TOWN OF TISBURY
P.O. BOX 602
TOWN HALL ANNEX
VINEYARD HAVEN, MASSACHUSETTS 02568
DATE: May 19, 2010
TIME: 7:00 P.M.
PLACE: Town Hall Annex, 66 High Point Lane
ATTENDANCE: Aldrin, Peak, Seidman and Thompson
BILLS: Patricia Harris...................................$879.60
West Publishing……………………$ 31.20
MEETING MINUTES: As referred in the 12 May 2010 Meeting Agenda
5 May 2010 Deferred
12 May 2010 Deferred
7:00 PM Kenneth Barwick Re: Leonard Clark, Mobile Food Truck
Mr. Barwick apologized for the confusion he created with Mr. Clark’s referral to the Planning Board., and explained that he assumed the sites Mr. Clark discussed with the Board of Selectmen were within the Waterfront Commercial District.
After conversing with Mr. Clark about his proposal, he realized the one site at the Veteran’s Memorial Park was within the R10 District, which prohibits commercial uses. Mr. Clark was sent a letter explaining the commercial use was prohibited.
Subsequent to sending the letter, Mr. Barwick revisited the regulations to see if by chance there was some “wiggle room” in section 04. of the bylaws that would allow the commercial use in the town park. He thought section 04.02.03 (Recreational or community use not for profit.) could be loosely interpreted to allow the use, were it not for the latter half of the sentence.
Mr. Barwick thought the town would benefit from having a vendor at the park to provide refreshments during park hours, and saw no harm in allowing the use for the summer season, even though there were no provisions in the regulations to do so. He thought it qualified as an incidental accessory use to a park, and asked the Board if they shared his views on this proposal. Mr. Barwick explained that there was a possibility that they’d “open up an administrative can of worms” by allowing the use and an issue for his office, but he wanted to take the Board of Selectmen’s lead, when they issued Mr. Clark a Hawkers’and Peddler’s license to operate the food service to the public at Veteran’s Memorial Park.
Mr. Peak informed Mr. Barwick that the Board at their previous meeting were of the consensus that there was value to the proposal, or no inherent offense to having a food service at the park, provided the applicant complied with the restrictions that were imposed on the use by the Board of Selectmen, the Department of Public Works and the Building Inspector’s office. Mr. Peak mentioned that the Board was contemplating a long term solution and thought of developing an overlay district or a separate park district.
Mr. Clark informed Mr. Peak that the Hawker’s and Peddler’s license was approved for one year. The Department of Public Works granted him their approval for the year as well, subject to conditions and restrictions. Mr. Barwick noted that for the present the Board of Selectmen and the DPW Commissioners did not have any jurisdiction to allow or enforce the use. It was a zoning issue that was enforced by him.
Mr. Peak understood, and noted that if Mr. Barwick was comfortable allowing Mr. Clark to proceed for the next three months under fairly well documented conditions and considerations, the Planning Board would not object. He inquired if Mr. Barwick required a memorandum of understanding clearly stating what they were allowing, and under what conditions the applicant was allowed to do so. Mr. Peak also thought they should consider addressing the issue on a long term basis through their regulations.
Mr. Barwick did not think the Memorandum of Understanding was necessary, and felt that the Planning Board’s minutes would suffice. He noted that he intended to discuss Mr. Clark’s proposal with Town Counsel since he was in communication with Kopleman and Paige on other matters to make sure that the town’s interests are legally protected. At that point he’d inform Mr. Clark if he could exercise the Board of Selectmen’s and the DPW’s licenses.
Mr. Peak reiterated that the Planning Board was willing to support Mr. Barwick’s decision and share in the repercussions, if any existed. Mr. Clark was advised that the final decision pertained to the Building Inspector. Mr. Barwick did not think that was necessary, he just wanted to solicit the Board’s impressions.
7:15 PM Douglas Hoehn, SB&H Inc. – Form A, Re: Tripp Barnes, Evelyn Way
Mr. Hoehn submitted a Form A Plan of Land prepared for Clarence A. Barnes, III, by Schofield, Barbini & Hoehn, Inc dated May 19, 2010; Scale 1”=20-ft; Plan No. MV 5950 in which assessor parcels for 22A26 and 22B01 were being combined into one lot.
Mr. Hoehn explained that the applicant was going to expand the steel frame building on one of the lots, and needed the additional land area to meet the district’s setback requirements.
Mr. Peak inquired if the proposal had an impact on the use of Olga Road or other’s rights on the road. Mr. Hoehn could not respond, other than it was information he simply transferred from the previous 1990 plan.
Mr. Peak did not see why Mr. Barnes could not just extinguish the road, since it traversed his properties. Mr. Hoehn included the road because he did not have any information to prove that the rights on the road had been extinguished.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Peak entertained the motion to endorse the Form A Plan (No. MV 5950) as presented. Mr. Aldrin so moved. Mr. Seidman seconded the motion, which motion carried. 3/0/0
1. Daniel Seidman
RE: MV Land Bank
Mr. Seidman was upset at the 13 May 2010 Editorial about Mr. Dunn’s hearing at the MV Commission, and thought Mr. Cabral was playing on both sides of the fence.
He nonetheless felt they could explore the possibility of inviting the MV Land Bank to a meeting to discuss the possibility of buying Mr. Dunn’s developments rights at the Tisbury Marketplace, and/or the property known as “Boch Park”. It was possible that Mr. Dunn might consider the proposal if there was a tax incentive.
Mr. Peak noted that they had correspondence with Mr. Boch in the past, but to no avail. Mr. Seidman thought it could be different if he was approached by different people.
Mr. Peak further noted that they have also met with the MV Land Bank Director, Mr. James Lengyel about pursing Bock Park, and was advised that they did not invest in city parks. Mrs. Loberg added that when the Lagoon Pond Draw Bridge Committee approached the Land Bank about acquiring the land they said the same.
Mr. Aldrin, the Planning Board’s previous representative on the Tisbury Land Bank Advisory Committee confirmed that they were not interested in investing in any of the properties along the beachfront or in the Down Town Area.
Mr. Peak questioned whether it was the type of investment the MV Land Bank Commission would consider, since they were just talking about the development rights, not the land itself. The common land belonged to the condominium association. He thought the private conservation organizations would probably consider that type of purchase. Mr. Seidman was open to the Board’s recommendations, and thought they should explore the possibility.
Mrs. Loberg questioned if they could use CPC funds to purchase open space. Mr. Seidman thought organizations such as the Vineyard Conservation Society could apply for the funds from the CPC.
Mr. Peak also raised the issue raised in the editorial, where the editor implied that it would be unfair to curtail a parcel of land’s so that there was little one could do with the property. He did not think that was true, if the property was assessed according to its actual value. Mr. Seidman inquired about the town’s practice ( existing value or highest possible use) , and Mr. Peak offered to contact the Board of Assessor’s Office for an answer.
2. Michael Jampel
RE: Philip D. Fleischman, Informal Discussion – Potential Division of Land South Farm Road (3/17/10)
Mr. Peak noted that Mr. Fleischman’s division of land did not qualify for Form A consideration. The Hillman’s Point Way was another division that should not have been endorsed as a Form A division of land, because they did not connect to a public way.
He started looking at the subdivision rules and regulations to see if there was a clause he may have missed, because it did not appear that there was a policy at the time to have permitted the two proposals. Mr. Peak needed additional time to review the regulations and files that were located for both, and hoped to have a recommendation by next week.
3. Andrea Cranston-Flaherty, 141 Greenwood Ave., AP 26D20
Mr. Peak noted that the property did not lend itself to the division of land Mrs. Flaherty was proposing, and did not believe it was possible
4. Peter Duart
Planning Board members were informed that the Board Secretary had contacted Mr. Duart’s attorney in Falmouth to explain d to solicit his assistance with Mr. Duart’s resignation.
The attorney understood, and did not see any issue with the request. He thought he might be able to approach Mr. Duart this Friday.
5. Mr. Seidman forwarded information he obtained on the internet reflecting the number of police officers, towns across the nation, of similar size to Vineyard Haven actually had. He wanted the information forwarded to Mrs. Loberg, so that she could give the information to the Finance & Advisory Committee. He demonstrated that on the average, small towns like Vineyard Haven had 2.5 policemen on their force.
Discussions ensued with this regard, and noted that it would make economic sense if they were able to regionalize their police forces and deployed them to the “island’s benefit”.
1. Tisbury Board of Selectmen
A. Letter of Appreciation
B. Request for resignation
2. M.V. Commission
A. DRI 566-M2 – Island Fuel Inc
B. DRI 311 – M3: Rickard Bakery Retail
3. UMass Lowell Continuing Studies, etc.
RE: Innovative Cities Conference /Best Practices in Urban Development
PRO FORM Meeting opened, conducted and closed in due form at 9:00 P.M. (m/s/c 3/0/0)
Patricia V. Harris, Secretary
APPROVAL: Approved and accepted as official minutes;
Date L. Anthony Peak