Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Planning Board Minutes 06/02/2010

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


DATE:                   June 2, 2010    

TIME:                           7:10 P.M.

PLACE:                  Town Hall Annex, 66 High Point Lane

ATTENDANCE:             Aldrin, Peak, Seidman, Stephenson, and Thompson

BILLS:                  Patricia Harris...................................$879.60
                                Patricia Harris...................................$879.60
                                UPS Store …………………………$312.00
MEETING MINUTES:        As referred in the May 26, 2010 Meeting Agenda
           5 May 2010           m/s/c   4/0/0
12 May 2010            m/s/c   4/0/0
19 May 2010             m/s/c   4/0/0
26 May 2010             m/s/c   4/0/0


1.  Michael Jampel
RE:  Philip D. Fleischman, Informal Discussion – Potential Division of Land South Farm Road (3/17/10)

A detailed chronology of the property’s development over the years revealed that the Planning Board on February 8, 1984 established a policy entitled “Division of Land with regards to Access, Ways and Frontage” to allow themselves the ability to consider certain divisions of land whereby the existing access did not comply or conform with the full requirements of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations. (See attached).

The Planning Board noted in the policy that there were “ situations and potential situations in certain areas where, for the division of one lot into two lots, the accessing/ways/frontage requirements would… produce a major way which would establish an accessing pattern inconsistent with area needs, planning objectives, etc.”

On February 14, 1984, the Planning Board corresponded with Mr. Jampel to inform him that the policy applied to his property on AP  57A6.11, so that he could submit an application to divide his parcel of land as a Small Project, under the newly adopted policy.

Mr. Jampel’s subdivision was approved on April 4, 1984 with the conditions and restrictions (Tisbury Case File 178) listed in the newly adopted policy under section 2.0, Requirements. Note B. on the plan specifically states that the properties could not be further subdivided by application of the policy. All further development, be it a division of land has to conform to the Subdivision Rules and Regulation’s minimum standards.

Mr. Stephenson thought the notation on the plan clearly prevents Mr. Jampel and Mr. Fleischman from reconfiguring the two lots to create the three they’ve asked the Board to consider. He did not see any reason to discuss the proposal any further.

Mr. Seidman concurred and referred the Board to the 1984 policy. He read section 2.1(d) pertaining to the restriction annotated on plan prohibiting the Board from applying the same policy to allow the applicant to further subdivide the lot.

Mr. Stephenson recommended writing to the applicant(s) explaining that the previous decision clearly limited the development of his property to the existing two lots.  He had to comply with the minimum requirements of the subdivision rules and regulations, which require all lots within a subdivision plan to have the proper access and frontage on an adequate public way, subdivision road, or in special cases, an equivalent dedication. Mr. Seidman concurred and seconded Mr. Stephenson’s recommendation to the Board, which carried.  4/0/0

Additional discussions ensued with regards to Hillman’s Point Way. Old plans and decisions were confusing in that the 40 way was initially created in 1976 as a driveway to Mr. James T. Anderson’s property as a Form A without meeting the criteria for ANR consideration. In 1980, the Planning Board accepted the driveway as a 40 ft. wide right-of-way for the purpose of creating three building lots, without the benefit of the 1984 policy.

2. Reid Dunn, Tisbury Market Place
RE: Planning Board’s report regarding their site visit on 5/28/10

Mr. Stephenson reported meeting with Mr. Aldrin, Mr. Seidman and the applicant, Mr. Dunn on a site visit at 3:30 PM to see how the new commercial building would impact the views, the open space, parking and other functional aspects of the property.

Mr. Stephenson indicated that he was relieved to see that the building did not encroach on the public spaces or views as initially thought, or that the section of the building within the Commercial Management Area (facing Maciel Marine) had any impact on the open view to the lagoon. The section of the building that protruded into the Waterside Management Area of the Waterfront Commercial District was a different matter, because in his opinion the protrusion had an impact the overall view into the harbor. He preferred having the applicant eliminate or reduce the projection into the Waterside Management Area in order to preserve the open space.

Mr. Stephenson mentioned that they also wanted to see the location of the shared-use path on the property, and reported that the applicant was more than willing to allow the path on the property that he controlled, as well as surrendering any development rights he’s reserved within the Tisbury Market Place. Mr. Peak thought it raised an interesting point, because he was not sure that the applicant had reserved the right to allow any use within the assigned area other than what was specified in the Master Deed. Mr. Seidman concurred, and commented that they also had to consider the fact that any use of the open space outside of the building envelopes that were reserved for development pertained to the condo association.

Mr. Peak mentioned that the applicant did have unlimited rights to convert any part of the existing open space for parking. Mr. Stephenson thought it would have a negative impact on the property’s open space, and proposal for a shared-use bike path. He did not like the idea that there was so much ambiguity over the land Mr. Dunn and the Condo Association owned and/or controlled, and hoped there was a way that it could be delineated.  

Mr. Peak understood, and informed the Board that he had scheduled an appointment with the Board of Assessors to discuss the Tisbury Market Places’ assessments and if Mr.. Dunn’s development rights had some value.  

Additional discussions ensued with regards to the acquisition of the land, funding and tax breaks.  Mr. Seidman thought they should invite the MV Land Bank Commissioners to see if they were amenable to the concept before they approached the applicant.  Mr. Stephenson agreed.  

3. New Town Hall
Mr. Seidman asked Mr. Stephenson how he planned to approach the subject. He replied that he had scheduled a meeting with the Town Administrator on Friday morning to discuss the possibility of hiring a surveyor and/or engineer to study the topography, utilities, underground conditions, etc. if they are seriously considering the site. Even it was eliminated, the information was just as important to know to determine if the site is appropriate for any other use.

Mr. Seidman inquired if they could recommend to the Board of Selectmen that before they entertained the idea of considering the site for a town hall they need detailed information.  Mr. Peak and Mr. Stephenson replied in the affirmative, adding that it would also help to ask about the agreements that were made to create the Veterans Memorial Park i.e. access limitations and use limitations.


1. M.V. Commission
A. 3 June 2010 Meeting Agenda
B. 28 May 2010 MV Extended Schedule

PRO FORM        Meeting opened, conducted and closed in due form at 9:00 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