TOWN OF TISBURY
P.O. BOX 602
TOWN HALL ANNEX
VINEYARD HAVEN, MASSACHUSETTS 02568
DATE: May 5, 2010
TIME: 7:03 P.M.
PLACE: Town Hall Annex II – 66 High Point Lane
ATTENDANCE: Aldrin, Peak, Seidman, Stephenson and Thompson
BILLS: Patricia Harris...................................$ 879.60
Daniel Seidman…………………….$ 45.19
MEETING MINUTES: As referred in the 28 April 2010 Meeting Agenda
31 March 2010 Deferred
28 April 2010 Deferred
7:00 PM Douglas Hoehn Re: Paul Kaplan, AP 02F02.7
Mr. Hoehn submitted photos of Cayuga Street from different angles to illustrate the road’s existing layout and condition. He mentioned that the road was in good condition. The issue he wanted to address with the Board pertained to the trees they wanted Mr. Kaplan to remove.
Mr. Kaplan did not have an issue complying with the request, but was concerned about the potential liability from removing or cutting down trees that were not on his side of the road or his property.
Mr. Hoehn directed the Board to the photos he took of the trees, noting that the cluster of trees, which included a large pine tree in the road layout of a public road i.e. Iroquois Avenue. On speaking with Mr. LaPiana, about the pine tree, he was informed that the applicant would have to apply for a permit, which would required a hearing.
Board members were advised that the set of trees earmarked for removal were within the depression of the V-shaped corner at the intersection of Iroquois and Cayuga, so that they did not impact the motorists traveling from Iroquois into Cayuga. He questioned whether the other trees at the end of the road were an issue, because the traffic flow on Cayuga normally exited the road on Quinsigamond Ave.
Mr. Peak disputed the latter comment, and questioned that anyone could be prevented from improving an approved subdivision road to the width of the right of way to access their property. Mr. Hoehn questioned whether the applicant could remove a tree on a public road. He explained that his client would have to apply for a special permit.
Mr. Hoehn mentioned that his client, Mr Kaplan was willing to remove as many as 7-8 trees from his property to open up the corner on Cayuga Street, and wanted to avoid removing any trees outside his property for fear of litigation.
Mr. Peak advised Mr. Hoehn that he had spoken with Town Counsel regarding this matter, and did not see how he could preclude Mr. Kaplan’s neighbors from complaining about the tree removal. Mr. Stephenson inquired if Mr. Kaplan had approached his neighbors. Mr. Hoehn replied in the negative. Mr. Peak thought Mr. Kaplan should consider the recommendation because the road improvements benefited them all.
Mr. Peak wanted the opportunity to review the information and revisit Cayuga Street, noting that he could not find any of the concrete bounds. Mr. Hoehn located a few during the photo shoot, and submitted a copy of the subdivision plan, illustratin the road layout and its concrete bounds. He explained that they were well hidden within the brush, approximately 10 ft out from the traveled road.
7:15 PM Sam Dunn
Mr. Hoehn was of the impression that he was attending a public hearing. Mr. Peak explained that he had postponed the hearing until he had the opportunity to ask Town Counsel about the qualifications applicants had to meet in order to apply for a special permit. He explained that he had not read the Master Deed at the time, and was not clear where an individual’s rights ended and the condo association’s rights began. After reading the document and conferring with Mr. Foley, the DRI Coordinator at the MV Commission, it appeared to him that the declarant retained the right to use any portion of the common land for parking in the future.
He wanted to send Town Counsel a copy of the language to confirm his interpretation of the Master Deed to make sure that there was nothing to prevent them from processing Mr. Dunn’s application for a special permit. The Planning Board wanted to confirm that they were not extending Mr. Dunn’s rights.
Mr. Dunn understood, but felt “blind sided” by the Planning Board’s written comment to the MV Commission at the hearing on April 27, 2010. He thought it was very unprofessional of them to discuss his proposal at great length without inviting him to the discussions at least to clarify some of the misinformation. He was concerned that the Planning Board’s letter had the potential of influencing other local boards unfairly.
Mr. Stephenson agreed that the Planning Board would benefit from such presentation, since the only information they’ve obtained about the proposal has been from the presentations and comments at the MV Commission’s hearings.
Mr. Hoehn noted that the applicant did not come before the Planning Board because they were not aware that he was subject to special permit consideration, until after they submitted their application to the MV Commission. Normally they would have approached the local boards before going to the Commission.
Mr. Peak understood, and noted that the applicant’s complaint was not unjustified, but the situation was the result of an odd set of circumstances. It was the first time the Board had to cancel three consecutive meetings for lack of quorum, change their meeting schedule to accommodate Special Town Meeting and Town Meeting, and lost a board member. Mr. Peak mentioned that the subject was not scheduled for discussion, and only came up because Mr. Foley had sent the Board a reminder of the applicant’s hearing that day. Because there was a possibility that the hearing could have been closed, the Board felt it was important to express their concerns. Mr. Seidman referred Mr. Dunn to the Planning Board’s agenda confirming that it was discussed on reviewing their correspondence. It was not a planned discussion.
Additional discussions ensued with this regard, and Mr. Dunn indicated that the MV Commission had agreed to continue the hearing sometime in July or August, after he’s had a traffic and parking study performed at peak season.
Mr. Peak thought they could use the time to schedule an appointment for Mr. Dunn’s presentation, while he sent Town Counsel the paragraphs from the Master Deed as previously noted.
Mr. Dunn asked the Board if he would have access to the five board members during the review of his application. Mr. Peak replied in the affirmative, noting that Mr. Thomson was an associate member, who would be serving on the board during the public hearing. Mr. Dunn indicated that he was very uncomfortable having Mr. Seidman serving on the board reviewing his application because of their business relationship at Woodlands. Mr. Seidman disputed Mr. Dunn’s claim, noting that they each owned a unit at Woodlands.
Mr. Dunn indicated that they’ve had a personal relationship that has had moments of conflict to make him uncomfortable. He questioned if by chance there might be a conflict of interest that may need to be addressed by the Ethics Commission, fearing that it could have an impact on his application. As he understood the situation his application would require a unanimous vote with four voting members. One dissenting vote meant a denial.
Mr. Peak understood, and reminded the applicant that he also had the right to postpone the discussions until a five member board was available. For the present, the town was addressing the matter, so that it may not be an issue by the time they conducted the public hearing.
In the interim, the Planning Board offered to contact Mr. Dunn to schedule the appointment for his presentation.
7:35 PM Douglas Best – Informal Discussions on a potential Form A, AP 14C1 (R20 District)
Mr. Best informed the Board that he presently had a purchase agreement on a parcel of land at 58 Winyah Circle and was interested in soliciting the Board’s informal opinion on a division of land to see if there were any issues with the proposal.
He explained that the 40,000 sq. ft. lot was within the R20 District, with sufficient frontage and depth on a public road to accommodate two lots. He had a four bedroom septic system plan approved by the Board of Health with a three bedroom single family dwelling on the property.
His plan was to divide the property into two lots, and to construct a one bedroom dwelling on the second lot. Mr. Best provided the Board a copy of the agreement, the zoning regulations listing the dimensional requirements for R20, a plan of the property with the building, a copy of the septic system’s approval and a sketch of the division of land.
Mr. Best shared a copy of the assessor map depicting the division of an abutting property similar to his proposal that was recently approve.
Mr. Peak noted that if the lots met the frontage and land area requirement, there was no reason to deny the ANR. He did not see any obstacles to the proposal when the lots met the district’s dimensional requirements.
7:45 PM Philip DeCamp Fleischman & Mr. & Mrs. Jampel AP 57A6.11+
Mr. Jampel informed the Board that the property in question (9.7 acres parcel) was originally divided into two lots, one of which was purchased by Mr. Fleischman approximately 26 years ago (Lot 2).
Mr. Fleischman wanted to sell his property (Lot 2) and divide the 6.7 acres parcel of land (Lot 1) into two lots, so that he can relocate on one of the lots.
Mr. Jampel noted that the division of land was granted under the Deep Lot provision, with the stipulation that any further division of the property would require a Form C review. Mr. Jampel indicated that the wanted to create the subdivision road off Hillman’s Point Way, a private road owned by Mr. Packer, who is in favor of their proposal. He explained that the alternate access from Hillman’s Point Way eliminated the need for their current means of access on South Farm Road, which traverses Mr. Packer’s 30 acres parcel of land.
Board members reviewed the sketch plan which illustrated the proposed subdivision road off Hillman’s Point Way, which appeared to connect to Chappaquonsett Road.
Mr. Thompson questioned whether he could participate in the discussions, since the transactions involved land presently owned by his father-in-law. He offered to contact the Ethics Commission.
Mr. Peak noted that the subdivision rules and regulations required a subdivision road to connect to a town, county or state owned public way. Mr. Jampel believed Chappaquonsett was a public road. He mentioned that the road existed before the Tashmoo Opening existed. Mr. Peak indicated that there was a difference between a public way and a town accepted road, but recalled that the Planning Board waived the requirement for a division of land on one occasion.
Mr. Peak inquired about South Farm Road’s construction, and learned that it was dirt road that was about as wide as a car. Northern Pines Road and Hillman’s Point Way were much wider, and provided a better access for emergency vehicles.
Mr. Jampel mentioned that Hillman’s Point Way was an approved subdivision road, and served as frontage to five lots, one of which was purchased by the MV Land Bank to provide access to the beach.
Mr. Peak thought they arrived at a point in the discussions where they could not proceed without gathering additional background information. He reiterated that the one issue he saw with the proposal was that it did not connect to a public way.
Mr. Jampel and Mr. Fleischman were advised that they would be contacted as soon as the Board secured additional information.
1. Michael Jampel
RE: Philip D. Fleischman, Informal Discussion – Potential Division of Land South Farm Road (3/17/10)
2. Andrea Cranston-Flaherty, 141 Greenwood Ave., AP 26D20 (Deferred)
3. Leonard Clark Re: Mobile Food Truck at Veteran’s Memorial Park
4. Planning Board Officers (Deferred)
A. Co-Chairman (2)
1. Martha’s Vineyard Commission
A. 5/6/10 Meeting Agenda
B. 4/30/10 Extended Schedule
1. Martha’s Vineyard Commission
RE: Reid A. Dunn’s proposal for a new commercial building
PRO FORM Meeting opened, conducted and closed in due form at 9: P.M. (m/s/c 4/0/0)
Patricia V. Harris, Secretary
APPROVAL: Approved and accepted as official minutes;
Date L. Anthony Peak