TOWN OF TISBURY
P.O. BOX 602
TOWN HALL ANNEX
VINEYARD HAVEN, MASSACHUSETTS 02568
DATE: March 3, 2010
TIME: 7:00 P.M.
PLACE: Town Hall Annex
ATTENDANCE: Aldrin, Peak, Seidman, Stephenson
BILLS: Patricia Harris...................................$879.60
MEETING MINUTES: As referred in the 24 February, 2010 Meeting Agenda
24 February 2010 Deferred
7:00 PM House Business
Owen Little Way
Mr. Stephenson was concerned that the improvements were not being actively pursued. He thought they should have a plan in place to encase the cemented portion of the outfall pipe, and questioned whether he should approach Mr. LaPiana on the subject.
Mrs. Loberg thought he should visit Mr. LaPiana to establish what they needed to be done to make it safer for the swimmers. She recommended asking if they could clad the cemented portion of the outfall pipe with another material or simply cover it with a platform, as a starter.
Mr. Stephenson agreed and volunteered to meet with Mr. LaPiana to discuss this matter.
Union Street Circulation
Mr. Stephenson and Mr. Duart met with Mr. LaPiana on Tuesday morning at 9AM to walk the new circulation route to determine if there were any flaws in the plan. He noted that Mr. LaPiana was skeptical that vehicles could make the turn adequately from Union Street to Main Street, and Church Street. It appeared that he was concerned that the inexperienced driver was not going to be able to clear the turn. During these discussions, Mr. Duart and Mr. LaPiana agreed to do a quick test drive of the route in the middle of the week at the crack of dawn to determine whether the turn at the intersection of Union and Main Streets presented a problem.
Mr. Seidman did not think Norton Road was wide enough to accommodate the buses. Mrs. Loberg inquired if they planned to have the test run with a fire truck. Mr. Stephenson indicated that they had not discussed it, but that the information would be invaluable. It was suggested that he should approach the Fire Chief, Mr. Schilling.
Chief Schilling advised the Board that the fire engine would not have a problem clearing the turn, because they had to test drive their equipment on these roads before purchasing the vehicles. He did however suggest having parallel parking in front of Rainy Day
7:10 PM Ann Marie Cywinski and John Schilling, E911 Committee Members
Mr. Schilling noted that the E911 Committee was responsible for addressing issues arising from the numbering of buildings. He explained that it was becoming an issue when it involved multiple units or buildings on commercial properties, such as Woodland Center.
The purpose for tonight’s meeting was to ask the Planning Board for assistance, so that the E911 Committee could have a guide for use in similar situations.
Mr. Schilling explained that it was becoming difficult to identify the various buildings with street addresses for E911 purposes, when the properties were being assigned only one street address, or when some properties, especially in the BI District did not have frontage on a road. Woodland Center for example was converted into a condominium, so that the 22 individually owned units (within 7 buildings) have been assigned three addresses i.e 455, 459 and 461 State Road.
Mr. Stephenson inquired if the condominium had a numbering system. Mr. Schilling noted that the state had system in place for buildings with multiple units. Board members and Mrs. Cywinksi focused on AP 39B2.14 and the abutting properties, which were not part of the condominium but accessed their properties from State Road though Woodland Center’s property. The lots in question were essentially landlocked and without any access other than through 455 State Road.
Mr. Schilling noted that this became an issue when Mr. Seidman approached him to explain his situation. Mr. Seidman explained that the address for his business became an issue with the Condominium Association when they refused to identify 459 State Road even though he is part of the business complex.
Mr. Peak inquired about Tisbury Market Place’s numbering system, and learned that all of the units had the address of 79 Beach Road followed by their corresponding Unit Number. Mr. Schilling noted that the buildings were assigned letters; similar to Hillside Village, but that they ran counterclockwise. He described it as confusing, because access to the business center ran clockwise, starting at the Net Result.
Mr. Stephenson questioned whether they could resolve the problem by adding an identifier such as Woodland Way or Woodland Road, and assigning addresses according to the current system.
Mr. Peak noted that NStar does not allow roads on their easements, unless the road predated the easement.
Mr. Stephenson suggested the use a designation such as Woodland Plaza or Woodland Place for street addresses, understanding that the designation simply identified a circulation route within the complex that was not a roadway.
A question with regards to using the 100 ft easement as a road, and identifying it as such was addressed by Mr. Peak, who thought they had to research it first to make sure that they were not setting a precedent, or not violating state statute. He wanted to make sure it was legitimate. As other examples surfaces, i.e. Hillside Village, etc., Mr. Peak thought they had to find an arrangement that was suitable to address every similar situation. Board members agreed, and Mrs. Cywinski offered to research all of the properties that presented a similar situation comparable to Woodland Center for the Planning Board.
At the conclusion of the discussions, Mr. Seidman asked the Board if they would provide him with a letter to the Woodland Center Condominium Trustees asking them to identify 459 State Road, according to the town bylaws. Mr. Peak requested information about the recipient, and the content of the letter.
1. Douglas R Hoehn, SB&H Inc
R: Kaplan, AP 2F2.7, Cayuga Street (Form A) relative to trees
Mr. Peak asked Ann Marie Cywinski if she would provide the Planning Board with information about AP 2F2.6, because it was not part of the material she sent the Board. Mrs. Cywinski was happy to oblige the Planning Board Chairman.
2. Union Street Project
RE: Follow Up Discussions
3. 10 State Road
Mr. Peak noted that the applicant was proposing several structures, and was surprised to see that it included a proposal for a single story, two bedroom cottage. He did not think the zoning bylaw allowed the use.
1. MV Commission
A. 26 February 2010 Extended Schedule
B. 4 March 2010 Meeting Agenda
PRO FORM Meeting opened, conducted and closed in due form at 9 PM P.M. (m/s/c 4/0/0)
Patricia V. Harris, Secretary
APPROVAL: Approved and accepted as official minutes;
Date L. Anthony Peak