TOWN OF TISBURY
P.O. BOX 602
TOWN HALL ANNEX
VINEYARD HAVEN, MASSACHUSETTS 02568
Fax (508) 696-7341
DATE: October 6, 2010
TIME: 7:000 PM
PLACE: Town Hall Annex, 66 High Point lane
MEETING MINUTES: As referred in the September 22, 2010 Meeting Agenda
15 September 2010 Deferred
22 September 2010 Deferred
7:06 PM Douglas Hoehn, Schofield, Barbini & Hoehn Inc.
A) Pre-Hearing Discussions for 241 Main Street Nominee Trust – Attendance: Sean Murphy, Attorney
Mr. Hoehn submitted a preliminary Form C plan for Ms. Bartlett’s property on AP 06C10, and explained that the potential buyers had decided to subdivide the land as a Small Project.
He noted that it was the same property for which the current property owner, Ms. Bartlett had submitted a Form A plan of land a few weeks earlier. Ms. Bartlett has apparently opted to withdraw her application in favor of the current proposal.
Mr. Hoehn addressed the issue with the driveway by incorporating it into the proposed road layout. The design preserved the property’s landscape and overall appearance. Mr. Hoehn inquired if there were potential issues with the layout, and requested a clarification about the waivers.
Mr. Hoehn mentioned that the pertinent section of the local subdivision regulations waived a number of requirements, except for a centerline profile. Given that the road was already constructed, he questioned its applicability. Mr. Peak concurred, but recommended listing all of the waivers that would be required to allow the road as proposed (i.e. road layout, reduced travel way, travelled way surface, drainage, etc.).
Mr. Peak recommended one revision; he thought it was important to incorporate a parking area as part of the proposal to prevent anyone from obstructing traffic on the travelled way.
Mr. Hoehn inquired about the need for a Form F Covenant. He wasn’t sure if it should be addressed as a waiver or condition. Mr. Peak did not think it required a waiver, but felt it should be listed on the plan or at the very least mentioned somewhere in the road maintenance agreement. Mr. Murphy thought a waiver would address the matter, with a comment that all utilities were already installed.
Mr. Hoehn asked the Board if they had any issues accepting the Form C application as a Small Project, and taking a vote on the submittal.
Mr. Peak referred to the Board, and entertained a motion to approve the applicant’s request to accept the Form C application as a Small Project. Mr. Stephenson so moved. Mr. Thompson seconded the motion, which motion carried. 4/0/0
B) Informal Discussions about Tashmoo Farm, Water Gate Road, AP 54B309
Attendance: Debbie Knight
Mr. Hoehn submitted 8.5”X11” facsimiles of a potential division of land that proposes to create and swap two non-buildable parcels of land of equal size between the Knights and Tashmoo Associates Inc. to redistribute the parcels and property lines into a more coherent configuration.
Tashmoo Associates combines land currently divided by the Knight’s property, and the Knights obtain frontage and access on Water Gate Road as it is currently used.
Mr. Peak did not see any reason(s) for denying the Form A division of land, but forewarned Mrs. Knight that she may have to improve the construction of the extension of the road for zoning purposes.
7:42 PM Hearing (Cont.): Special Permit Application by William Craffey, AP 09B17
Attendance: Will Craffey, Liz Wild and Mary Ellen Larsen (Fin Com)
Mr. Peak, Planning Board Co-Chairman opened the continuation of the hearing at 7:42 PM and read the public hearing notice into the minutes.
Mr. Peak noted that Mr. Foley, the DRI Coordinator at the MV Commission had emailed the Planning Board a draft copy of the MV Commission’s written Decision (DRI 626) approving the applicants proposal for a pizza and sandwich shop at 45 Beach Road on September 23, 2010 with conditions and restrictions.
Mr. Peak read the MV Commission’s Decision on page 5 of the draft document, and conditions and restrictions as listed on page 6. He asked Mr. Craffey if had altered his hours of operation. Mr. Craffey noted that he was satisfied with the revised hours as listed in the MV Commission’s decision.
Mr. Peak deferred to the Board and asked if they had any comments or questions relative to the proposal before they considered closing the public hearing and entering into deliberations.
Mr. Stephenson was of the impression that the MV Commission was going to look at the applicant’s site collectively with the three other referred sites to determine if they had an impact on Beach Road.
Ms. Wild replied that the MV Commission’s traffic analysis of the Beach Road Corridor demonstrated that it was not the businesses on Beach Road that impacted traffic, but the Steamship Authority’s operations in conjunction with the draw bridge’s schedule.
There was a question about the parking spaces, and it was noted that the MV Commission listed ten (10) parking spaces for sole use of the Pizza Parlor and a total of 53 parking spaces on the entire property.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Peak entertained a motion to close the public hearing and to enter into deliberations. Mr. Stephenson so moved. Mr. Thompson seconded the motion, which motion carried. 4/0/0
7:51 PM Hearing (Cont.): Special Permit Application by William Craffey, AP 09B17
Attendance: William Craffey, Liz Wild and Mary Ellen Larsen
At the conclusion of the previously held hearing, Mr. Peak opened the deliberations at 7:51 PM, noting that they were being asked to consider a food service establishment in the Commercial Management Area of the Waterfront Commercial District, which was allowed by special permit.
Mr. Peak referred the Board members to section 06.09.00 of the Zoning Bylaw to discuss whether the applicant met the general conditions of the regulations for the proposed use. Mr. Peak read all of the conditions into the record of the minutes and asked the Board if they were applicable and/or met by the applicant.
Mr. Seidman noted that the exterior renovations were a definite improvement to the property and neighborhood.
Ms. Wild added that the property owner allowed the town or state the use of his property to extend the sidewalk about one foot on Beach Road.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Peak entertained a motion to find that all of the conditions were met. Mr. Stephenson so moved. Mr. Thompson seconded the motion, which motion carried. 4/0/0
Mr. Craffey was asked about the name of the business. He replied “Vineyard Pizza Place”.
Mr. Peak inquired about signage and learned that Mr. Craffey was allowed to have a sign on the directory and a separate sign on the building.
Mr. Seidman moved to approve the applicant’s proposal for a pizza and sandwich shop with conditions and restrictions, including those listed in the MV Commission’s Decision for DRI 626. Mr. Stephenson seconded the motion, and the motion carried. 4/0/0
Mr. Peak recommended continuing the deliberations on October 13, 2010 at 7:30 PM to discuss and endorse a written decision. Mr. Stephenson so moved. Mr. Seidman seconded the motion. And the motion carried. 4/0/0
The Planning Board resumed their regularly scheduled meeting at 8:10 pm.
8:11 PM Deliberations: (Cont): Special Permit Application by Mario Rodrigues, AP 09C11
Attendance: Mario L. Rodrigues, Mary Ellen Larsen
Mr. Peak informed the applicant that the Planning Board could not conduct the public hearing without a fourth member, according to state statute. He advised Mr. Rodrigues that the Planning Board had to continue the hearing until the following week, at which time he expected Mr. Aldrin to be available.
He therefore entertained a motion to continue the public hearing until October 13, 2010 at 7:00 PM in the Town Hall Annex on 66 High Point Lane. Mr. Stephenson so moved. Mr. Seidman seconded the motion, and the motion carried. 4/0/0
The Planning Board resumed their regularly scheduled meeting at 8:15 PM
8:15 PM Reid (Sam) Dunn, Tisbury Marketplace, AP 09B19, Beach Road
Mr. Reid was irate with the Planning Board for excluding him from the discussions they held on his proposal at their last meeting. He thought they had come to an agreement that he would be invited to the discussions as part of the open process.
Mr. Peak replied that the topic was listed in the meeting agenda as correspondence received, and discussed in open session. The written response they agreed to send to the MV Commission was in response to Mr. Foley’s email, in which he asked the Planning Board if they wished or were responsible for commenting on the interpretation of the term “mixed use”. Mr. Peak noted that the email was preceded by a phone conversation he had with Mr. Foley, with whom he made clear that while the Planning Board may be asked for an opinion, the final determination was the Zoning Code Enforcement Officer to make. Mr. Reid noted that this was not made clear at the MV Commission, when the letter was read into the record.
Mr. Peak understood that the Planning Board’s opinion differed from Mr. Barwick’s written opinion. Mr. Seidman commented that it was vague at best. Mr. Peak informed Mr. Reid that while Mr. Barwick was responsible for the final determination, the Planning Board reserved the right to appeal the determination with the Zoning Board of Appeals. It was his opinion that the Board members were not so inclined.
Mr. Reid understood, and asked Mr. Peak if he would attend his hearing at the MV Commission to clarify for the record that their written comment was just an opinion, and that the final determination pertained to Mr. Berwick. He was very upset that the Commission was given the wrong impression, which has bogged down the permitting process.
Mr. Peak apologized for the confusion, but noted that he made it perfectly clear that the Planning Board had only one permitting function, which was the modification of a pre-existing, non-conforming use pertaining to parking.
Mr. Reid thought it was fair and reiterated that he would appreciate it if Mr. Peak would attend the meeting to clarify this for the record. Mr. Peak offered to call Mr. Foley first thing in the morning to correct any misunderstanding, and if necessary to attend Mr. Reid’s hearing tomorrow at the Commission.
Following these discussions Mr. Reid and the Planning Board exchanged their impressions about the interpretation of a mixed use. Mr. Peak did not believe the building met the definition of a mixed use because it did not provide for a maritime use on the first floor of the building within the Waterside Management Area. The open space and/or deck did not qualify as a water related or water dependent use. It was his opinion that the uses of the building had to comply with the restrictions of the two management areas, because of its location.
Mr. Stephenson disagreed, and thought the first floor open space/deck area met the overall intent of the Waterfront Commercial District bylaw as long as it was open to the general public, because it created public access to the lagoon.
Mr. Reid indicated that the open area/deck could be designed to be common land similar to the other decks in the marketplace. It was his overall impression that the applicable bylaw was just too restrictive in general.
1. Planning Board Meeting Schedule
RE: October 27, 2010 (Deferred)
2. Evelyn Way
Mr. Krystal invited Mr. Stephenson to a meeting with Mr. Ferraguzzi, Mr. LaPiana and Mr. Clarence Barnes to discuss the town’s options to acquire Evelyn Way as part of the connector road project. He understood there were issues with the title of the road that needed to be addressed, not to mention Mr. Barnes interests.
Whereas everyone would like to acquire the road amicably, they could take the road by eminent domain. But it was the least favored option.
Mr. Stephenson announced the meeting was scheduled to take place on October 7, 2010 at 3PM in the DPW conference room, if the board members were interested in attending the discussions.
3. Mr. Stephenson reported that in a conversation with Mr. Wortman, he learned that the MV Historical Society was interested in purchasing the former marine hospital property on Lagoon Road to relocate the museum.
Mr. Stephenson indicated that he thought it was a great idea, and supported the new location.
1. Douglas R. Hoehn, SB&H Inc
RE: Juanita L. Bartlett – Letter of withdrawal
Given that the applicant has applied for a Form C subdivision, the Planning Board accepted Ms. Bartlett’s request to withdraw her application for a Form A division of land, without prejudice.
The motion was moved by Mr. Stephenson, and seconded by Mr. Thompson.
There being no discussions on the motion, the motion carried. 4/0/0
1. Tisbury Conservation Commission
A. Public Hearing Notice – Richard and Jan Homans, AP 36A09.1
B. Public Hearing Notice – Richard Hanelin, AP 16A08
2. Tisbury Board of Assessors
A. Public Hearing Notice – Robert & Laura Barbera, AP 23A14
B. Public Hearing Notice – Edgartown National Bank, AP 08C07.2
C. Public Hearing Notice – Richard & Jan Homans, AP 36A09.1
D. Special Permit #2024 – Peter & Elizabeth Cabana, Trs, AP 16K02
E. Special Permit #2027 – Stephen Vanze and Judith Halsey, AP 07N11
F. Special Permit #2029 – 867 Main Street Nominee Tr., AP 02H05
G. Special Permit #2030 – Robert Fuller, AP 07F04
H. Special Permit #2032 – Lisa Belcastro, AP 12D23
I. Special Permit #2033 – John C. Reese, AP 02H03
J. Special Permit #2034 – Colin Weir, AP 25A27
3. MV Commission
A. 1 October 2010 Extended Meeting Schedule
B. 7 October 2010 Meeting Agenda
C. 20 September 2010 Meeting Notes (Tisbury Market Place New Building)
D. Tisbury Market Place Parking Lot Utilization
E. DRI 626 Beach Road Pizza’s Draft Decision
4. Mr. Reid (Sam) Dunn
RE: Offers to the MV Commission upon approval of proposal
1. Martha’s Vineyard Commission
RE: Reid A. Dunn, Tisbury Market Place
PRO FORM Meeting opened, conducted and closed in due form at 9:15 P.M.
Patricia V. Harris, Secretary
APPROVAL: Approved and accepted as official minutes;
Date L. Anthony Peak