TOWN OF TISBURY
P.O. BOX 602
TOWN HALL ANNEX
VINEYARD HAVEN, MASSACHUSETTS 02568
DATE: October 14, 2009
TIME: 7:05 P.M.
PLACE: Town Hall Annex
ATTENDANCE: Aldrin, Peak, Seidman and Stephenson
BILLS: Patricia Harris...................................$879.60
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 October 2009 Deferred
7:00 PM Deliberations: Special Permit Application for Gage and Kate Rickard – Rickard’s LLC, AP 22C02
The Planning Board Co-Chairman duly opened the continuation of the deliberations at 7:08 PM. Mr. Peak informed the Board that the purpose for the continuation was to give them the opportunity to review the draft decision the board secretary prepared for the Board’s review.
Members confirmed that they each had their own copies. Mr. Peak then proceeded to read the document, beginning in the section entitled ‘Findings’. Mr. Peak noted a typographical error in the 4th Finding and recommended replacing the word ‘pruposed’ with ‘proposed’.
Mr. Peak indicated that the Board Secretary questioned whether the ladder or directory style should be mentioned, since it was discussed only as a suggestion. Mr. Seidman agreed, and did not think it would be appropriate to add to the decision.
Mr. Peak thought they should note that there is a potential for additional non-appurtenant signs on the property, because there are other businesses that share space in the same building with the bakery.
Mr. Seidman thought it would apply if the applicant were the property owner, and not the abutter. Mr. Peak acknowledged, but thought they should mention it in the document since it was discussed at the public hearing. He recommended adding a new ‘Finding’ stating, “The proposed sharing does not constitute a ladder or directory style sign which would be preferable, should the sign be rebuilt. He recommended following up with a letter to the property owner. Mr. Seidman acquiesced.
Mr. Seidman further noted that there was a typographical error on Condition #4, in which he believed the statement meant to say, “ The applicant is … that it will not create an adverse …. the property.”
There being no further discussion, Mr. Peak entertained a motion to approve the draft decision as amended. Mr. Aldrin so moved. Mr. Stephenson seconded the motion, which motion carried. 4/0/0
Mr. Peak entertained a second motion to close the deliberations. Mr. Seidman so moved. Mr. Stephenson seconded the motion, and the motion carried. 4/0/0
The Planning Board resumed their regularly scheduled meeting at 7:20 PM.
7:15 PM Public Hearing: Form C Application for Walter F. Sheble Trust, AP 53A2.40
Attendance: Paul Munafo, Melinda Loberg and Glenn F. Provost, applicant’s representative
Hearing commenced in due form at 7:23 PM. Planning Board Co-Chairman, Mr. Peak read the public hearing notice into the minutes, and had the members introduce themselves.
Mr. Provost, the applicant’s surveyor and agent noted that his client had asked him to design a subdivision that would place the two residences on their individual lots. In order to do that, he had to create a road to give the two lots the frontage required by subdivision control law, because the applicant had frontage for the one lot at the end of Deer Hill Road.
Mr. Provost explained that he extended a right-of-way into his property, basically laying it out over the existing driveway to create the frontage for the two building lots. The parcels were divided into a 105,000 sq. ft. lot and a 50,000 +/- sq. ft. lot. Both lots met the dimensional requirements for the zoning district relative lot depth, land area and frontage. All of the buildings met the setback requirement with the exception of shed no. 2, as per the plan.
He addressed the zoning violation by adding a note on the plan stating that prior to the conveyance of either lot into separate ownership, the shed would be relocated to meet the required zoning setback or removed from the site.
Mr. Sheble, his client is interested in putting the land on the market, but felt that he would improve its marketability if the land sold as smaller parcels. The infrastructure exists. With nothing further to add to his presentation, Mr. Provost deferred to Mr. Peak.
Mr. Aldrin inquired about the hammerhead at the end of the road. Mr. Provost clarified that it was an existing feature, whose final configuration is the result of several plans over the years. The only line created on the plan were the lines separating the lots, and the lines creating the subdivision road.
Mr. Aldrin inquired if the driveway was designed to more than just a driveway. Mr. Provost replied that it was an access way for two homes. Otherwise he did not know how to respond to his question. If the proposed hammerhead was found by the Board to be inadequate, his client would have to improve the road to the Board’s specifications. He assumed the hammerhead at the end of Deer Hill Road was for emergency services. Its not clearly defined, because it blends off into the three (3) lots.
Mr. Aldrin asked what the primary issue was. Mr. Provost replied that it dealt with the adequacy or inadequacy of the proposed subdivision road in terms of width, grade, storm water drainage, etc. They are proposing to keep the road as it currently exists.
Mr. Peak referred Mr. Provost and the board members to the March 25, 1987 Revision of the local subdivision rules and regulations, No. 3, and read the following:
“ALL SUBDIVISION WAY SYSTEMS SHALL CONNECT TO A TOWN, COUNTY OR STATE OWNED PUBLIC WAY BY WAYS THAT ARE OWNED AND A PART OF THE SUBDIVISION, EXCEPT THAT SUBDIVISION WAYS MAY TERMINATE AT THE BOUNDARY WITH ANOTHER TOWN IF SAID OTHER TOWN’S PLANNING BOARD CERTIFIES IN WRITING SUCH ARRANGEMENT IS ACCEPTABLE TO THEM … COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS”.
He mentioned that it was an issue he’s raised in the past on other applications, where an applicant does not own the road. In this instance, Mr. Sheble does not own Deer Hill Road; he only has certain rights in the way. It appears from the Board Secretary’s research, that the Deer Hill Road development does not have a recorded homeowner’s association or road maintenance committee. He asked Mr. Munafo, a town resident residing on Deer Hill Road, if he could inform the Board if one exists. Mr. Munafo replied that he has been functioning as the ad hoc committee, ever since Mr. Zinno sold his property within the development, and collects $250.00 annually for the upkeep of the road.
Mr. Munafo informed the Board that everyone on Deer Hill Road was obligated to pay the road maintenance fee because it was clearly stated in their deeds.
Mr. Peak explained that the reason(s) for bringing up the issue was because the Planning Board did not have the right or authority to extend one’s right to a road. While he understood that Mr. Sheble had rights to use Deer Hill Road, he did not know that Mr. Sheble had to right to extend the road and add homes was a question that had to be answered. If the applicant was granted the right by deed or given permission to do so by the association, then the applicant was free to exercise his rights to subdivide his property.
Based on the plan, it appeared that the applicant was not creating a new subdivision road but extending an existing private road identified as Deer Hill Road. And Mr. Provost concurred. Mr. Peak added that the Board, at this point basically needed a letter from the homeowners or association in support of the proposal.
Mr. Munafo acknowledged, and noted that he did not have an issue with the proposed subdivision, provided the applicant was not allowed to develop the property any further. He was of the impression that the immediate abutter, Jane and Carol would agree. It was an issue the majority of the abutters raised when Mr. Munafo polled the neighborhood.
Mr. Provost understood the issue, and explained that the applicant and his attorney were more than willing to comply with the Planning Board’s request. He could not however answer for the applicant about restricting the larger lot’s further development, except to say that he would bring it to the attorney’s attention. As it stands the applicant with the current proposal did have the opportunity to add a guesthouse on Lot #1, which would increase traffic. Mr. Provost did not know if applicant would be willing to offer a restriction from further development, but he offered to bring it before the applicant’s attorney.
Mr. Stephenson inquired if Lot # could be further subdivided. Mr. Provost replied in the negative. Mr. Munafo inquired about the requirements for a guesthouse. Mr. Provost replied that in the R50 Zoning District, one would need 62,500 sq. ft. of land area.
Mr. Peak observed that the application was submitted under the Small Project procedures, but noted that he would appreciate a list of the waivers the Planning Board would have to consider on review of the application. Mr. Provost acknowledged.
Mr. Munafo inquired if a letter with all of the members’ signatures would suffice. Mr. Peak replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Aldrin thought he’s like to make a site visit. Mr. Peak asked the Board members if they wanted to go as a board or view the property and road independently.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Peak entertained a motion to continue the public hearing until October 28, 2009. Messrs. Aldrin and Stephenson advised Mr. Peak that they would not be available to attend the meeting on that date. Mr. Peak entertained a second motion, suggesting November 4, 2009 at 7:P15 PM at the Town Hall Annex. Mr. Aldrin so moved. Mr. Stephenson seconded the motion, which motion carried. 4/0/0
The Planning Board resumed their regularly scheduled meeting at 8:05 PM
1. Daniel Seidman
RE: One-day course in Boston, MA
Mr. Seidman explained the purpose for the workshop and asked the Board if they would endorse the expenditure.
Mr. Peak entertained a motion to appropriate funds from the Board’s training budget in the amount of $380.00 to attend the workshop. Mr. Aldrin so moved. Mr. Stephenson seconded the motion, which motion carried. 4/0/1 Mr. Seidman abstained from the vote.
2. Zoning Bylaw Amendments
Mr. Peak introduced the topic to motivate the Board members into thinking about potential issues they would like to see addressed. He wanted Board members to engage in a more substantive discussion at next week’s meeting so that they can prioritize the bylaw amendments they believe are ready or near ready to pursue at special town meeting.
Mr. Stephenson thought they should pursue an amendment in Section 06.00 that would allow the Planning Board some latitude in granting an applicant relief from the some of the restrictions. This would give them the time they needed to revamp the entire section at a future date.
Mr. Seidman inquired if the discussion applied to the BI District’s beautification. He thought the town could look much more festive during the holidays. Mrs. Loberg advised Mr. Seidman that there was a new committee in place that functioned independently of the town appointed Beautification Committee that has been working towards that end, and has been adding plantings in various locations.
Additional discussions ensued and Mr. Peak refocused the conversation to the subject, asking the board members to come prepared with their recommendations..
3. Tisbury Planning Board
RE: Web page disclaimer (No Discussion)
4. Tashmoo Overlook
Mr. Stephenson informed the Board that he was creating a power point presentation of the views to the Overlook. He explained the issues he was attempting to bring to light, specifically how the vegetation and trees were growing and flourishing to obstruct the view to the overlook, that was creating a conflict between the community, who wanted to preserve the view to the overlook, and the private property owner who wanted to maintain the privacy of his own property.
Board members Mr. Stephenson and Mr. Seidman engaged in a conversation about the rights of the community against the rights of a private property owner, eminent domain, etc.
1. Marion Mudge, Town Clerk
A. New Ethics Reform Law
B. STM, 17 November 2009 (List of Articles)
A. Board members were advised that the State is requiring all municipal employees to complete a training program available on line covering the “Conflict of Interest Law” and to submit a copy of their certificate to the town clerk, confirming they completed the program.
The memo further required all town employees (incl. appointed and elected officials) to submit a written acknowledgement to the town clerk confirming that they were provided with a summary of the conflict of interest law. This was to be made available to them next week.
B. Board members reviewed the list of articles to determine if they were going to speak on any of the issues.
2. MV Commission
A. Jo-Ann Taylor, DCPC Coordinator re: Island Wind District
B. Massachusetts Draft Ocean Plan – Wednesday, 21 October 2009 at 6:30 PM
C. Public Hearing Notice – 5 November 2009 re: Hearing to solicit comment on creating an Oceans Zone as a DCPC
D. 9 October 2009 Extended Schedule
3. Jeffry Thompson
RE: Letter of Interest (Associate Member)
Mr. Peak advised the Board that they were obligated to hold a joint meeting with the Board of Selectmen to officially appoint Mr. Thompson to the vacant position of Associate Board Member. He offered to arrange the meeting and to notify the Board members of the date and time. The courtesy applied to the applicant, who was to be contacted just as soon a this was arranged.
4. Quinlan Publishing
RE: Zoning Bulletin, 25September 2009
5. Massachusetts Municipal Association
RE: TheBeacon, October 2009
PRO FORM Meeting opened, conducted and closed in due form at 9:15 P.M. (m/s/c 4/0/0)
Patricia V. Harris, Secretary
APPROVAL: Approved and accepted as official minutes;
Date L. Anthony Peak