PLANNING BOARD
TOWN OF TISBURY
P.O. BOX 602
TOWN HALL ANNEX
VINEYARD HAVEN, MASSACHUSETTS 02568
(508) 696-4270
MEETING MINUTES
DATE: November 4, 2009
TIME: 7:05 P.M.
PLACE: Town Hall Annex
ATTENDANCE: Aldrin, Duart, Peak and Stephenson
ABSENT: Seidman
BILLS: Patricia Harris...................................$879.60
MEETING MINUTES: As referred in the October 28, 2009 Meeting Agenda
2 September 2009 m/s/c 4/0/0
8 September 2009 m/s/c 4/0/0
9 September 2009 m/s/c 4/0/0
16 September 2009 m/s/c 4/0/0
30 September 2009 m/s/c 4/0/0
7 October 2009 m/s/c 4/0/0
14 October 2009 m/s/c 4/0/0
20 October 2009 m/s/c 4/0/0
21 October 2009 m/s/c 4/0/0
APPOINTMENTS:
7:05 PM House Business
Island Plan Steering Committee met with the Board of Selectmen at their meeting last night on 3 November 2009 to solicit their comments or opinions on the plan before it was published for public consumption at the end of this year.
Mr. Stephenson noted that the Board of Selectmen had very little to say about the draft Island Plan, but much to say about what they perceived to be a conflict of jurisdiction between the MV Commission and the town. Mr. Krystal in particular complained about the additional layers of review local applicants were required to endure on referral to the MV Commission as a DRI. He believed that there were certain types of developments that the town could adequately review without having to refer them to the MVC as a DRI. Mr. London agreed, provided the town worked on a coherent plan for the entire town.
When the Selectmen were asked for recommendations to implement the Island Plan, Mr. Israel thought the Steering Committee should make it a point to “sell” the plan to all of the local agencies to ensure their cooperation. Mr. Stephenson reported that he felt annoyed at the recommendation, because he had hoped that if the Board of Selectmen supported the plan, they would consider meeting with the local boards and agencies to solicit their support, and hold a public meeting for the general citizenry.
Mr. Stephenson informed the Board that the MV Commission planned to post the latest draft of the Island Plan on their website. They were also in the process of preparing a brief synopsis of their report and planning on making it available shortly.
Redirection of traffic on Union Street
Mr. Stephenson reported that the Board of Selectmen brought the pilot project up for discussion. When he inquired if they would consider creating a committee that would supervise the project, Mr. Israel recommended against it, and thought he would just as soon leave it in the Planning Board’s capable hands.
Mr. Stephenson thought their first priority was to organize a small group, such as Mr. LaPiana, the Police Chief, Mr. Bugbee, Mr. Krystal, and quite possibly a representative from the Fire Department and the MVTA to analyze the territory to make sure no one’s access is obstructed, etc.
Mr. Peak noted that the Selectmen had to authorize the project, before the Planning Board could proceed. Mr. Stephenson replied that the Board of Selectmen delegated the project’s implementation to the Planning Board.
Mr. Stephenson asked Mr. Duart if he would consider assisting him to inaugurate the project in January 2010. Mr. Duart replied in the affirmative. Mr. Stephenson suggested that the set time aside to initiate the preparations. And the Board agreed.
Connector Road
Mr. Stephenson noted that the subject of the connector road was also raised at the Board of Selectmen’s meeting. Mr. LaPiana reported that the consultants have made significant progress on the design and was interested in meeting with the Planning Board to review their latest draft.
The Board Secretary noted that Mr. LaPiana had scheduled an appointment with the Planning Board and the consultants on November 18, 2009.
Mr. Stephenson reported that he had already met with the consultants this past Monday, where they discussed the revisions they had to implement to the road layout in order to address the problems presented by the topography.
7:15 PM Public Hearing (cont): Form C Application for Walter F. Sheble Trust, AP 53A2.40
Attendance: Glenn Provost, James Reynolds, PCC and Melinda Loberg
The continuation of the public hearing was duly opened at 7:20PM. Mr. Peak, Planning Board Co-Chairman read the public hearing notice into the minutes and had the board members introduced themselves.
Mr. Provost noted that he had conferred with the Board Secretary to discuss the list of waivers the Planning Board requested, and submitted a letter dated 4 November 2009 itemizing the six (6) regulations he believed applied to the applicant’s proposal. He omitted the rest because the road was in place and the lots were developed.
Mr. Provost could not explain why the hammerhead at the end of Deer Hill Road was never constructed according to Mr. MacGreggor’s subdivision’s plan, and understood why the Planning Board would have wanted to pay a site visit.
Mr. Provost also understood that the Planning Board at the last hearing wanted a letter signed by all of the abutters on Deer Hill Road in support of Mr. Sheble’s proposal for an additional lot, since they were basically functioning as a quasi homeowners association by Mr. Munafo’s testimony. He did not bring the letter, because he did not believe it was necessary. In fact, Mr. Sheble’s attorney was also of the legal opinion that this was not required because of the applicant rights in the road.
Mr. Peak explained why he had raised the issue. He noted that the Board had spoken to town counsel about this issue for past applications and learned that they did not have the authority to extend rights that did not exist. In subdivisions were a homeowners’ association existed, everyone had an undivided and equal interest in the road, which required a letter of support from the association.
Mr. Reynolds explained that he had examined the title to the property, and drew a legal conclusion that each lot was given an expressed right to travel over the roadway. When each of the lots were conveyed out from the original subdivision in 1976, it was conveyed out together with the right to travel on the road. It was a right that continued into the future, and could not be questioned. Mr. Peak inquired if it also implied that they had the right to subdivide and increase the amount of travel on the road. Mr. Reynolds replied that the fundamental legal principle is that once a parcel of land has the benefit of perfect right of way, and then the owner of the parcel has the right to subdivide the parcel and to use that same appurtenant right-of-way for the benefit of the subdivided parcels. He noted that there came
a point where courts have said “that they’ve gone way too far” i.e. overburdening of a way”.
He thought it important in this particular instance that at present there were eight (8) lots within the Deer Hill Subdivision, even though the subdivision was approved for nine (9) lots in 1976. The road would therefore not be serving any more lots that it was originally intended.
Mr. Reynolds on researching the deeds of the lots within the subdivision, notices that all of the lots, except for Lot 3 were legally obligated everyone to contribute equitably and equally towards the maintenance of the road.
Mr. Peak inquired about an abutter’s recourse if they happen to contest the additional lot. Mr. Sheble replied that they would have to suit Mr. Sheble, not the town.
Mr. Peak noted that the road appeared to be property maintained; at least up until you reach what should be the hammerhead. He could not tell where the road ended and the driveways began, which confused him a bit, before he proceeded unto the applicant’s property. He understood Mr. Sheble, the applicant did not have an issue improving the driveway to the same standard as the road below it. Mr. Provost concurred.
Mr. Peak thought the applicant should consider improving the hammerhead at his own expense, now that the road was being extended, to make it wide enough for an emergency vehicle to turn around. He noted that he had some difficulty turning around and backing out of the driveway during the site inspection.
Mr. Peak inquired that if the applicant had right to improve the road, if he had equal rights in the use of the road. He wanted to know if the applicant had the right to improve the road according to the approved subdivision plan, if the Planning Board asked him to delineate the hammerhead and the proposed road so that it was much more obvious to deliverymen, and emergency personnel. The turning radius especially had to be large enough to allow cars to turn around. Mr. Reynolds did not know the answer.
Mr. Reynolds asked Mr. Provost if he had the opportunity to inspect the road, and if in his opinion, whether or not it would require the applicant to cut down any trees. Mr. Provost was familiar with the road, and understood what the Planning Board was requesting.
Mr. Reynolds believed that if a person had a right to use a right-of-way, they had a right to maintain it and open it to gain access to their property. He would not if he had the right to build out the subdivision road, without going to the abutters. The developer should have dealt it with at the time the subdivision was approved.
Mr. Provost volunteered to contact Paul Munafo to ask for his impressions about the road improvements. Mr. Provost inquired if he understood correctly, that the Planning Board wanted the applicant to construct the road within locus similarly to Deer Hill Road. And Mr. Peak replied in the affirmative
Mr. Peak deferred to the Board for any further questions or comments. Mr. Stephenson agreed with Mr. Peak’s recommendations. Mr. Aldrin indicated that he did not have any issues.
Mr. Provost planned another site visit with Mr. Munafo, and to return with a cross section of the existing and proposed road, with some sketches. Mr. Peak thought the cross sections would suffice. He just wanted the traveled surface to look like a road with grass shoulders to make sure the neighbors’ driveways was obvious and clearly distinguished from the roadway.
Mr. Peak recommended continuing the public hearing until December 2, 2009 at 7:15 PM in the Town Hall Annex. Mr. Duart so moved. Mr. Aldrin seconded the motion, which motion carried. 4/0/0
The Planning Board resumed their regularly scheduled meeting at 7:50PM.
BOARD DISCUSSION:
1. Zoning Bylaws
A. Accessory Apartments
B. S. 05.21.02 (Multiple Dwelling Units)
Mr. Peak noted that the Zoning Board of Appeals were interested in pursuing four (4) bylaw amendments, but prioritized the issues, so that the decided to pursue on the two more urgent topics.
Board members were informed that the wanted to amend section 04.03.13, Accessory Apartments and section 05.21.02, Permitted Uses within the BII District.
Mr. Peak explained that that the Board of Appeals wanted to permit property owners within the R10 District the ability to build accessory units up to 40% of the habitable area (in lieu of 20%) similar to the section for guesthouses, and to eliminate some of the conditions that were redundant.
Mr. Peak was not sure that they should eliminate subsection (g) relative to the short-term rentals of these accessory units solely because the restriction cannot be enforced. He noted that the particular restriction was removed from section 04.03.08 at town meeting by petition years ago, based on the argument that income earned by the seasonal rental allowed them to keep their homes.
Mr. Stephenson thought they should monitor these properties and generate some income from the rentals for the town. He questioned whether they needed to be concerned about having cars backing up from their driveways onto the road. This would require large circular driveways, which on occasion take up the whole front yard to destroy the streetscape. Mr. Peak thought they could limit parking by restricting lots within residential districts to one curb cut no greater than a certain width relative to an x,y, z linear frontage.
The Board of Appeals wanted to reduce the land area requirement for accessory apartments in the BII District from 10,000 sq. ft. to 5,000 sq. ft. per apartment, and to allow commercial property owners the ability to provide up to a maximum of three (3) apartments.
There being no further, Mr. Peak recommended scheduling the necessary hearings for the bylaw amendments.
2. Tisbury Board of Selectmen’s Meeting, 03 November 2009
RE: Henry Stephenson’s report
3. Finance & Advisory Committee Meeting, 29 October 2009
RE: Tony Peak’s report
Mr. Peak attended the meeting to present the article on the town hall annex board’s behalf and happily reported that the Finance & Advisory Committee voted to recommend the request.
He thought the annex personnel should meet and decide on the copier they’ll need. This was important since two of the three quotes exceeded the dollar amount that was requested. He also asked the Board Secretary to review the specs to make sure that they were comparing apples to apples.
Mr. Peak asked Mrs. Loberg for a recommendation, if it happened that the town hall annex personnel decided the more expensive copier was going to work best for them in the long term, could they use the funds during the first year of the lease and ask for the additional funds the following year for the three (3) year lease.
Mrs. Loberg thought they could always opt to wait until the fall to ask for a higher dollar amount. Mr. Aldrin inquired if they could trade in the copier and printers. Mr. Peak thought they could then go for the additional options such as the internet connection and eliminate the need for the printers altogether.
CORRESPONDENCE:
1. Tisbury Conservation Commission
RE: 2009 Appointments (Site Plan Review Committee and Site Plan Review Board
2. MV Commission
a. 5 November 2009 Agenda
b. Extended Meeting Schedule
3. James Ferraro, Main Street
Mr. Aldrin noted that Mr. Ferraro had not added the seconded curb cut that was asked of him a while ago.
Mr. Peak drove by and noticed it as well. He intended to discuss this with Mr. Barwick.
Board members asked the Board Secretary to pursue the issue with the Building Inspector.
4. Douglas Hoehn, SB&H Inc.
RE: Assessor Parcel 2F2.7, Cayuga Lane
Mr. Duart indicated that he took a drive down the road from Quinsigamond Lane and thought the road was about 10 ft wide at most, so that it had to be widened and resurfaced. He also thought the end of the road at Iroquois Ave had to be widened so that people can clear the turn onto the road. He had a difficult time clearing the turn in his truck.
Mr. Peak referred the board to the Assessors Map, which clearly indicated that the road was designed with a 40 ft. layout.
Board members agreed that the road had to widened, and that the drainage at the Iroquois intersection had to be addressed. Mr. Peak noted that the two ends of the road had to be radiused in both directions, and that road surface was questionable, and that the far end at Iroquois has a serious drainage issue, which was observed recently after a good rainstorm.
PRO FORM Meeting opened, conducted and closed in due form at 8:45 P.M. (m/s/c 4/0/0)
Respectfully submitted;
____________________________________________
Patricia V. Harris, Secretary
APPROVAL: Approved and accepted as official minutes;
______________ _________________________
Date L. Anthony Peak
Co-Chairman
| 
