Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Planning Board Minutes 04/28/2010

P.O. BOX 602
(508) 696-4270


DATE:                   April 28, 2010  

TIME:                   7:10 P.M.

PLACE:                  Town Hall Annex II – 66 High Point Lane

ATTENDANCE:             Aldrin, Peak, Seidman and Stephenson
                                Jeffry Thompson (7:45 PM)

BILLS:                  Patricia Harris...................................$879.60
                                Vineyard Electronics……………….$  14.99
                                Verizon……………………………..$  40.27
                                Patricia Harris………………………$  10.00
                                Petty Cash…………………………..$  37.06
                                Realty Publishing ………………......$150.00
                                MV Times…………………………..$  26.75
MEETING MINUTES:        As referred in the 13 April 2010 Meeting Agenda
                        31 March 2010   Deferred

7:15 PM         Leonard Clark Re: Mobile Food Truck at Veteran’s Memorial  Park
                Attendance: Fred LaPiana

Mr. Clark indicated that he was interested in operating a food vending truck at Veteran’s Memorial Park in the parking area behind the baseball diamond.  He approached the Board of Selectmen, the DPW Commissioners and the Board of Health with regards to his proposal, and has obtained the necessary authorizations and endorsements from the boards, except for the Planning Board. He was referred to the Board to solicit their endorsement.

Mr. Clark mentioned that he was referred to the Planning Board by Mr. Barwick because the commercial activity was being proposed on town owned property within a residential district (R10).  Board members were informed that Mr. Clark had spoken with Laura Barbera, the Zoning Board of Appeals to learn that a special permit from the Board was not required because it did not involve a permanent structure.

Mr. Peak thought the use was a reasonable extension of park activities, and asked about the operations. Mr. Clark replied that e the food service operation was seasonal, and would be open seven days a week. The exact hours operation were limited to the park’s hours, which according to Mr. LaPiana were 9AM to 9:30PM. Alcoholic beverages were not being served.

Mr. Peak asked the Board if there were any issues they’d like to raise.  Mr. Seidman inquired about trash management ie trash cans.  Mr. Stephenson attended the Board of Selectmen’s meeting where Mr. Clark’s proposal was discussed, and confirmed that these issues were addressed at the meeting.

Mr. Peak clarified that he was interested in hearing from the Board if there were any zoning issues with the proposal. Mr. Stephenson was not clear how the use was a zoning issue. He assumed it was simply a matter of obtaining a license from the Board of Selectmen.

Mr. Aldrin was concerned about the proliferation of street venders, and asked how they would be able to manage the use. Mr. Peak was of the opinion that the DPW had a policy and regulations addressing this matter. Mr. Clark noted that the Board of Selectmen have limited the number of Hawkers and Peddler’s Licenses they were issuing, of which he has two.

Mr. LaPiana noted that the DPW Commissioners have given Mr. Clark a one year’s grace period. They reserved the right to terminate the agreement, if the food service operation did not work out.

Board members indicated that they did not have an issue with the vending truck and supported the proposal.

Mr. Peak requested time to review the zoning regulations to determine whether the temporary commercial use on town owned property within a residential district was permissible. He wanted to contact other towns to see how they handled similar situations. And since the Board supported the concept, he considered approaching town counsel for language that would help clarify that the town bylaw allows this activity.

Mr. Peak hoped to be able to respond by next week.

7:30 PM Glenn Provost Re:  Walter Shebly, AP

Mr. Provost submitted a copy of the applicant’s Form F Covenant as required by the Planning Board’s decision along with a revised subdivision plan. Board members were advised that he added a reference to the Form F Covenant and obtained the Town Clerk’s signature attesting that the decision was not appealed  

Mr. Seidman noted that the Form F Covenant’s signatures were not notarized, except for one, and questioned whether that was legally correct. Mr. Provost assumed it was, but offered to check before recording the document.

Mr. Peak reviewed the decision to confirm that the road was an extension to Deer Hill, and that it was going to be of the same construction.

7:45 PM Andrea Cranston-Flaherty, 141 Greenwood Ave., AP 26D20

Mrs. Cranston-Flaherty  scheduled her appointment with the Board to solicit their impressions of the subdivision, a land surveyor,  Mr. Douglas  Hoehn had drafted on a Mortgage Inspection Plan for the above referenced parcel of land.

Mrs. Cranston-Flaherty explained that she has lived on the property since 1993, but owned it as of 1995. Due to personal financial hardship, she has had to explore the options available to her that would allow her to divide the land, so that she can keep her home. Mrs. Cranston-Flaherty indicated that she was interested in dividing the property so that the primary residence and cottage were on separate lots.

Based on the plan that was submitted the 22,000 sq. ft. lot would be divided into two conforming lots with respect land area, frontage and depth. The issue presented by the proposal was that it rendered the buildings non-conforming to setback requirements.

Mr. Stephenson suggested exploring the possibility of converting the property into a condo (with an undivided interest in all of the land), so that she could convey the cottage/guesthouse.  He recommended approaching an attorney on the subject.

Mr. Peak indicated that he needed additional time to review the subdivision rules and regulations to determine what the minimum allowance is for a road layout, understanding that the 13 ft right-of-way on the plan allows Mrs. Cranston-Flaherty to maintain the 20 ft. setback requirement.  It would also give him the opportunity to research whether they could approve a subdivision plan with a zoning violation.

In an aside, Mr. Thompson recommended researching 8N16.1, bN16.11 and 8N16.12, because he believed the previous owner was involved in a similar arrangement.

1.  Patricia Harris
RE: Reminder (Vaca)

Board members were reminded that the Planning Board Administrative Secretary had requested the use of vacation on May 7, 2010 and May 10, 2010.


1. Tisbury Water Works
RE: cc Fred LaPiana requesting to include cost for a connecting water main (and appurtenances) in project for connector road

Mr. LaPiana clarified that part of the cost estimates for the engineering services in the grant application included the cost estimate for the design for wastewater and potable water.

Mr. LaPiana further noted that the State is allowing the town to claim the funds expended in the layout and design of the connector road as part of their 25% match.

Board members were given a copy of Connector Road’s projected costs that were compiled for the grant application (see attached).

2. Melinda Loberg
RE: Mass DOT’s hearing notice to discuss the proposed replacement of the Beach Road Drawbridge (April 29 @ 4:30PM @KCT)

Mrs. Loberg informed the Board that the engineers were going to be presenting plans for the permanent bridge at 25% completion. The engineers were going to present the landscape design for the park like atmosphere they are trying to create.

Mr. Stephenson expressed his disappointment with the design on Tisbury’s side, because it did not allow one to travel under the bridge to resurface on the north side of Beach Road. Mrs. Loberg explained that the state decided against the amenity because of the rip rap, which they believed to be outside the building envelope for the bridge. She mentioned that they were asked to consider replacing the rip rap with stone blocks that could be laid down as steps to allow them to cross over to the north side of Beach Road. The issue raised with the proposal was that it was not ADA compliant. Mr. Stephenson did not understand why the state could not consider it a wall, so that ADA access was not an issue.  Mrs. Loberg agreed and suggested that it was going to be brought up at the meeting.

3. Tisbury Zoning Board of Appeals
A. Public Hearing Notice – Jeff Kristal, AP 06C21
B. Public Hearing Notice – Mariola Ryan, AP 8D15
C. Public Hearing Notice – Jennifer Oliver, AP 07F03
D. Public Hearing Notice – Stephen Kellert, AP 01K04.1
E.  Public Hearing Notice – John Abrahms, South mountain Co., AP 23A1.2
F.  Special Permit # 2006 – Darielle & Earl L. Linehan AP 02G01+
G. Special Permit # 2007 – George Rittershaus, AP 07C02.1
H. Special Permit # 2007 – West Chop Trust, AP 01H02
I.   Special Permit # 2008 –  Mark Soloman, AP 37B02
J.  Special Permit # 2010 -  Roni DeLuz, AP 06A12
K. Special Permit # 2011 –  Geoff Daniels, Trustee, AP 06C23
L. Special Permit # 2012 -  James & Lynn Tuck, AP 13C01

4. Tisbury Conservation Commission
A. A. Public Hearing Notice – Town of Tisbury & Sovereign Bank, AP 07D07
B. Public Hearing Notice –  David Hearn, AP 11A48

5. MV Commission
A.  29 April 2010 Agenda (Tisbury Market Place Hearing Cont.)
B.  23 April 2010 Extended Meeting Schedule

Board members were advised that Mr. Foley had left a message at the Planning Board’s Office to remind the Planning Board that Mr. Dunn’s hearing had been continued on April 29, 2010 at 7:15 PM.

Mr. Seidman inquired if the Planning Board members were going to discuss on Mr. Dunn’s proposal.

Mr. Stephenson noted that he did not have a clear understanding about the portions of the property that remained developable, that were reserved for open space or if any restrictions existed to limit the floor areas of the buildings.

Mr. Seidman recalled that the Board had asked for a plan demonstrating the built areas, and the areas that were reserved for open space, because the Waterfront Commercial District required that 40% of the land area had to be permeable.

Mr. Stephenson noted that the MV Commission had requested similar information, and hoped it would be available at the hearing tomorrow evening. He was very concerned with the projection of the building out into the open space. In his opinion, there was a subterfuge suggesting that there was marine use to move the project forward.

Mr. Seidman asked Mr. Stephenson if he would vote for the proposal if the applicant complied with the requirement for open space. Mr. Stephenson replied in the negative, reiterating that he was much more concerned with the building’s visual impact to the site. He wanted to see that the land areas that were reserve for open space remained so in perpetuity. He did not like the incremental development of the property. It also concerned him that no where in the proposal was the bike path laid out or designed as part of the proposal. If the applicant reduced the size of the building by half he would eliminate his concerns with the projection of the building.

Mr. Aldrin opposed the proposal 100% because its impact to the aesthetics.

Mr. Seidman believed the previous decision makers were very concerned with density or the intensity of use relative to the restrictions that were imposed on the original development. Mr. Dunn’s proposal increased the intensity of the use. Mr. Seidman clarified for the record that he understood the applicant reserved development rights in certain areas on the site, but questioned whether he was entitled to develop.

Mr. Stephenson thought Mr. Dunn could redesign the building to reduce its size and bulk to make it more acceptable

Mr. Peak noted the applicant’s latest revisions were posted on the MV Commission’s website, if the board was interested in reviewing Mr. Dunn’s plans.

Mr. Seidman thought the proposal was a bad project that would have a negative impact on the availability of parking spaces, which has been problematic during the off season.

Mr. Peak indicated that he was still having some difficulty understanding the proprietorship of the reserved areas and open space. Its been holding up the administration of the application to modify the parking area. As he understands it the parking spaces Mr. Dunn is proposing lies outside the reserved area on common land.

Mr. Peak did not think Mr. Dunn can apply for the special permit if he is not the property owner. It was noted that may still be able to apply if he obtained and submitted a letter from the Condo Association granting him permission to use the common land for additional parking.

Mr. Seidman inquired about the Waterfront Commercial District’s requirements relative to open space and parking and learned that the Tisbury Marketplace exceeded the maximum allowance. Mr. Seidman did not understand why the Planning Board was entertaining an application when the applicant exceeded the district’s allowance.

Mr. Peak answered that Mr. Dunn had the ability to apply for an expansion or modification of a pre-existing, non-conforming use, although he is of the opinion that the Tisbury Marketplace has already done so, after the regulation was adopted.

Additional discussions ensued with this regard, and Mr. Seidman thought the Planning Board should oppose the proposal. Mr. Peak believed Mr. Seidman had recommended a motion to have the Planning Board submit a letter to the MV Commission expressing a board viewpoint with explanations on this project.

Mr. Stephenson thought they could add the comment, “Based on the proposal, as it stands today, the Planning Board opposes the proposal”. Mr. Peak thought they should explain that in their view the building encroaches on an established public view, is out of character with the prevailing architectural style of the marketplace, projects out too much, and overlaps into a parking area. He thought it important to have the public amenities, open space and bike path defined.  

Mr. Stephenson thought he could support the proposal if the applicant reduced the size of the building in half. Mr. Seidman did not think it was within the Planning Board’s scope to recommend to the applicant to reduce the size of the building. He though the letter to the MV Commission should simply state their position and the reasons as discussed.
There being no further comment, Mr. Peak asked the Board if they were willing to second Mr. Seidman’s motion. Mr. Aldrin seconded the motion, which motion carried.  4/0/0

Mr. Peak asked the Board for assistance in writing the letter, because he did not think he would be able to draft the official statement before the applicant’s hearing.  Mr. Stephenson volunteered. The Board Secretary informed the Board that she would not be in the office tomorrow, and would not be able to create a draft to send to Mr. Stephenson or submit the Board’s final draft to the MV Commission. Mr. Stephenson then volunteered to write the letter and email a copy to Mr. Peak to make sure the letter conveyed the Board’s comments accurately.  And this was acceptable to the Board.

6. Massachusetts Municipal Association
RE: TheBeacon, April 2010

7. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy
RE: Land Lines, April 2010

PRO FORM        Meeting opened, conducted and closed in due form at 9:15 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