TOWN OF TISBURY
P.O. BOX 602
TOWN HALL ANNEX
VINEYARD HAVEN, MASSACHUSETTS 02568
DATE: October 28, 2009
TIME: 7:11 P.M.
PLACE: Town Hall Annex
ATTENDANCE: Duart, Peak and Seidman
ABSENT: Aldrin, 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
14 October 2009 Deferred
20 October 2009 Deferred
21 October 2009 Deferred
7:15 PM Laura Barbera and Jeff Krystal - Zoning Bylaw Amendments (Multi. Dwelling Units and Accessory Apartments)
Section 05.21.02, Multi-Dwelling Units, Uses Permitted
Mrs. Barbera explained that the Zoning Board of Appeals was interested in decreasing the lot area requirement per dwelling unit within the BII District from 10,000 sq. ft. per unit to 5000 sq. ft. per unit to give the commercial property owners the ability to apply for an additional dwelling unit or two. She mentioned that the existing land area requirement was unfairly excessive when compared to the requirements for guesthouses. In her opinion, land area restriction did not make sense for an area that was quite suited an increase in density.
Mr. Peak did not have any issues with the Board of Appeals’ proposal, noting that it complemented the Planning Board’s policy on infill development, and interest to promote density within the BII District.
Mr. Peak inquired if she knew the number of lots that would be able to benefit from the proposal, and what the total number of units the amendment might allow by reducing the land area requirement. Mrs. Barbera replied in the negative.
Mr. Peak indicated that he wanted to review the proposed amendment with the full board, so that they could address any issue prior to initiating the public review process.
Section 04.03.13, Accessory Apartment
Mrs. Barbera indicated that the Zoning Board of Appeals was interested in clarifying and simplifying the regulation.
They wanted to eliminate subsections c & g, and modifying subsections d and i. Applicants primarily complained about the 20% restriction in habitable area, when they were not adding or renovating their buildings. The Board of Appeals attempted to resolve the flaw in the regulation, but found they the bylaws did not even define an accessory structure. They then relied on the definition for an “accessory use”, which limits additions or renovations to “no more than 30% of the floor area or 50% of the lot area”. Anything exceeding the maximum ceased to qualify as an accessory use.
Mrs. Barbera thought a compromise would be to limit the accessory unit to no more than forty (40) percent of the existing habitable area not to exceed six hundred (600) feet in all residential districts. The amendment would essentially benefit the property owners within the R10 District, who did not have the floor area for a reasonably sized accessory unit.
Mrs. Barbera recommended deleting subsection (g) because it was not easily monitored or enforceable. She thought the Planning Board might consider alternate language for long-term rentals, adding that it should be consistent with related sections of the bylaw (i.e. guesthouses).
Mr. Peak recalled that the guesthouse bylaw did have a similar restriction at one time, but was removed by petition several years ago. Additional discussions ensued with this regard, and Mr. Peak noted that he wanted to look into the proposal further. He also noticed that people were creating parking areas on their front lawns and destroying the landscape. Mrs. Barbera indicated that the Zoning Board of Appeals has allowed applicants to create a parking space, if one did not already exist, provided it allowed the applicant’s vehicle to pull out nose first.
Mr. Peak thanked Mrs. Barbera and Mr. Krystal for explaining the proposed bylaw amendments, and reiterated that he wanted to give the full board members the opportunity to address any issues with the Board of Appeals before they initiated the public review process.
7:30 PM Christopher Alley and Benjamin Robinson – Zoning Bylaw Amendment, s. 04.03.08, Guesthouse
Mr. Alley noted that he and Mr. Robinson have worked on past applications where the 10 ft. front setbacks, 10 ft. side yard setbacks and 20 ft. separation between structures within the residential districts have forced their clients to come up with “absurd solutions”. He offered details of an application he had submitted whereby his clients had to move a barn that was 3 ft. short of the side yard setback in order to convert the building into a guesthouse. The expense to meet the 10 ft. side yard setback was excessive, and unnecessary, when the building did not abut a building or block views.
He offered additional examples, where applicants were shy 1.5 ft of the 20 ft separation or 6 ft of a setback requirement, and they had to either relocate the structure or construct a whole new building. Mr. Alley noted that the regulation did not provide the Zoning Board of Appeals a mechanism by which to grant some relief. He therefore submitted a bylaw amendment in which he inserted the following language prior to the two requirements:
In exception for the conversion of an existing structure
in existence under the following criteria
Mr. Peak did not like the idea that it was a blanket statement. He preferred having a way to waive the requirement under certain findings; otherwise it was open to no criteria whatsoever. He explained that special permits needed to have a set of parameters.
Mr. Alley was advised that if he was interested in pursuing the bylaw amendment, he had to obtain a petition from the town clerk, listing the proposed bylaw amendment and secure the signatures of ten (10) registered voters to add the amendment on the annual town warrant or one hundred (100) signatures of registered voters to place the amendment on the special town meeting’s warrant.
Mrs. Barbera did not think they should consider waiving the setback requirements, but was open to waiving the requirement for distance between structures.
Mr. Alley indicated that he did not intend to pursue the bylaw amendment any further. He wanted to submit the proposal to the Planning Board to pursue if they agreed with the revision. He left his proposal to the Planning Board to proceed as they wished.
1. Douglas Hoehn, SB&H Inc.
RE: Adequacy of a road for lot 2F2.7
1 Special Town Meeting Warrant
RE: November 17, 2009 Articles
2. Larry Gomez, Fin Com
RE: Meeting on Oct. 29, 2009 at 6PM
Mr. Peak was invited to attend the meeting to speak on the Annex’ article for a copier.
3. Tisbury Conservation Commission
A. Public Hearing Notice – Tisbury Marina, AP 09B17
B. Public Hearing Notice –Steamship Authority, AP 7E01
4. Tisbury Board of Appeals
A. Public Hearing Notice – Fred & Anne Lucas, AP 23A50
B. Public Hearing Notice – Robert Duran, AP 2H04
C. Public Hearing Notice – Rosemary Nelson, AP 3B08
D. Public Hearing Notice – David & Sheri Caseau, AP 20A38
E. Special Permit Case #1190 – Joseph El-Deiry, AP 5L5.1
F. Special Permit Case #1191 – Yvonne C. Hines, AP 11A24
G. Special Permit Case #1192 – Adam Darack, AP 5A15
RE: Zoning Bulletin, 10 October 2009
6. .Lincoln Institute of Land Policy
RE: Landlines, October 2009
7. MV Commission
RE: Extended Meeting Schedule
PRO FORM Meeting opened, conducted and closed in due form at 8:30 P.M. (m/s/c 3/0/0)
Patricia V. Harris, Secretary
APPROVAL: Approved and accepted as official minutes;
Date L. Anthony Peak