Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Planning Board Minutes 11/18/09

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


DATE:                   November 18, 2009       

TIME:                   7:00 P.M.

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

PLACE:                  Town Hall Annex

BILLS:                  Patricia Harris...................................$879.60
                                Patricia Harris...................................$879.60
                                DaRosa’s…………………………..$  30.40
                                MV Times…………………………$   45.75
                                Verizon…………………………….$  36.84
MEETING MINUTES:        As referred in the November 4, 2009 Meeting
28 October 2009         m/s/c   3/0/0
4 November 2009        m/s/c   3/0/0


7:00 PM Presentation on the Connector Road
Attendance: Fred LaPiana, DPW Dir., Mark White, Environmental Partners Group and David Giangrande, Design Consultants, Ned Orleans, MV Commission, Bill Veno, MVC staff, Michael Mauro, MVC staff, Chris Fried, Bike & Pedestrian Committee (MVC) and Margaret Curtain, Bike & Pedestrian Committee (MVC)

Mr. LaPiana submitted a 8.5”X11” conceptual layout of a section of the connector road starting at the intersection from High Point heading east towards the DPW compound. He explained that the road had to be relocated further north of the original design along the town property’s boundary line to address the steep grade they were encountering around the salt shed. With the lesser grade, they were able to smooth out the curve of the road around the salt shed to make it a lot safer for the traveling public.

Mr. LaPiana further noted that they also addressed the safety issues at the High Point Lane intersection, which was now redesigned at a standard ninety-degree angle (vs. sixty degree angle).

Mr. LaPiana mentioned that he had approached the abutters most affected by the modifications to solicit their comments and or concerns. He advised the Board that Caleb Nicholson, a contemporary landscaper, with a fairly large parcel of land abutting the road inquired if the town project would impact the zoning regulations in the BII District, and the ability to have apartments.  Mr. Stephenson replied in the negative.

Mr. Stephenson inquired if the connector road could be moved slightly away from the property line to give the abutters a buffer. Mr. LaPiana replied that the modification was necessary to make the road safer. He added that an abutter with the garage expressed some concern about the lack of a buffer, whereas Thomas Pachico made him believe he was somewhat undecided about the road. Lori Clements, the Animal Control Officer, and Birney, the Water Department’s Superintendent did not express any issues with the modification.

At this time, David Giangrande and Mark White joined the discussions to present their modifications to the road layout. A site plan of the entire site was made available for the presentation, which was approximately 75% complete.  Engineering plans were also made available, and noted to be approximately 25%-50% complete.  As soon as they were 100% complete, they were going to begin the environmental permitting process.

Mr. Giangrande began his presentation explaining that there were several safety issues with the original road layout that they had to address, among them the left hand turn from the “T” intersection, which necessitated discussions with the bank. He explained that they were discussing the possibility of swapping land or obtaining an easement to accommodate a standard right-of-way. He mentioned that they were also going to borrow fill from some of the abutting properties (i.e. Macgregor property) for the construction of the road in exchange for grading their properties to make them level with the road.

Mr. Giangrande highlighted the additional adjustments that were implemented to the road layout to improve the radius in other sections of the road to make them safer.  

Discussions ensued with regards to the radius of the road at IFP and the constraints they were working under to design a road that was safe to travel.  He noted that the road for the most part was safe to drive at 30 mph, even though they were going to be posted at 20 mph.  The road at IFP was designed to be traveled at 22 – 24 mph, but was going to be posted at 20 mph.

With respect to requests for bike paths, Mr. Giangrande noted that he had designed the layout at High Point Lane to allow for a 6’ sidewalk, a 3’ shoulder, 2- 11’ lanes and a 3’ paved shoulder. The road leading to the DPW from the High Point Lane intersection was going to be equally configured.  He heard cyclists complained that the road was too steep at the existing grade, and planned to fill in the area to improve the grade.  Board members were advised that Mr. White had contacted DEP to find out that they did not have an issue with a bike path within the 400’ Zone 1. DEP simply did not want anything adjacent to the well house. Mr. Giangrande believed they could run a bike path off Sanborn Lane and connect the path to the road at a much more leveled area. The logic for having the bike path start on Sanborn Lane was that it also connected to the existing bike path on Edgartown Road, and provided a more direct route along the connector road to State Road.  Mr. Giangrande noted that it was a work in progress that was constantly evolving.  

Mr. Fried requested a clarification for designing the curves wider. Mr. Giangrande replied that he wanted to improve the sight distances.

Mr. Orleans inquired if there were restrictions to the kind of traffic they were allowing on the road.  Mr. LaPiana noted that it was an industrial area, so that it was important not to restrict the types of vehicles allowed.

Mr. Aldrin noted that they did not discuss any right turnouts from Edgartown Road.  Mr. Giangrande concurred, noting that they did not have sufficient space to accommodate it with a 30 ft wide layout at that end.

Mr. Stephenson asked Mr. Giangrande if he had any information about the number of left hand turns they anticipated. Mr. Giangrande could not respond, adding that as part of his contract with the town, his company was going to prepare a functional design report in the future with the information.

Mr. Veno hoped the design would have separated the bike path from the road, so that the bike path could have connected to the Park-N-Ride, where motorists could park their vehicles and go on a bike ride from that location, and vice versa.

Mr. LaPiana inquired if it was possible to place adjacent bike paths on that road, so that they ran on the inside of the road on town owned land.  Mr. Giangrande thought it was, noting that they might want to go for a 45’ road layout along the stretch of road that abutted the soccer field.    The salt shed however still presented a problem.  Mr. LaPiana asked Mrs. Curtain and Mr. Fried if they preferred having a bike path or bike lane. Mrs. Curtain replied that both were preferable. However given the constraints they were working under, the bike committee members thought the bike path was the more practical option.                                                                                                  

Mr. Veno thought it unfortunate that they could not have the bike path run to the Park-N-Ride from Sanborn Way. ~ Mr. LaPiana reiterated that it would never meet DEP’s approval, because they prohibited any activity that could jeopardize the capped areas within the landfill. Mr. Giagrande noted that he was proposing to install rip-rap along the edge to limit any encroachment to the capped area.~

Mr. LaPiana asked Mrs. Curtain and Mr. Fried for their impressions about the proposal for the bike path.~ Mr. Fried thought it was a slight improvement to the previous suggestion, although the slope was still somewhat deep. Mr. Stephenson advised Mr. Fried that they were still working to link the connector road to Evelyn Way, so that it could provide cyclists a more level route to State Road.

Mr. Giagrande indicated that he was going to try to accommodate the bike path within the road layout, even though it was going to be very close to the salt shed.~ They had to take into consideration that they were going to need a six (6’) ft. separation between the travel lane and the edge of the bike path. ~If they cannot achieve the 6’ separation, they were going to have to install a physical barrier.

Mr. Fried noted that cyclists were currently using an existing path that connected to Old Sailor's Burying Ground Road because it was level. Mr. Giogrande advised Mr. Fried that cyclists were not going to be prevented from using that route in the future; he just wanted to make sure they would be able to link up to the bike path.    

Mrs. Curtain did not understand why they could not simply move the salt shed, if it was creating an issue with the design of the road layout and the bike path. Mr. LaPiana explained that he did not want to give the state any opportunity to re-negotiate their contract with the town, and jeopardize the funds they receive on an annual basis.

Mr. Stephenson was curious about the “T” intersection. He inquired if there was any reason why they could not incorporate a “Y” intersection similar to one at West Spring Street and State Road, or the one at Lambert’s Cove Road. Mr. Giogrande was unable to answer the question. He had to contact Doug Hoehn to find out if there were any limitations the state may have imposed on approving the reserve area.  Mr. Veno inquired about the requirements for a reserve area. Mr. LaPiana replied that it was a leaching field.

Mr. Orleans noted that Mr. Giogrande was designing a 10 ft wide path. He did not know of any bike path on the island to be that wide, and asked Mr. Giogrande about his reasons for designing the path so wide.  Mr. Giogrande replied that it was the minimum standard. He added that it was possible that they might have to ask for a waiver for the path by the salt shed, where 10 ft may not be possible.  Mr. White advised the Board that while they were trying to design the road and bike path as close to the existing standards, there were going to be exceptions due to the topography, etc.  He thought it important to note that any departure from the standard was going to have an impact on their funding source, so they wanted to keep them at a minimum.  Their overall goal was to make sure that their design met the state’s minimum standards to the greatest extent possible.

Mr. Stephenson inquired if there were going to be any accommodations for pedestrians from the Park-N-Ride to the bike path.  Mr. LaPiana replied that the DPW had planned to install stairs from the Park-N-Ride to the soccer field. Mr. Stephenson inquired if he had any idea where they were going to be location. Mr. LaPiana replied that he did not.

Mr. LaPiana noted that that Mr. Giogrande needed to know if they wanted him to pursue the 3 ft. bike lanes, or bike path up the hill. Mr. Giogrande clarified for the record that the 3 ft lanes qualified as bicycle accommodations, not bike lanes.

Mr. Giogrande explained that the purpose for the presentation was to solicit the Planning Board’s and the Bicycle Committee’s opinions about the amenities they wanted to provide within the roadway project so that the final design could facilitate future improvements. Mr. Giogrande needed to know whether or not an exclusive path was more desirable than being on the road for a portion of the road layout.  

Mrs. Curtain noted that the bicycle committee members agreed to support a well-designed 10 ft wide bike path, provided that it had the proper barriers and distance from the road.

Mr. Stephenson asked Mr. Giogrande if he understood correctly that the problem areas included the area around the salt shed, and at the one intersection. Mr. Giogrande replied in the affirmative, and believed  he could address the problem areas by moving out the road a bit to give them more land area to work in.

Mr. Stephenson inquired about the funding source. Mr. LaPiana replied that the funds were available through the Public Works Economic Development Grant, in which the town is responsible for 10% of the total cost.  Mr. Giogrande indicated that the roadway project was estimated at 3.5 million dollars, so that town would be responsible for $350,000.00. The latter dollar amount of which was being spent for the design.

Mr. Stephenson inquired about their timetable. Mr. Giogrande replied that he was aiming to have 75% of the design completed by next month, while Mark White had already initiated discussions with MEPA and Con Com. Mr. LaPiana added that he was planning to schedule a public hearing on the project in the early part of January.  Mr. Giogrande expected to have the drainage, utility and construction plans ready by mid-December.

Mr. LaPiana noted that they were also going to be working on the attachments to the agreements that still needed to be signed by the property owners. It was expected that the project would be completed within two years.

Mr. Giogrande believed the project was a great candidate for the grant, because it linked two major roads on the island, provided better access to the Park-N-Ride, extended the bike path and increased the development potential for the area, which translated to an increase in the tax base.

There being no further comment, the discussions concluded at 8:50 PM

8:52 PM         Charles Gilstad – Estate of Edward V. & Alice H Franklin, AP 14A15

Board members were advised that Mr. Gilstad had returned with a recorded Form A Covenant and decision as required by the Form C Decision of 17 December 2008.

Board members signed the Plan of Land for in Tisbury,  Massachusetts for the Estate of Edward V Franklin & Alice H. Franklin (Cert. No. 4801) by Sourati Engineering Group, dated 10 October 2008; Scale 1”=30’; Job No. 100764.

BOARD DISCUSSION:                                                     
1. Special Town Meeting, 17 November 2009


1. Mark White, Environmental Partners Group and David Giangrande, Design Consultants
RE: Connector Road, Project Team Meeting/Minutes of 10/27/09 and revised Conceptual Roadway Layout

2. MV Commission
A. 10 December 2009 Hearing Notice – Designation of the proposed Island Wind District
B. 13 November 2009 Extended Schedule
C. 19 November 2009 Meeting Notice

3. American Planning Association
RE: The Commissioner, Fall 2009

4. Massachusetts Municipal Association
RE: TheBeacon, November 2009

PRO FORM        Meeting opened, conducted and closed in due form at 9:00 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