TOWN OF TISBURY
P.O. BOX 602
TOWN HALL ANNEX
VINEYARD HAVEN, MASSACHUSETTS 02568
Fax (508) 696-7341
DATE: October 20, 2010
TIME: 7:08 PM
PLACE: Town Hall Annex, 66 High Point lane
ATTENDANCE: Aldrin, Peak, Stephenson, Seidman and Thompson
BILLS: Petty Cash (Postage)…………….$18.00
MEETING MINUTES: As referred in the 13 October 2010 Meeting Agenda
06 October 2010 Deferred
13 October 2010 Deferred
7:00 PM Douglas Hoehn, SB&H Re Form A- Wm. T. Hagerty Dr 68 Nominee Trust & Marjorie Davis Family Trust, AP 29D12 & 29D12.1
Mr. Hoehn submitted a Form A division of land creating two (Lots 2 & 3) non-buildable, and irregularly shaped lots of equal land area.
Mr. Hoehn explained that the property owners of AP 29D12.1 needed the additional land area to accommodate the expansion of the existing house on the north side. The abutting property owner on AP 29D12 was willing to accommodate his neighbor in exchange for land along the southerly property line shown as Lot 3.
Board members were referred to the note on the plan that was prepared for the Wm. T. Hagerty Dr 68 Nominee Trust & Marjorie Davis Family Trust by SB&H Inc., dated 20 October 2010 (Plan No. MV 6995) clearly stating that “Lots 2 & 3 were not buildable on their own, and to be conveyed to the abutting property owners”.
There being no issues with the proposal, Mr. Peak entertained a motion to approve the division of land in Plan No. MV6995 as an ANR under the Subdivision Control Law. Mr. Stephenson so moved. Mr. Aldrin seconded the motion, which motion did carry. 5/0/0
7:15 PM Public Hearing: Form C – 241 Main Street Nominee Trust, AP 06C10
Attendance: Refer to signature sheet
Hearing commenced in due form at 7:18 PM. Planning Board Co-Chairman, Mr. Peak read the public hearing notice into the minutes, and had the Board Members introduce themselves.
Mr. Hoehn, introduced the applicant, Mr. Robert Pozen (aka 241 Main Street Nominee Trust) noting that he presently had a Sales & Purchase Agreement with the property owner, Ms. Juanita Bartlett to purchase the property in question, pending the outcome of these discussions.
Mr. Hoehn mentioned that the current Form C submittal was preceded by a Form A application, which was rejected by the Planning Board because they did not believe the driveway met the definition of a road under the Subdivision Control Law.
The issue was addressed by creating a 20 ft. wide road system that straddled the existing driveway to create access and frontage for both lots on the proposed subdivision road, identified as “Ashurst Way”.
Mr. Hoehn indicated that he had revised the plan since the pre-hearing conference with the Planning Board. Board Members reviewed the revised plan, dated 19 October 2010, noting that the westerly property line of Lot 1 had been adjusted to run down to the southerly boundary of the existing driveway and around the leaching field and reserve area. He explained that the road layout and hammerhead were incorporated into the design solely to comply with the technical requirements of the subdivision control law, to preserve the existing landscape and concrete/brick driveway.
Mr. Hoehn noted for the record that the application was deemed to qualify as a Small Project Submittal by the Planning Board at the pre-hearing conference, which entitled the applicant to certain waivers relative to the width of the right-of-way, the width of the traveled way, centerline profile, performance guarantee and design standards. An itemized list of waivers was submitted in letter form to the Planning Board, dated 19 October 2010.
Mr. Hoehn explained that the requirements were basically intended for new roads, and did not apply to the application, since the proposal was to utilize the existing driveway.
Mr. Hoehn referred the Board to a second plan, entitled “Tisbury Board of Health – Overlay Plan” dated 28 September 2010 and revised 19 October 2010., reflecting the locations of the existing Title V septic systems for both existing dwellings. He explained that the locations of the systems were not in compliance with local health regulations, which prompted a meeting with the Board of Health Commissioners the previous night. Mr. Hoehn mentioned that the Board of Health understood the situation and willing to consider the grant of a variance. They could not officially vote on the variance, until they posted a hearing. The Board of Health subsequently scheduled a hearing for him on November 2, 2010.
At the conclusion of the presentation, Mr. Hoehn referred the Board to the odd configuration of Lot 2, explaining that the irregularity resulted from keeping the lot’s access to the beach and harbor along the northerly property line.
Mr. Peak deferred to the Board members for comments and/or questions. Mr. Aldrin was happy to see that the road layout did not disturb the landscape and driveway. Mr. Stephenson agreed, noting that it was the Board’s primary concern with the proposal.
Mr. Peak inquired if the strip of land connecting the hammerhead to the rear lot was wide enough to accommodate a second driveway if the easement on Lot 1 became an issue. Mr. Hoehn noted that it was 18 ft wide. Mr. Murphy replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Peak inquired about the setback requirement for the leaching field. Mr. Hoehn replied that there was a 10 ft setback requirement. Mr. Hoehn indicated that he initially proposed to remove two rows of trenches to comply with the Board of Health’s local restriction, until the Board of Health Commissioners recommended a variance. The latter option helped them to preserve the driveway and landscape.
Mr. Rozen, the potential buyer spoke to say that he and his wife were interested in keeping the property intact.
Mr. Warren Hartwell, an abutter on AP 06C09 inquired if the subdivision road was intended to serve as a public way. Mr. Peak replied in the negative and explained that it was a private road. Mr. Hartwell asked Mr. Hoehn about the new location of the septic system on Lot 2. He was concerned about seeing any of the trees being removed. Mr. Hoehn replied that it was going to be relocated to the west of the existing dwelling in the open area, where only a few trees might have to be removed.
Mr. Hartwell inquired about the amount of land area required to accommodate the leaching field. Mr. Hoehn replied that it relied on a variety of variables, but estimated that it could be approximately 800 sq. ft.
There being no further comment from the Board Members, the applicant and members of the general public, Mr. Peak deferred to Mr. Hoehn for any further comment.
Mr. Hoehn informed Mr. Peak that he had submitted a copy of the applicant’s Road Maintenance Agreement with the list of waivers to give the Planning Board ample time to review the documents. If there were any questions with the content of the agreement, he would do his best to address the issues prior to the continuation of hearing or deliberations.
Mr. Peak thought they had to have a mechanism to allow the Planning Board to enter the Board of Health’s letter in to the record of the hearing, and thought it was important to leave the hearing open. If they were unable to close the hearing, he was not sure that the Board could officially vote on the application.
Mr. Hoehn asked Mr. Peak if the Board would consider closing the public hearing and making the approval conditional upon receipt of the Board of Health’s letter, or re-opening the hearing process, if they encountered a problem with the Board of Health.
Mr. Murphy explained that it would help the applicant if the Planning Board officially voted on the application, subject to receipt of the Board of Health’s written comment. If they did not receive a letter from the Board of Health within the 45 days, the Planning Board’s decision would be null and void.
Mr. Peak acknowledged Mr. Murphy’s recommendation and entertained a motion to close the public hearing, enter into deliberations, and leave the written record open to admit written testimony from the Board of Health. Mr. Stephenson so moved. Mr. Aldrin seconded the motion, which motion carried. 5/0/0
The Planning Board resumed their regularly scheduled meeting at 7:58 PM
8:00 PM Deliberations: 241 Main Street Nominee Trust, AP 06C10
The deliberations of the previously closed hearing were duly opened at 8:00 PM. Mr. Peak acknowledged Mr. McCurdy and advised the Board that he had an appointment with the Board at 7:45 PM. Given the hour, Mr. Peak recommended continuing the deliberations at 8:15 PM to give them the opportunity to meet with Mr. McCurdy, as scheduled.
Board members agreed, and Mr. Aldrin moved the continue 241 Main Street Nominee Trust’s deliberations this evening at 8:15 PM. Mr. Stephenson seconded the motion. And the motion carried. 5/0/0
8:00 PM Tom McCurdy, McCurdy Motors, Beach Road
Mr. McCurdy noted that the Planning Board’s meeting minutes of 15 September and 22 September 2010, stated that the Board did not have a substantial problem extending his stay at 199 Beach Road to continue his car sales operations. The only issue that concerned the Board at the time was the Building Inspector’s action or proposal to take legal action. The Board was somewhat confused about the purpose for the meeting, when the Building Inspector’s letter to the applicant indicated that he had filed a criminal complaint for violating the Zoning Bylaws.
Following his meeting with the Planning Board, Mr. McCurdy met with the Building Inspector to discuss the complaint he had filed with court to explain to Mr. Barwick that he was actively looking for other potential sites. In the course of his conversation with the Building Inspector, Mr. McCurdy understood that the Building Inspector would not have an issue if he returned to the Planning Board to request another extension. Mr. Barwick further indicated that he would support the decision of the Planning Board and call the court to withdraw his complaint, if they granted him an extension.
Mr. McCurdy mentioned that he has spoken with Jim Nelson about the use of a site on Beach Road, and another unidentified individual about another potential site for his business.
Mr. Peak inquired if Mr. McCurdy had a court date. Mr. McCurdy replied in the affirmative, noting that he was scheduled to appear in court on November 3, 2010.
Mr. McCurdy asked the Planning Board if they would confirm whether or not he understood them correctly to state at a previous meeting that the majority of the board members did not have an issue with his operations at 199 Beach Road, and “generally thought that if there was a way to be there, that fundamentally no one had a problem with it”. Mr. Peak replied in the affirmative, as long as his operations did not preclude the property from being used for permitted uses.
Mr. McCurdy also understood that Mr. Packer would be able to use his property for parking as he had in the past, once he vacated the premises. And this was confirmed.
Mr. Stephenson inquired if he understood Mr. McCurdy correctly. If the Planning Board granted Mr. McCurdy an extension, Mr. Barwick was willing to withdraw the criminal complaint.
Mr. Peak had a phone conversation with Mr. Barwick and understood him to say that while the Planning Board could extend Mr. McCurdy’s car sales business, it still violated the zoning bylaws because it was not a permitted or special permitted use.
Mr. Stephenson inquired if they could write the Building Inspector a letter stating that they did not have an issue allowing Mr. McCurdy to operate the car sales business temporarily at the current location, knowing that he is actively seeking alternative sites. Mr. Peak cautioned that he was not sure that the Planning Board could grant Mr. McCurdy an extension.
During the discussions, Mr. McCurdy informed the Board that he’s been advised to look into an alternative option, which was to apply for an expansion of a pre-existing, non-conforming use at Winds Up. Board Members preferred focusing on the matter at hand.
Mr. Peak thought their only option was to restate their position and ask to have Mr. McCurdy’s stay on 199 Beach Road extended. Mr. Seidman concurred.
Mr. Stephenson recommended a letter re-affirming that the Planning Board did not have an issue with Mr. McCurdy’s operations at 199 Beach Road on a temporary basis as he looks for alternative sites.
Mr. Peak offered to contact Mr. Barwick to solicit a recommendation about the language of the letter he’d like to have to dismiss the complaint. Mr. McCurdy requested an extension from June 17, 2010 to June 17, 2011.
Mr. Seidman moved to extend the agreement for Mr. McCurdy from June 17, 2010 to June 17, 2011, without any further extensions. Mr. Aldrin seconded the motion, which motion carried. 4/1/0 Mr. Thompson voted against the motion, preferring an extension until September 2011.
8:28 PM Deliberations (Cont): 241 Main Street Nominee Trust, AP 06C10
The continuation of the deliberations were duly opened at 8:28 PM. Mr. Peak, Planning Board Co-Chairman reminded the Board that the application was accepted as a Small Project Submittal, and as such was entitled to certain waivers, which were requested in the form of a letter, according to their regulations.
Mr. Aldrin believed the application complied with their requirements. Mr. Stephenson agreed, noting that if there was a way to restrict the relocation of he septic system in such a way that they minimized the destruction of the number of trees, he’d like to add the language. He too liked the plan because it retained the quality and character of the site.
Mr. Peak inquired how delivery trucks exited the property. Mr. Murphy and Mr. Hoehn suspected that they utilized the turnaround. Mr. Peak recommended delineating the hammerhead in such a way that people would know that it was acceptable for them to turn their vehicle around. Mr. Hoehn recommended adding a condition to address the issue by prohibiting anyone from landscaping the hammerhead, so that it remained grass.
Mr. Peak inquired about lighting, and learned that there was lighting all along the road. He thought he’d like to add a condition restricting the applicants to shielding all exterior lighting to prevent any light from flooding into the neighboring properties.
Mr. Hoehn noted that the driveway was not crowned or bordered. Mr. Peak observed that the property was flat, so that drainage did not present a problem. Mr. Hoehn mentioned that he did not observe any flooding during the last rain storm.
Mr. Peak mentioned that the portion of the property that extends along the northern boundary is 5 ft wide.
There being no further comments, Mr. Peak read through the list of waivers requested by the applicant, and entertained a motion to grant the waivers, following no discussion. Mr. Stephenson moved to approve the waivers 1-6 as listed in Mr. Hoehn’s letter to the Board, dated 19 October 2010. Mr. Aldrin seconded the motion, which motion carried. 5/0/0
Mr. Peak entertained a motion to approve the proposed subdivision proposal as presented with conditions and restrictions, subject to the receipt of a letter of approval from the Board of Health, or the expiration of the Board of Health's 45 days to act (November 12). Mr. Stephenson so moved. Mr. Aldrin seconded the motion and the motion carried. 5/0/0
Mr. Peak entertained a motion to continue the deliberations to review the Road Maintenance Agreement, the Board of Health’s letter and draft decision on November 3, 2010 at 7:15 PM. Mr. Stephenson so moved. Mr. Aldrin seconded the motion. The motion carried. 5/0/0
The Planning Board resumed their regularly scheduled session at 8:52 PM.
8:00 PM Reid Silva Re: Form A – Smith, AP 02F2.7 (No Show)
1. M.V. Commission
A. Island Wind DCPC Regulations
B. 12 October 2010 Meeting Agenda
C. 15 October 2010 Extended Schedule
RE: Zoning Bulletin, 10 September 2010
PRO FORM Meeting opened, conducted and closed in due form at 9:30 P.M.
Patricia V. Harris, Secretary
APPROVAL: Approved and accepted as official minutes;
Date L. Anthony Peak