PLANNING BOARD
TOWN OF TISBURY
P.O. BOX 602
TOWN HALL ANNEX
VINEYARD HAVEN, MASSACHUSETTS 02568
(508) 696-4270
MEETING MINUTES
DATE: December 2, 2009
TIME: 7:05 P.M.
PLACE: Town Hall Annex
ATTENDANCE: Peak, Seidman, and Stephenson
ABSENT: Aldrin and Duart
BILLS: Patricia Harris...................................$879.60
West ……………………………….$168.00
Daniel Seidman……………………..$ 48.23
MEETING MINUTES: As referred in the November 18, 2009 Meeting Agenda
18 November 2009 Deferred
APPOINTMENTS:
7:05 PM Glenn F. Provost Re: Ronald Somers, AP 24D14
Board members were advised that Mr. Somers had submitted a Form A application for a deep lot division of land, under section 07.04 of the Tisbury Zoning Bylaw back in September 2004.
There were issues with the proposal, in that the division of land created two zoning violations relative to setbacks. The northwest corner of the house did not meet the 10’ setback requirement, and the garage had to be either relocated or removed, because it was in the right-of-way.
At the time, the applicants were out of country, so that Mr. Provost did not have access to his clients to discuss some of the issues raised by the Board. Mr. Provost recalled having requested several extensions. In absence of any communication from the applicants, Mr. Provost withdrew the application after the fifth extension, in September 2006.
The applicants have returned to the country and have expressed an interest in pursuing the deep lot division of land. Mr. & Mrs. Somers were apparently willing to correct the two zoning violations, if there was a reasonable expectation from the Board that this would address their concerns so that it would not cause an impediment to an endorsement.
Mr. Peak replied that if the applicants removed or demolished the garage and addressed the side setback requirement for the main house, it would address the zoning violations. Without the violation, he did not see any grounds for the Form A division’s endorsement.
Mr. Peak inquired about the septic system, and thought this would present an issue for the Board of Health, who may require the applicant to relocate the system onto the house lot.
Discussions followed with regards to the potential for a common driveway, which is not permitted in the Town of Tisbury. Mr. Peak noted that the Planning Board were actively pursuing a town resident in West Chopthrough the Code Enforcement Officer for trying to use two building lots as one with a common driveway.
7:15 PM Public Hearing (Cont): Small Project for Walter Sheble Trust, AP 53A02
Attendance: Glenn Provost, Vineyard Land Surveying
The continuation of the public hearing duly opened at 7:15PM. Mr. Peak, Planning Board Co-Chairman read the notice into the minutes and had the board members introduce themselves.
Mr. Provost, the applicant’s agent submitted a hand sketched plan entitled Proposed Road Improvements, dated 12/02/09 and drawn to a 1”=30’ scale to address the Board’s issues with the adequacy of the road, its turning radius at the end of the road and overall construction. In a letter accompanying the plan, dated December 2, 2009, Mr. Provost described how he intended to improve the existing driveway, the applicant was proposing to use as a subdivision road. He explained that he was widening the existing 8’ driveway to 12’ to match the width of the traveled way of the existing road, Deer Hill. He had to remove approximately 9 trees to widen the road, improve the road surface of the traveled way with a sand hardener/rap mixture of a similar composition to match
the material utilized on Deer Hill Road, and create a turn around at the end of the extension of the proposed road to allow a car exit the property without having to back out.
Mr. Seidman inquired if the applicant intended to move the shed (#2). Mr. Provost replied in the affirmative and referred the Board to the notation on the plan, addressing this issue.
Mr. Peak inquired about the water. Mr. Provost replied that there were wells on the property.
A question was raised with regards to storm water erosion and management. Mr. Provost replied that storm water was not an issue for the property because it all ran naturally off into the surrounding woods. Mr. Peak thought it was important to include a note to the effect that the applicant would be responsible for addressing any storm water erosion that could arise with the construction of the road.
The Board noted that there was no need to ask the applicant about creating a homeowner’s association for the two lots, if all of the abutters, including the lot under consideration were obligated to contribute to the upkeep of the road by deed.
Mr. Peak informed the Board that the Board of Health submitted a letter for the record, dated October 1, 2009, stating that the subdivision of land did not require any monitoring wells.
Mr. Provost, in a letter dated November 4, 2009 listed the following waivers, he was requesting of the Board on the applicant’s behalf:
A) S. 362 (f), 363 (a thru h), 364 (a & b), 365 (a thru d), and 367 (a & c)
B) S. 4 (all parts),
C) S. 5 (all parts),
D) S. 611, 612 & 613
E) S. 63 & 64
There being no further comment from the board and the applicant’s representative, Mr. Peak entertained a motion to close the public hearing and move into deliberations. Mr.. Stephenson so moved. Mr. Seidman seconded the motion, which motion carried. 3/0/0
The hearing was officially closed at 7:44 PM
7:44 PM Deliberations: Small Project for Walter Sheble Trust, AP 53A02
At the conclusion of the aforementioned public hearing, the Planning Board entered into deliberations. Mr. Peak, Planning Board Co-Chairman recommended discussing whether or not the application met the criteria for Small Project consideration. Mr. Peak read into the record ~the qualifications, and entertained a motion to accept the application for consideration as a Small Project Procedure. Mr. Stephenson so moved. ~Mr. Seidman seconded the motion, which motion carried. ~3/0/0
~
Mr. Peak added that the applicant was requesting a waiver from the submittal of Standard Definitive Plan (technical adequacy & completeness), a street plan and profile, an environmental analysis, Board of Health review, drainage calculations, language of easements, the design standards, etc. Mr. Peak mentioned that the waiver from section 5 also applies to Section 02 of the Planning Board’s Subdivision Rules and Regulations (Revised 25 March 1987), pertaining to the width of the traveled way. ~
~
There being no comment, Mr. Peak entertained a motion that the grant of all waivers requested was not contrary to the intent or purpose of the subdivision rules and regulations. Mr. Stephenson so moved. ~Mr. Seidman seconded the motion, and the motion carried ~3/0/0
~
Board members were asked to refer to the draft document the Board Secretary prepared for the deliberations, and amended the language to reflect their views and votes.
~
Mr. Peak noted the last entry in the section titled Background was incorrect. He amended the language to read “D. Lot 10A is located in the Residential 50 (R-50) Zoning District (50, 000 sq. ft. for land area, 150 linear ft. for frontage and lot depth, and 50 ‘ for front setbacks and 35 ft for side setbacks). The revised language was subsequently move to “Findings”.
~
Board members revised the entries under Findings as follows:
~
a) ~~~~~ added language to 5-B) Subsequently the applicant provided an updated plan showing an adequate hammerhead moved from the present end of the road to the ultimate end of the proposed road extension.
b) ~~~~~ added language to 5-C) Subsequent to the Planning Board’s inspection, the applicant submitted a revised plan showing changes to the proposed extension to make the traveled way conform in width and substance to the existing~ Deer Hill Road
c) ~~~~~ replaced language in 6) with “The topography and existing conditions appear not to require additional drainage”
d) ~~~~ added a Finding, which read “Counsel for the applicant submitted testimony as to the applicant’s right to utilize Deer Hill Road for this additional use”, and
e) ~~~~~ changed 13) to read “The Board finds that the applicant’s proposal does not have an adverse impact to the traffic flow into the existing subdivision, given that the development is limited to one (1) additional building lot”.
~
There being no further recommendations, Mr. Peak entertained a motion to approve the subdivision plan for Walter F. Sheble Trust as shown on the original and amended documents represented to the Planning Board.~~ Mr. Stephenson so moved. Mr. Seidman seconded the motion. And the motion carried. 3/0/0
~
Mr. Peak thought all of the votes taken on the proposal should be listed within the section entitled DECISIONS, including those pertaining to the application’s qualification as a Small Project. In fact he recommended making it the first entry under DECISIONS.~~The entry was to be followed by the Board’s vote to approve the application, and all of the waivers the Board granted the applicant.~
~
There being no further comment, the Board considered conditions and restrictions. The entries listed on the draft document were recommendations for the Board’s consideration, which were revised to read as follows:
1. This decision requires full compliance with all details shown on original and revised plans submitted, and will local and state regulatory and administrative requirements.
2. The approval of the road is for this lot shown on this plan only; any additional subdivision of land on the road may require an upgrade of the road, and a separate endorsement from the Planning Board.
The applicant will submit a Form F Covenant at the expiration of the 20-day appeal period.
3. Upon conveyance of either lot, the deeds will include the same language regarding the responsibility for the road as is presently in the deeds of the existing subdivision.
4. Mr. Provost, the applicant’s agent will submit written verification certifying that the construction of the road was performed and completed according to the specifications in the hand sketched plan of the road, entitled Proposed Road Improvements, dated 12/02/09, scaled at 1”=30’.
And this being acceptable to the Board, Mr. Peak entertained a motion to continue the deliberations on December 16, 2009 at 7PM in the Town Hall Annex, with the provision that should Counsel advise the Planning Board that the members voting on the application must also be present to approve the final draft of the Decision, the Board will consider holding a special meeting on December 21, 2009 to accommodate Mr. Seidman’s schedule. Mr. Stephenson so moved, and Mr. Seidman seconded the motion, which carried. 3/0/0
The Planning Board resumed their regularly scheduled meeting at 8:30PM.
BOARD DISCUSSION:
1. Town Hall Annex
Mr. Stephenson was surprised to learn about the Board of Selectmen’s plans for the Town Hall Annex personnel’s temporary quarters. He thought it interesting that the Board of Selectmen were making decisions without discussing the matter with the people who were going to be impacted by their decisions.
He questioned whether the town was going to have any latitude in the design of the internal floor plan, because the model Mr. Bugbee emailed the Planning Board appeared somewhat awkward and difficult as a working space.
Board members acknowledged Mr. Stephenson’s concern, and recommended that he approach Mr. Bugbee, since the Board of Selectmen have assumed total responsibility of the Annex personnel’s relocation. They also suggested that some of the answers Mr. Stephenson sought could be easily found on the manufacturers’ website.
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED:
1. Kopelman and Paige, PC
RE: Memorandum regarding Lapse of Variances and Special Permits
2. Tisbury Conservation Commission
A. Public Hearing Notice – Vineyard Millennium Nominee Trust, AP 15B03
B. Public Hearing Notice – Patty Vanderwalker (Whistle LLC), AP 02H01
3. Tisbury Zoning Board of Appeals
A. Public Hearing Notice – Patty Vanderwalker, AP 02H01
B. Public Hearing Notice – Sean Murphy, AP 11A18
C. Special Permit #1188 – Diane Nordin, AP 57A05
D. Special Permit #1193 – Robert Doran, AP 02H04
E. Special Permit #1194 – Douglas Cramer, AP 59B05
F. Special Permit #1195 – Rosemary Nelson, AP 03B08
G. Special Permit #1196 – David & Sherri Casuea, AP 20A38
H. Special Permit #1197 – Fred & Anne Lucas, AP 23A50
4. Martha’s Vineyard Commission
A. Michael A. Mauro, Transportation Planner ( 24 hour automated traffic recorder counts)
B. 25 November 2009 Extended Schedule
C. 3 December 2009 Meeting Agenda
5. Stephen Forrest – EBI Consulting
RE: Invitation to Comment – AT&T Mobility LLC
6. Thomson Reuters
RE: Quinlan, 25 October 2009
7. American Planning Association
A. Zoning Practice, November 2009
B. Zoning and Planning Law Report, September 2009 (Sample)
8. UMass Extension
RE: InCommon
9. Business Publishers, inc
RE: Land Use Law Report (Sample)
10. Mass. Depart. of Conservation & Recreation’s Historic Landscape Preservation Initiative
RE: Terra Firma (Publication)
CORRESPONDENCE SENT:
1. Hearing Notice – AT&T, AP 10A01 (WCF) – December 16, 2009
2. Board of Selectmen
RE: Appointment to the Wastewater Planning Committee
PRO FORM Meeting opened, conducted and closed in due form at 9:15 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
Co-Chairman
| 
