PLANNING BOARD
TOWN OF TISBURY
P.O. BOX 602
TOWN HALL ANNEX
VINEYARD HAVEN, MASSACHUSETTS 02568
(508) 696-4270
MEETING MINUTES
DATE: December 9, 2009
TIME: 7:10 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 December 2, 2009 Meeting Agenda
18 November 2009 Deferred
2 December 2009 Deferred
APPOINTMENTS:
7:15 PM Public Hearing: Proposed Amendment of Tisbury Zoning Bylaw s.04.03.13, Accessory Apartment
Attendance: Jeffrey Krystal, Board of Appeals
Hearing commenced in due form at 7:20 PM. Mr. Peak, Planning Board Co-Chairman read the public hearing notice into the minutes, and dispensed with the introductions, since Mr. Krystal, a town official and the Board members were the only individuals present for the discussions.
Mr. Peak deferred to Mr. Krystal, and asked for the purpose of the bylaw amendment. Mr. Krystal replied that the Board of Appeals administrative staff noticed that the 20% allowance did not allow reasonably sized accessory units within the smaller homes in the R10 Zoning District. Mrs. Barbera therefore recommended increasing the allowance to 40%.
Board members inquired about the origins of the 20% allowance. Mr. Peak referred the Board to section 02.01 (Accessory Use), section 02.02 (Accessory Use to a water use), and section 02.03 (Apartment) to explain that an accessory use could not exceed more than 30% of the floor area or 50% of the lot area, otherwise it would no longer be considered accessory. Apartments were required to have at least one (1) private entrance, and can not be leased for periods of less than six (6) months.
Mr. Stephenson recommended eliminating the percentage from the allowance altogether and just restricting the accessory unit to 600 sq. ft. Mr. Krystal noted the bylaws had a similar restriction for additions, which were limited to 500 sq. ft. in the shore zone.
Mr. Peak recommended going through the modifications that were being proposed and noted that 04.03:13(c) was deleted because it duplicated the restriction listed in 04.03:13(b). Mr. Krystal thought they might revise 04.03.13(c) to include "excluding the R3A District", even though it may be repetitive. Mr. Duart and Mr. Peak agreed and recommended adding "In all residential districts, except the R3A and Coastal District".
04.03.13(d) was being replaced with language in the highlighted section listed as 04.03.13 (c) and revised to state “The accessory dwelling unit shall measure no more than forty (40) percent of the existing habitable area not to exceed six-hundred (600) square feet in all districts. ….” Mr. Peak noted that the addition referred to in the existing bylaw referred to the building not just the apartment.
Board members discussed possible scenarios, including the fact that an applicant can enlarge their single family dwelling as much as possible within the dimensional requirements of the district, and still only have a 600 sq. ft. accessory apartment. Mr. Krystal inquired if they should add language stating that the building and apartment were still required to meet all applicable zoning regulations, the building code, etc. The Board did not think it was necessary.
Mr. Krystal inquired if they should define “a resident of the town” in section 04.03.13(e) to avoid any confusion. Mr. Stephenson inquired if the section was necessary if applicants had to reside in the accessory unit or principal residence in section 04.03.13(d). Mr. Peak shared the same impression. It was also noted that one of the principle objectives for the regulation was prevent anyone from converting the residential units into rental properties by allowing absentee landlords.
Mr. Duart noted that on reading snippets of the Planning Board’s 1992 minutes reflecting the discussions of the regulation when the Board of Selectmen was proposing its adoption, there were issues they were attempting to address that needed to be considered. He suggested postponing the discussions until they had any opportunity to reads the minutes of 11 March 1992, 18 Mar 1992, 25 March 1992, and 20 March 1992 before they considered any amendments.
Mr. Stephenson questioned whether the language in section 04.03.13(e) was really necessary. Mr. Peak believed the original intent for the section was to prevent applicants from converting their homes into rental properties. It was the explanation given the townspeople at the time they were being asked to adopt section 04.03.08 (guesthouses).
Mr. Krystal reiterated his question regards to defining a town resident to prevent potential abuses.
Mr. Aldrin inquired if they want to revise the language to say year round resident.
Mr. Peak recommended modifying the language to make the intent clearer, "At no time shall either dwelling unit (vs the property) shall be made a condo… ownership.
~
Mr. Peak noted that he understood the Board of Appeals' issue with backing out into the street, but mentioned that everyone in residential districts backed out of their properties. It seemed like a large burden.
~
Mr. Krystal acknowledged Mr. Peak's comment, and knew this to be true, but he wanted to curb this on major streets like Main Street.~ Although the Planning Board did not think it was necessary, they've also noted that often time’s front lawns get destroyed to accommodate what looks like a parking lot. Mr. Krystal disagreed, and noted that they also required a landscape design. Mr. Stephenson questioned whether they could limit the percentage of land that can be used for parking and/or consider allowing only one curb cut per lot.
~
There being no further discussion, Mr. Peak recommended continuing the public hearing until December 16, 2009 at 8PM at the Town Hall Annex to give the board members the opportunity to read their minutes.
The Planning Board resumed their regularly scheduled meeting at 8:45 PM to conclude their house business.
~
BOARD DISCUSSION:
1. Town Hall Annex
Mr. Stephenson reported that the Emergency Services Committee scheduled a meeting on December 15, 2009 at 5PM to engage everyone involved in relocating the Town Hall Annex personnel in a work session to make sure any and all potential issues were addressed.
~
He understood that they were on a tight schedule, because the bids for the trailers had to go out within the next couple of weeks, if the Town Hall Annex personnel were to have their accommodations by February. According to the contract, the fire station's construction was going to start on February 1, 2010. It was one of the issues he wanted to discuss at the meeting.
~
The second issue he wanted to bring to the Board's attention was that the company Mr. Bugbee has contacted for the trailers (one double wide and storage container) did not offer a flexible layout they needed to provide the space the offices needed. He brought this to Mr. Bugbee's attention and offered some assistance. Mr. Bugbee was concerned that if they limited their options, they would not get any bids.
~
Since his appointment with the Town Administrator, Mr. Stephenson researched other companies on the Internet and found "Modulease". He mentioned that the company offered flexible floor plans, and hoped that he would be able to discuss the specifications for the trailers at the meeting to jumpstart the process.
Mr. Stephenson thought the town could locate the site for the trailers, spec out the site preparations and line up the contractors to get the site ready for the Town Hall Annex' temporary quarters by February 1, 2009.
~
Mr. Stephenson also reported speaking with the Emergency Services Committee about meeting with Thomas Pachico, Ken Barwick and the rest of the Town Hall Annex personnel to solicit information about their actual space needs. Without that information he did not see how Mr. Bugbee could possibly design a floor plan that would work for the five departments.
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED:
1. Tisbury Conservation Commission
A. Public Hearing Notice – Alan Emmet, AP 60A02
B. Public Hearing Notice – Lindsey Lawrence, AP 30A4.2
2. Martha’s Vineyard Commission
A. 4 December 2009 Extended Schedule (12/14/09 Concurrence Review – AT&T, VH)
B. 10 December 2009 Meeting Agenda
C. Chilmark’s Island Wind District’s DCPC
D. FY 2010-2013 TIP and FY 2010 Unified Planning Work Program
3. Exec. Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
RE: FY 2011 Funding – Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program Request for responses
4. Thomson Reuters
RE: Zoning Bulletin, 10 November 2009
5. Massachusetts Municipal Association
RE: TheBeacon, December 2009
6. American Planning Association
RE: December 2009
CORRESPONDENCE SENT:
1. Martha’s Vineyard Commission
RE: AT&T – Request for clarification about s. 3.801 (WCF)
PRO FORM Meeting opened, conducted and closed in due form at 9:00 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
| 
