PLANNING BOARD
TOWN OF TISBURY
P.O. BOX 602
TOWN HALL ANNEX
VINEYARD HAVEN, MASSACHUSETTS 02568
(508) 696-4270
MEETING MINUTES
DATE: January 5, 2010
TIME: 7:07 P.M.
PLACE: Tisbury Senior Center, 34 Pine Tree Road
ATTENDANCE: Aldrin, Duart, Peak, Seidman, and Stephenson
BILLS: Patricia Harris...................................$879.60
Advanced Printing…………………$ 42.50
MEETING MINUTES: As referred in the December 16, 2009 Meeting Agenda
APPOINTMENTS:
7:15 PM Public Hearing (Cont.) – Special Permit Application: AT&T Mobility Corporation, AP 10A01
Attendance: Refer to signature sheet
The continuation of the hearing was duly opened at 7:15PM. Planning Board Co-Chairman, Mr. Peak read the public hearing notice into the minutes, and asked the board members to introduce themselves before opening the floor to the applicant’s agent, Mr. Edward Pare for the presentation.
Mr. Pare, an attorney at Brown Rudnick represented AT&T and New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC. He explained AT&T Mobility was licensed provider of wireless telecommunication services nationwide, including Vineyard Haven and West Tisbury.
He noted that his client currently had four (4) antennas on a lattice style tower at a lower elevation. The antennas were just below the two (2) whipping antennas Mr. Packer, the property owner was using for his business. The proposal was to remove the four (4) whipping antennas at the lower elevation, and to replace them with panel antennas (typical installation for wireless data) to provide the coverage to the area.
The applicant, AT&T located three sectors on the plans, in which two were to serve as reference points to facilitate the review process. Mr. Pare mentioned that the applicant is proposing to install four (4) antennas in the southwestern corner of the building,. They were going to be stacked, and installed at certain degrees (Sector A = 90, Sector B = 210, and Sector C = 330) to provide the full coverage.
AT&T was also proposing to install two additional antennas in the northwestern section (Sector C) of the building to provide a full 360-degree coverage of the area. He noted that the heights of the antennas were going to be five (5) ft. tall.
To minimize the visual impact of the antennas, they were proposing to cover them with fiberglass sheathing to disguise them as flues. Mr. Pare provided the Board photo simulations of the flues (12’ X 2’) on the roof, in black and white from different vantage points as part of the view shed analysis to demonstrate that the flues served their purpose to completely cover and screen off the panel antennas. None of the brackets or piping required in the installation of the antennas were observed because they were being hidden from view by the 2 ft parapet wall on the roof of the building.
Board members were given the opportunity to review all of the photo simulations illustrating the building in its current condition, with black and white flues, and with the panel antennas.
Mr. Seidman inquired if there was any way Mr. Packer’s communication system could be provided from AT&Ts equipment. Mr. Pare replied in the negative explaining that they worked on different frequencies. Mr. Peak asked Mr. Packer it the communications was limited to ship from shore. Mr. Packer replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Pare advised the board that the notice also mentioned the installation of a GPS antenna on the edge of the building. The GPS provides information on the timing and location of the site. As part of the installation, they also needed regular electricity and telephone service. They also needed an equipment room, which was going to be constructed inside the building, as reflected in sheet Z-3.
AT&T also provided an Isometric view of the antennas illustrating how the antennas were going to be mounted on the roof. All of the connections and cables were hidden from public view by the 2 ft parapet wall on the roof.
Mr. Pare informed the Board that he met with the Martha’s Vineyard Commission’s Land Use Planning Committee on December 14, 2009, and was advised that the proposal did not satisfy the requirements of the definition of the DRI.
Mr. Pare noted that he had initially applied for zoning relief from setback requirements from a tower or mast to the nearest lot line. After discussing the specifics of the proposal with the Building Inspector and the Zoning Board of Appeals, they agreed that the setback requirement did not apply in this instance because the applicant was not erecting a tower or mast. The fiberglass canisters in no way added to the structural integrity of the antennas, and were going to be secured to the roof and parapet wall.
Mr. Peak agreed with the Building Inspector that the setback requirement was not intended for the type of installation AT&T was proposing. Mr. Peak inquired if the faux flues were going to be securely constructed so that they could withstand gales forces. Mr. Packer replied in the affirmative, and explained that the roof was constructed of steel and concrete, so that the flues would be attached quite securely.
Irma Guira, Brown Rudnick’s technical expert was asked to illustrate AT&Ts existing and proposed coverage. Board members were referred to the applicant’s maps for the comparisons. Mr. Pare continued his presentation, noting that the applicant complied with the FCCs regulations and standards relative emissions.
Mr. Peak inquired about sound, and asked if the cooling units emitted any noise. Mr. Pare replied that the two household air conditioning units and probably emitted the least amount of noise in comparison to the abutting commercial operations on Beach Road.
Mr. Pare indicated that the Site Plan Review Board reviewed the proposal and recommended having the flues painted white.
Mr. Seidman requested a clarification about the additional coverage and was informed that installation was going to add a few areas in town, improve service to the existing areas and cover the harbor.
Mr. Seidman asked how much each of the antennas weighed. Mr. Pare replied that each antenna weighed 16.5 lbs. He was uncertain about the faux flues.
Mr. Peak opened the discussions to the members of the general public, and there being no response directed the floor to the Board members. He then read the once piece of correspondence received with regards to the proposal in its entirety. The letter dated December 30, 20009 was addressed to the Planning Board from the Martha’s Vineyard Commission explaining that the LUPC decided the proposal to install panel antennas on the roof of a building did not trigger DRI Checklist number 3.801.
Again, there being no further comment or question, Mr. Peak entertained a motion to close the public hearing and to enter into deliberations. Mr. Duart so moved. Mr. Aldrin seconded the motion, which motion carried. 5/0/0
The Planning Board immediately entered into the deliberations of the previously closed hearing for AT&Ts application for a special permit at 7:46PM
7:46 PM Deliberations (Cont.) – Special Permit Application: AT&T Mobility Corporation, AP 10A01
Mr. Peak asked the board members if they had any comments or issues with the proposal. Mr. Stephenson replied that he did not, except that he understood there appeared to be a preference for white flues. Messrs. Duart and Aldrin concurred.
Mr. Peak believed the color of the flues did not have to be incorporated into the decision as a condition.
Mr. Seidman inquired about the purpose for the GPS antenna. Ms. Guira replied that it was used to locate the caller for emergencies.
Mr. Peak advised Mr. Pare that there were three (3) items he wanted to bring to his attention. He noted that any addition or alteration to the proposal would require an amendment to the special permit. All permits issued under this bylaw expired within ten (10) years, and all severely damaged or abandoned facilities had to be disassembled. Mr. Pare indicated that he was aware of the use regulations in section 07.16 of the bylaw.
There being no further comment, Mr. Peak entertained a motion to approve the application as presented. Mr. Duart so moved. Mr. Aldrin seconded the motion, which motion carried. 5/0/0 The motion was taken at 7:52 PM.
Mr. Peak entertained a second motion to close the deliberations. Mr. Duart so moved. Mr. Aldrin seconded the motion. And the motion carried. 5/0/0 The deliberations were duly closed at 7:58 PM
8:00 PM Public Hearing (Cont): Proposed Amendment of Tisbury Zoning Bylaw s.04.03.13, Accessory Apartment
Attendance: None
The continuation of the public hearing was duly opened at 8:50 PM. Mr. Peak, Planning Board Co-Chairman read the meeting notice into the minutes, noting afterwards, that the Board had discussed the possibility of eliminating the percentage requirement, so that applicants in all residential districts, except the R3A could construct a 600 sq. ft accessory apartment.
~
Mr. Seidman inquired if an applicant with a 1000 sq. ft home could construct a 600 sq. ft. accessory apartment. Mr. Stephenson replied in the affirmative. Mr. Peak noted that the subject referred to the criteria in C, which allowed the applicant to add no more than 20% of the habitable space to the house, and an accessory apartment, which was not limited to the addition.~ Mr. Seidman noted the language limited the size of the addition to the house, and set no limit to the accessory apartment.~ Mr. Peak concurred.
~
Mr. Peak~indicated that he wanted to continue the hearing to discuss some of the issues he had with the proposed amendments. He felt uncomfortable acting on the proposed amendment without having a dialogue with the Zoning Board of Appeals, who was requesting the revisions.~ He~noted that~it was obvious that the board members~voting on the original regulations~spent quite a bit of time on the bylaw to address~several issues.~They wanted to give homeowners the ability to generate~additional revenue to keep their~homes and provide additional living units to address the housing shortage without jeopardizing the residential character of the neighborhood. He read in the minutes that the residency requirement was approved to prevent homeowners from~converting their homes into commercial properties. Mr. Aldrin did not have an
issue allowing homeowners to rent their homes.
Mr. Stephenson did not have an issue allowing homeowners to rent out their homes or their accessory units, as long as they occupied one of the units.~Mr. Seidman noted that there were occasions where homeowners had no choice but to~rent their homes in order to keep them. He knew of situations where couples inherited their~homes from their relatives, but could not afford to live in the buildings because they could not afford the taxes.~
~
Mr. Seidman inquired about the limitation in the size of the accessory structure. Mr. Peak replied that the previous boards adopted the limitation in size to prevent the units from being rented to a large number of individuals, so that it altered the character of the single family residence into a boarding house. They were experiencing problems with summer rentals, where groups of college students rented apartments together and created issues for the neighbors.
~
Mr. Seidman inquired about limiting the number of individuals. Mr. Stephenson noted that it would be difficult to monitor or regulate without having a family clearly defined.
~
Mr. Aldrin felt comfortable having Mr. Peak meet with the Zoning Board of Appeals to discuss the issues they’ve mentioned during the hearing. Other discussions ensued with this regard, and Mr. Peak agreed to meet with the Board of Appeals to discuss the proposed bylaw amendment.
~
There being no further comment, Mr. Peak entertained a motion to continue the public hearing until January 13, 2010 at 7:15 PM in the Town Hall Annex.~ Mr. Duart so moved.~ Mr.~Aldrin seconded the motion, which motion carried.~ 3/0/0~ The Planning Board resumed their regularly session at 9:30PM.~
~~
BOARD DISCUSSION:
1. Town Hall Annex Relocation
Mr. Stephenson offered Mr. Seidman a brief update about the annex personnel's accommodations. He was informed that Mr. Bugbee had put out a bid for two double-wide trailers, which were due by January 15, 2009. The new accommodations gave the annex personnel approximately 500 sq. ft. more space, and ample space for some storage, a small eating area and meetings.
~
Mr. Seidman inquired about the floor plans. Mr. Stephenson did not know the details of the specifications for the bids. Mr. Peak noted that the accommodations were being taken into a different direction. Mr. Duart believed the annex personnel did not have any issues voicing their preferences.~Mr. Seidman believed the annex personnel should ultimately design their~spaces.~~~
2. Owen Little Way
RE: Status
Town Counsel, for reasons unknown to the town administrator has not reviewed Mr. Stephenson's draft Memorandum of Understanding he had prepared back in August 2009.
~
Mr. Stephenson shared his concerns, but felt the Planning Board could force the Selectmen's hand on this project with the submittal of an article. Jean Lewellyn, a member of Tisbury Waterways Inc. (TWI hereinafter) inquired if the memo made it clear that the town was not advocating the sale of the town's beach, just the exchange in use with that of the yacht club. Mr.~Stephenson replied in the affirmative,~adding that the draft article he wrote included language limiting the exchange in use for a trial period of two years, subject to further consideration, etc.
~
Mr. Stephenson was interested in soliciting the Board’s impressions, and read the following draft: To see if the town will agree to exchange the use of the parcel of town owned land at the end of Owen Little Way, which is assessor parcel 05J08.11, a 1.2 acres parcel assessed at $253,000.00 with a parcel owned by the Vineyard Haven Yacht Club, assessor parcel 05H13.3, which is .08 acres and is assessed at $246,000.00.~The exchange will be for a period of two (2) years, after which the parties may either extend or terminate the agreement.
~
The purpose of the exchange is to facilitate the improvement of a public swimming area at the end of Owen Little Way, and the improvement of the quality and cleanliness of water flowing into the harbor at that point. Mrs. Loberg did not think the exchange would improve the quality or cleanliness of the harbor. Mr. Stephenson and Ms. Lewellyn concurred.
~
Mr. Stephenson informed the Board that the Tisbury Waterways Inc. (TWI, hereinafter) was offering to redo the landscaping around the parking area around the other side of the dune with plantings, bio-swales, etc.~ The landscaped buffer between the town's parking area and the yacht club would not only absorb the road run off, and serve as a barrier. Ms. Lewellyn added that they were also interested in studying the actual drainage from the pipe, because of the high bacteria counts. Mrs. Loberg noted that it was possible that TWI may need to mitigate the erosion further upstream from the pipe in addition to fixing~the major puddle in the parking area.~ The bacteria counts had to be kept in check in order to keep the swimming beach open.
~
Mr. Peak inquired why they wanted to study "inside the outfall pipe".~ Mrs. Loberg replied that the storm water run off originated from streets and ways that fed into~the catch basin system that started at Franklin Street. Mr. LaPiana installed the catch basin systems~to divert the storm water runoff from~the land inward of the dune.~ Mr. Peak understood that there were no drawings for the catch basins.~ Mrs. Loberg and Ms. Lewellyn were aware that the catch basins were mapped on a plan.
~
Mr. Stephenson informed the Board that Mrs. Barrow, a member of TWI met with the DPW~Commissioners, who expressed an interest in starting the improvements, once the town voted in favor of the overall plan. Mr. Stephenson thought it was therefore important to submit the article. Mrs. Loberg agreed with Mr. Stephenson, noting that the article had to be submitted by January 13, 2010 to make the deadline for the Special Town Meeting.~Mr. Stephenson volunteered to eliminate the second half of the second paragraph referring to water quality and cleanliness.
~
Mr. Stephenson noted that he had written a second article to repair~the outfall pipe, which was unsightly and somewhat dangerous. He thought if they were going to repair the outfall pipe, they could ask for additional funds to convert it into a pier, or at least so that it could function as one.~ Mr. Stephenson wrote the following article for the board's review: ~To see if the Town will authorize the expenditures of ($XX.XX) for the purpose of repairing the outfall pipe at the end of Owen Little Way, and for leveling and resurfacing the outfall pipe". Mrs. Loberg and Ms. Lewellyn thought the language should eliminate any reference to a pier.~~
~
Board members inquired about the beach nourishment project, and learned from Mrs. Loberg that they've obtained the Conservation~Commission's consent to relocate the sand that had migrated at Owen Park. It was an annual arrangement between the DPW~Director and the Harbormaster, that basically allowed them to move back the sand from Owen Park to its original source i.e. public access points.
~
Mr. Duart asked Mr. Stephenson to amend the article for their review.~ Mrs. Loberg reminded the board members that non-monetary articles were due January 13, 2010. Articles requesting funds were due in the middle of February.
~
Mr. Peak expressed a concern about giving the DPW the authority to initiate the improvements, and preferred wording the articles in such a way that the town would be making that determination.~ Mrs. Loberg noted that the parking area had to be redesigned and leveled.~ Mr. Peak understood, but noted that the county owned the land.~ Mrs. Loberg explained that the county was more than happy to allow the town to make the improvements, and were willing to state this in writing.~ Mr. Peak indicated that he just wanted to make sure that the DPW efforts did not interfere with their long-term plans for Owen Little Way.
~
Mr. Stephenson~wanted to pursue the articles, and asked the Board if they were comfortable submitting with the article as modified: "To see if the Town will authorize the expenditures of ($XX.XX) for the purpose of repairing the outfall pipe at the end of Owen Little Way, and for constructing a leveled platform over the pipe". Mr. Aldrin and Mr. Peak did not have an issue with the revised article.
~
Mr. Stephenson inquired about submitting the first article he recommended with regards to the exchange of the use of the beaches. Mr. Aldrin voiced concern about submitting an article that had not been reviewed by town counsel.~~ Mr. Peak thought it important to impress upon the town administrator the importance in obtaining counsel's legal opinion.
~
Mr. Stephenson indicated that he would bring in the revised articles for the Board's review at their meeting on January 13, 2009.
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED:
1. Paul Foley, DRI Coordinator/Planner
RE: AT&T Packer Tower Cell (Not a DRI)
2. Tisbury Conservation Commission
A. Public Hearing Notice – Martha’s Vineyard Properties, AP 3B13
B. Public Hearing Notice – David Hearn, AP 11A48
3. Tisbury Board of Appeals
A. Public Hearing Notice – Steven Weiss, AP 21B19
B. Public Hearing Notice – Rhonda Backus, AP 24A22
C. Public Hearing Notice – Lindsey Lawrence & Charles Libby, AP 30A05
D. Public Hearing Notice – Town of Tisbury, AP 24A35
4. Powers Electric
RE: AnnMarie Cullen at Ferro Way
5. Kopelman & Paige, PC.
RE: FCC Establishes Time Limits for Wireless Siting Decisions
CORRESPONDENCE SENT:
1. Martha’s Vineyard Commission
A. 7 January 2010 Meeting Notice
B. 31 December 2009 Meeting Schedule
C. Requests participation in Wind Energy Siting Plan for Dukes County
PRO FORM Meeting opened, conducted and closed in due form at 9:31 P.M. (m/s/c 5/0/0)
Respectfully submitted;
____________________________________________
Patricia V. Harris, Secretary
APPROVAL: Approved and accepted as official minutes;
______________ _________________________
Date L. Anthony Peak
Co-Chairman
| 
