PLANNING BOARD
TOWN OF TISBURY
P.O. BOX 602
TOWN HALL ANNEX
VINEYARD HAVEN, MASSACHUSETTS 02568
(508) 696-4270
MEETING MINUTES
DATE: February 24, 2010
TIME: 7:05 P.M.
PLACE: Town Hall Annex
ATTENDANCE: Aldrin, Seidman, and Stephenson
BILLS: Patricia Harris...................................$879.60
Chris Fried…………………………$ 15.00
Verizon…………………………….$ 37.31
MEETING MINUTES: As referred in the February 17, 2010 Meeting Agenda
PLANNING BOARD
TOWN OF TISBURY
P.O. BOX 602
TOWN HALL ANNEX
VINEYARD HAVEN, MASSACHUSETTS 02568
(508) 696-4270
MEETING MINUTES
DATE: February 24, 2010
TIME: 7:05 P.M.
PLACE: Town Hall Annex
ATTENDANCE: Aldrin, Seidman, and Stephenson
BILLS: Patricia Harris...................................$879.60
Chris Fried…………………………$ 15.00
Verizon…………………………….$ 37.31
MEETING MINUTES: As referred in the February 17, 2010 Meeting Agenda
17 February 2010 m/s/c 3/0/0
BOARD DISCUSSION:
1. Regina Stanley, Tr. – Artcliff Diner
RE: Expansion of hours (til 2AM, 7 days/week for summer)
The Board Secretary reported that the Officer In Charge had advised her that the Police Department never received a complaint regarding the mobile food service establishment.
Board members indicated that they did not have an issue extending the establishment’s hours later into the evening, provided that the food service operations did not create a disturbance within the area.
Mr. Aldrin noted that they should keep in mind that if the town voted to grant beer and wine licenses in Vineyard Haven, the Board should periodically check with the Police to inquire if they’ve received any complaints from Ms. Stanley’s operations. The recommendation was so noted.
2. Douglas R Hoehn, SB&H Inc
A. Kaplan, AP 2F2.7, Cayuga Street (Form A) relative to trees
The Board Secretary reported that she had secured the information Mr. Peak requested relative to the ownership of lots 2F2.3, 2F2.6 and 2F2.9. The Board of Assessors confirmed that they are owned by one individual (Bodman), and currently assessed as one lot.
Mr. Stephenson recommended postponing the discussions until next week, when Mr. Peak was expected to join the Board. The Board members agreed.
3. Union Street Circulation
Board members were informed that Henry Stephenson, Peter Duart and Fred LaPiana were meeting next Tuesday morning to walk the new circulation route to determine if there were any fatal flaws with the plan. Pending the Police Chief’s schedule, Mr. Stephenson was going to ask Chief Donovan to join them, or schedule a separate appointment with him, if necessary.
Mr. Stephenson noted that he had left a message with Angie Grant, at the MV Regional Transit Authority to inform her of their project, and to solicit her assistance with the buses. He wanted to do a trial run with the buses to see if they could negotiate the corners or move (or eliminate) parking spaces. Mr. Aldrin inquired if they couldn’t use the route to take passengers to the Park-N-Ride. Mr. Stephenson indicated that he would like see the route become a permanent arrangement, because it passed approximately 200 parking spaces (i.e. parking spaces that are available at the tennis courts, the Catholic Church, the Tisbury School, the Hebrew Center and the Senior Center) on route.
Mr. Stephenson submitted two hand sketched diagrams illustrating the bus route going up Union Street, onto Main Street to get to Church Street, and returning from Spring Street down to get to Norton Lane and the Steamship Authority on Water Street.
Mr. Seidman inquired if Norton Lane was considered a road, and whether it was wide enough to accommodate the bus. Mr. Aldrin noted that Norton Lane currently accommodated much more traffic than Union Street.
Mr. Stephenson wanted to test the route to make sure it was functional. Once that was determined, he wanted to hold a public meeting immediately after. It was his hope, that the Board would be in a position to select the date for the hearing at their meeting on March 3, 2010.
Mr. Aldrin inquired if they planned to allow the school buses on the route. Mr. Stephenson replied that it would depend on the size of the bus. He also noted that he did not want to see the residential streets within the bus route become major thoroughfares. That was not the intent for the exercise.
Mr. Stephenson surmised that they will have a good idea by Memorial Day to determine if the route is a success.
4. Fire Station, 21 Beach Street, AP 09A11
Board members informed Mr. Stephenson of their discussions last week. Mr. Aldrin thought they had sufficient information available for the analysis that was requested of them by the Board of Selectmen.
Mr. Stephenson agreed, but was still interested in getting a survey of the park to see if there might be land available for some parking and/or a service road. He also thought that it was important to find out what the town hall’s space needs really are. The municipal needs assessment basically gave them a rough idea.
Mr. Seidman inquired if West Tisbury’s Town Hall housed all of the departments within the recently renovated building. If not, then they might want to find a town in the cape of similar size to see what their town hall consisted of.
Mrs. Loberg inquired where the Annex personnel currently stored their records, and mentioned that long term storage had to be part of the equation. Mr. Stephenson replied that they were in the garage next door or in the basement of the Senior Center. She recommended digitizing the data to minimize the need for record storage.
Mr. Aldrin thought they really needed an engineer to study the site’s condition to determine if it could support a more intensive municipal use. Mr. Stephenson agreed.
5. Connector Road
RE: DPW’s presentation on February 22, 2010
Mr. Stephenson and Mr. Peak attended the presentation on the Board’s behalf. Mr. Stephenson reported that the engineer and designer had apparently completed the design for the major parts of the road. He was very disappointed to see that they did not include the third branch of the entire plan (Evelyn Way) to illustrate the road system in its entirety.
It also concerned him that the engineers during the presentation did not fully account for the bike paths. The path that ran down Sanborn Way to Sailors Burying Ground Road was omitted from the plan, and simply referenced during the presentation. He understands that at present there was no funding for the amenity. This did not however exclude the possibility that there were other funding sources available other than PWED (Public Works and Economic Development Program).
Mr. Stephenson explained that the PWED was funding 90% of the project to the town’s 10% investment, and allowed them a great deal of flexibility in the road’s design. Mr. Stephenson indicated that he had written a sample letter of support on the board’s behalf to the state, which will be incorporated into the town’s application for the funds. Board members were asked to review the same for any comments and/or recommendations. He explained that the letter could also be modified and addressed to Mr. LaPiana and the engineers to express their support.
6. Owen Little Way
Mrs. Loberg informed the Board that the Tisbury Waterways Inc. was considering the possibility of applying for a grant to address the water quality issue within the area the town normally graded for parking.
She mentioned that she scheduled an appointment with the Dukes County Commissioners to confirm that they were still comfortable allowing the town to manage the one parcel of land. The Commissioners indicated that they were taking a much more active interest in the town’s overall plans for Owen Little Way before they endorsed any improvements. They explained that they had to protect the subsurface infrastructure, because they were ultimately responsible for the use and maintenance of county owned lands.
The Commissioners assigned Russell Smith the task of meeting with Fred LaPiana to inquire about the town’s overall plans for the beach access and the improvements they were pursuing for a full report.
Mrs. Lohberg also reported that the Finance & Advisory Committee voted to support the beach swap, but have yet to take a formal vote on the construction of the pier over the outflow pipe, because they did not feel they had sufficient information. She further noted that the Committee, during their discussions expressed some concern about the permitting process which could be lengthy, difficult and expensive.
Mr. Stephenson had discussed this with Mr. LaPiana, and learned that they could use a floating pier, which did not need any permits, and lay down a new surface over the pipe. She explained that they did not have an issue with the portion of the proposal that recommended encasing the pipe, it was the 2nd phase which would require pilings, and permits.
Mr. Aldrin did not see any reason why they could not pursue the first phase of the project and postpone the latter half until next year. Mr. Stephenson agreed. Mrs. Loberg did not see why they could add a few steps leading to the water.
7. Drawbridge Committee Meeting
Mrs. Loberg noted that they were soliciting comments from the general public about the design features of the bridge, the landscape design, etc. In general the committee agreed with Mr. Stephenson’s recommendation to have the walk continue under the bridge, to revise the tender house’s architectural style so that it had a gable roof, prevalent throughout the island, and solar cells for the lighting to make it fuel efficient.
One item that came to their attention after they started writing their recommendations was that the bridge tender house appeared to be 20’X20’. They thought that was excessive, and asked if it could be reduced in size.
Mrs. Loberg informed the Board that the State is required to hold a hearing to present the 25% design to solicit public comment. It is planned to be held on April 8, 2010 at 5PM in the KCT.
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED:
1.Kenneth A. Barwick, Building Inspector
RE: Meaning of a “Permit” within the coastal and island road districts regulations
2. Zoning Board of Appeals
A. Public Hearing Notice – Darielle & Earl Linehan, AP 02G01
B. Public Hearing Notice –West Chop Trust, AP 01H02
C. Decision #2000 – Sean Murphy, AP 11A18
D. Decision #2002 – Rhonda Backus, AP 24A22.3
E. Decision #2003 – Town of Tisbury, AP 24A35
F. Decision #2004 - Lindsey Lawrence & Charles Libby, AP 30A05
G. Decision #2005 – Steven Weiss, AP 21B19
3. University of Massachusetts
RE” CPTC’s Ninth Annual Conference
Mr. Seidman expressed an interest in attending the conference and selected the workshops. The Board Secretary was to register Mr. Seidman and secure his travel voucher and the use of the town car.
4. Massachusetts Municipal Association
RE: TheBeacon, February 2010
5. American Planning Association
A. The Commissioner, Winter 2010
B. Planning, February 2010 Issue
6. Thomson Reuters
A. Zoning Bulletin, 10 January 2010
B. Zoning Bulletin, 25 January 2010
C. January – December 2009 Annual Index
.
PRO FORM Meeting opened, conducted and closed in due form at 8:30 P.M. (m/s/c 3/0/0)
Respectfully submitted;
____________________________________________
Patricia V. Harris, Secretary
APPROVAL: Approved and accepted as official minutes;
______________ _________________________
Date Henry Stephenson
Co-Chairman
17 February 2010 m/s/c 3/0/0
BOARD DISCUSSION:
1. Regina Stanley, Tr. – Artcliff Diner
RE: Expansion of hours (til 2AM, 7 days/week for summer)
The Board Secretary reported that the Officer In Charge had advised her that the Police Department never received a complaint regarding the mobile food service establishment.
Board members indicated that they did not have an issue extending the establishment’s hours later into the evening, provided that the food service operations did not create a disturbance within the area.
Mr. Aldrin noted that they should keep in mind that if the town voted to grant beer and wine licenses in Vineyard Haven, the Board should periodically check with the Police to inquire if they’ve received any complaints from Ms. Stanley’s operations. The recommendation was so noted.
2. Douglas R Hoehn, SB&H Inc
A. Kaplan, AP 2F2.7, Cayuga Street (Form A) relative to trees
The Board Secretary reported that she had secured the information Mr. Peak requested relative to the ownership of lots 2F2.3, 2F2.6 and 2F2.9. The Board of Assessors confirmed that they are owned by one individual (Bodman), and currently assessed as one lot.
Mr. Stephenson recommended postponing the discussions until next week, when Mr. Peak was expected to join the Board. The Board members agreed.
3. Union Street Circulation
Board members were informed that Henry Stephenson, Peter Duart and Fred LaPiana were meeting next Tuesday morning to walk the new circulation route to determine if there were any fatal flaws with the plan. Pending the Police Chief’s schedule, Mr. Stephenson was going to ask Chief Donovan to join them, or schedule a separate appointment with him, if necessary.
Mr. Stephenson noted that he had left a message with Angie Grant, at the MV Regional Transit Authority to inform her of their project, and to solicit her assistance with the buses. He wanted to do a trial run with the buses to see if they could negotiate the corners or move (or eliminate) parking spaces. Mr. Aldrin inquired if they couldn’t use the route to take passengers to the Park-N-Ride. Mr. Stephenson indicated that he would like see the route become a permanent arrangement, because it passed approximately 200 parking spaces (i.e. parking spaces that are available at the tennis courts, the Catholic Church, the Tisbury School, the Hebrew Center and the Senior Center) on route.
Mr. Stephenson submitted two hand sketched diagrams illustrating the bus route going up Union Street, onto Main Street to get to Church Street, and returning from Spring Street down to get to Norton Lane and the Steamship Authority on Water Street.
Mr. Seidman inquired if Norton Lane was considered a road, and whether it was wide enough to accommodate the bus. Mr. Aldrin noted that Norton Lane currently accommodated much more traffic than Union Street.
Mr. Stephenson wanted to test the route to make sure it was functional. Once that was determined, he wanted to hold a public meeting immediately after. It was his hope, that the Board would be in a position to select the date for the hearing at their meeting on March 3, 2010.
Mr. Aldrin inquired if they planned to allow the school buses on the route. Mr. Stephenson replied that it would depend on the size of the bus. He also noted that he did not want to see the residential streets within the bus route become major thoroughfares. That was not the intent for the exercise.
Mr. Stephenson surmised that they will have a good idea by Memorial Day to determine if the route is a success.
4. Fire Station, 21 Beach Street, AP 09A11
Board members informed Mr. Stephenson of their discussions last week. Mr. Aldrin thought they had sufficient information available for the analysis that was requested of them by the Board of Selectmen.
Mr. Stephenson agreed, but was still interested in getting a survey of the park to see if there might be land available for some parking and/or a service road. He also thought that it was important to find out what the town hall’s space needs really are. The municipal needs assessment basically gave them a rough idea.
Mr. Seidman inquired if West Tisbury’s Town Hall housed all of the departments within the recently renovated building. If not, then they might want to find a town in the cape of similar size to see what their town hall consisted of.
Mrs. Loberg inquired where the Annex personnel currently stored their records, and mentioned that long term storage had to be part of the equation. Mr. Stephenson replied that they were in the garage next door or in the basement of the Senior Center. She recommended digitizing the data to minimize the need for record storage.
Mr. Aldrin thought they really needed an engineer to study the site’s condition to determine if it could support a more intensive municipal use. Mr. Stephenson agreed.
5. Connector Road
RE: DPW’s presentation on February 22, 2010
Mr. Stephenson and Mr. Peak attended the presentation on the Board’s behalf. Mr. Stephenson reported that the engineer and designer had apparently completed the design for the major parts of the road. He was very disappointed to see that they did not include the third branch of the entire plan (Evelyn Way) to illustrate the road system in its entirety.
It also concerned him that the engineers during the presentation did not fully account for the bike paths. The path that ran down Sanborn Way to Sailors Burying Ground Road was omitted from the plan, and simply referenced during the presentation. He understands that at present there was no funding for the amenity. This did not however exclude the possibility that there were other funding sources available other than PWED (Public Works and Economic Development Program).
Mr. Stephenson explained that the PWED was funding 90% of the project to the town’s 10% investment, and allowed them a great deal of flexibility in the road’s design. Mr. Stephenson indicated that he had written a sample letter of support on the board’s behalf to the state, which will be incorporated into the town’s application for the funds. Board members were asked to review the same for any comments and/or recommendations. He explained that the letter could also be modified and addressed to Mr. LaPiana and the engineers to express their support.
6. Owen Little Way
Mrs. Loberg informed the Board that the Tisbury Waterways Inc. was considering the possibility of applying for a grant to address the water quality issue within the area the town normally graded for parking.
She mentioned that she scheduled an appointment with the Dukes County Commissioners to confirm that they were still comfortable allowing the town to manage the one parcel of land. The Commissioners indicated that they were taking a much more active interest in the town’s overall plans for Owen Little Way before they endorsed any improvements. They explained that they had to protect the subsurface infrastructure, because they were ultimately responsible for the use and maintenance of county owned lands.
The Commissioners assigned Russell Smith the task of meeting with Fred LaPiana to inquire about the town’s overall plans for the beach access and the improvements they were pursuing for a full report.
Mrs. Lohberg also reported that the Finance & Advisory Committee voted to support the beach swap, but have yet to take a formal vote on the construction of the pier over the outflow pipe, because they did not feel they had sufficient information. She further noted that the Committee, during their discussions expressed some concern about the permitting process which could be lengthy, difficult and expensive.
Mr. Stephenson had discussed this with Mr. LaPiana, and learned that they could use a floating pier, which did not need any permits, and lay down a new surface over the pipe. She explained that they did not have an issue with the portion of the proposal that recommended encasing the pipe, it was the 2nd phase which would require pilings, and permits.
Mr. Aldrin did not see any reason why they could not pursue the first phase of the project and postpone the latter half until next year. Mr. Stephenson agreed. Mrs. Loberg did not see why they could add a few steps leading to the water.
7. Drawbridge Committee Meeting
Mrs. Loberg noted that they were soliciting comments from the general public about the design features of the bridge, the landscape design, etc. In general the committee agreed with Mr. Stephenson’s recommendation to have the walk continue under the bridge, to revise the tender house’s architectural style so that it had a gable roof, prevalent throughout the island, and solar cells for the lighting to make it fuel efficient.
One item that came to their attention after they started writing their recommendations was that the bridge tender house appeared to be 20’X20’. They thought that was excessive, and asked if it could be reduced in size.
Mrs. Loberg informed the Board that the State is required to hold a hearing to present the 25% design to solicit public comment. It is planned to be held on April 8, 2010 at 5PM in the KCT.
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED:
1.Kenneth A. Barwick, Building Inspector
RE: Meaning of a “Permit” within the coastal and island road districts regulations
2. Zoning Board of Appeals
A. Public Hearing Notice – Darielle & Earl Linehan, AP 02G01
B. Public Hearing Notice –West Chop Trust, AP 01H02
C. Decision #2000 – Sean Murphy, AP 11A18
D. Decision #2002 – Rhonda Backus, AP 24A22.3
E. Decision #2003 – Town of Tisbury, AP 24A35
F. Decision #2004 - Lindsey Lawrence & Charles Libby, AP 30A05
G. Decision #2005 – Steven Weiss, AP 21B19
3. University of Massachusetts
RE” CPTC’s Ninth Annual Conference
Mr. Seidman expressed an interest in attending the conference and selected the workshops. The Board Secretary was to register Mr. Seidman and secure his travel voucher and the use of the town car.
4. Massachusetts Municipal Association
RE: TheBeacon, February 2010
5. American Planning Association
A. The Commissioner, Winter 2010
B. Planning, February 2010 Issue
6. Thomson Reuters
A. Zoning Bulletin, 10 January 2010
B. Zoning Bulletin, 25 January 2010
C. January – December 2009 Annual Index
.
PRO FORM Meeting opened, conducted and closed in due form at 8:30 P.M. (m/s/c 3/0/0)
Respectfully submitted;
____________________________________________
Patricia V. Harris, Secretary
APPROVAL: Approved and accepted as official minutes;
______________ _________________________
Date Henry Stephenson
Co-Chairman
| 
