Use Planning Committee Meeting on October 5, 2009
RE:  Reid  Dunn’s proposal to add a building at the Tisbury Market Place

Mr. Peak noted that he had attended the meeting to learn that Mr. Dunn is proposing to construct a two-story, 3700 sq. ft (60’X60’) commercial building on one of the four areas he had reserved development rights.  The proposed structure was within both management areas, and as such the applicant was proposing to use the front portion for boat storage and an apartment, and the rear portion for both office and retail space. The applicant also proposed to add a 10 car parking lot to the south of the building within the planted area.  

Mr. Peak advised the committee that additional the additional parking was not allowed because the current regulation allowed only 10% of the lot to be used for this purpose, and 40% had to remain free from impervious surfaces or open space.

There was a question as to what presently existed as open space relative to the entire property’s square footage. The Conservation Commission in granting them permission to repave the parking lot required the Tisbury Market Place to have approximately 42,000 sq. ft. of open space for the 4.1 acres parcel of land , which was half of the entire property.  The applicant was also asked to provide the Conservation Commission with a parking plan delineating every parking space. He thought it was important to find out if the applicant complied with the requirement.

Mr. Peak further noted that the plans the applicant provided the LUPC did not reflect the additional buildings on the property and omitted other important information. The MV Commission therefore asked the applicant to provide them with a comprehensive site plan reflecting all existing uses, the parking lot and all of the common area(s), because the application did provide said information.

Mr. Duart inquired about the wastewater flow. Mr. Peak understood the applicant obtained the Sewer Advisory Committee’s endorsement.

Mr. Seidman did not understand how a new construction could possibly be allowed within the coastal area (wetlands), and not require a special permit. Its impact on the view to the Lagoon Pond would be detrimental.  Mr. Duart could not support the proposal, he did not think there was enough parking to accommodate the additional uses, when parking was difficult at best with the existing storefronts.  Mr. Stephenson was concerned that the building would impair the view and vista.

Mr. Stephenson thought the Planning Board had to define clearly what the public space is within the district.

Mr. Duart asked the Board if they were interested in penning their opposition to the proposal for the public hearing.  Mr. Peak thought it would be somewhat premature without having reviewed the information the applicant was asked to provide the MV Commission.  Mr. Stephenson thought it was equally as important to have access to the information before responding to the MV Commission’s request for a comment.  Mr. Peak noted that all of the applicant’s documents and plan will be posted on the MV Commission’s website. Since there was some confusion about the date of the public hearing, Mr. Peak asked the Board Secretary to inquire about the date, and if it was at all possible to have a copy of the applicant’s plans.

2. Fuel Delivery operations at Tashmoo Pond for commercial fisherman

Mrs. Loberg informed the Planning Board that the Tashmoo Management Committee presented their recommendations to the Board of Selectmen. And after much comment, the Board of Selectmen discussed their options, and decided to enforce their regulations. During these discussions, the fuel provider was asked to apply for a permit, and they agreed to revisit the subject at their next meeting to discuss the broader impact these commercial activities could have on Tashmoo and other public accesses.

Board members were encouraged to attend the Board of Selectmen’s meeting on October 13, 2009.


1. MV Commission
A.      2 October 2009 Extended Schedule
B.      Information Session: Cape Area Management Program
C.      CPTC Workshops

Mr. Seidman expressed an interest in attending the workshop on Chapter 40B, and asked to be registered.

2. Taylor Cooper – Dept. of Interior, Mineral Mgmt
RE: Survey of national register-listed and eligible properties that may be visually impacted by the placement of wind turbines

3. Rachel Orr and Tara Simmons – Tashmoo Park Organization
RE: Solicitation of an opinion

During the application process for grant funds, the Commonwealth informed Ms. Simmons and Ms. Orr that the abutting power line easement disqualified them for any of the state-funded grants.

The news was devastating, because they were relying on the funds to cover half the costs for the recreational facility. Given the economic climate, Ms. Orr and Ms. Simmons were interested in soliciting the Planning Board’s impressions about asking the town to appropriate the vast majority of the costs.

Mr. Aldrin informed the Board that the Commonwealth was considering an amendment of the Community Preservation Act’s prerequisites. He understood that they were thinking about eliminating the requirement for purchasing land or property before qualifying for funds.  He thought the Board should advise the ladies to reapply for the funds from the Community Preservation Committee.

Mrs. Loberg, as Fin Com’s liaison to the Planning Board, she did not think it would be prudent for them to ask for the funds at town meeting.

Mr. Peak believed the organizers were aware of the situation, and recommended writing them a response. Board members agreed.

4. American Planning Association
RE: Planning, October 2009

PRO FORM        Meeting opened, conducted and closed in due form at 9:00 P.M.           (m/s/c  5/0/0)          
Respectfully submitted;
Patricia V. Harris, Secretary

APPROVAL:       Approved and accepted as official minutes;

______________                  _________________________
Date                    L. Anthony Peak