Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Planning Board Minutes 12/01/2010

P.O. BOX 602
(508) 696-4270
Fax (508) 696-7341


DATE:                   December 1, 2010

TIME:                           7:10 PM

PLACE:                  Town Hall Annex, 66 High Point lane

BILLS:                  Verizon………………………………..$52.42
                                APA (Subscription)…………………...$90.00

MEETING MINUTES:        As referred in the November 17, 2010 Meeting Agenda
                                17 November 2010        Deferred


7:11 PM Douglas Hoehn, SB&H Inc.

Form A – Robert Hewett, Main Street, AP 04G07

Mr. Hoehn submitted a proposal for a division of land creating three (3) building lots, two of which will have a building. Board members were advised that the three (3) lot division of land was endorsed by the Planning Board in a slightly modified layout back in 1996.  The land area for Lot 4 was reduced from the 1996 plan to give Lots 2 & 3 additional land area to accommodate guesthouses.

Mr. Hoehn returns with a new plan, because the applicants’ attorney did not have the opportunity to record the plan prior to an untimely death. The only proof of the division of land’s existence was the one signed hardcopy he possessed. Without a recordable plan, suitable for the Registry of Deeds or Land Court, the applicants did not have a choice but to submit a new plan.

Mr. Peak inquired about the existing dwelling on proposed building Lot 3.  Mr. Hoehn did not know how or when the house was constructed, without a valid or recorded plan. Under normal circumstances the lot would have been recorded or assigned a parcel number before being issued a building permit. He agreed and confirmed that the second dwelling did not exist prior to 1996.

Mr. Peak informed the board that they were not obligated to endorse a previously accepted ANR if they found the existing condition of the road unacceptable. He’s traveled on Jewett Lane and was familiar with the condition of the road. He recommended postponing a determination to give the Board the opportunity to perform a site visit. Board members agreed.

Form A - Glenn Holmes, Cronig Way, AP 16L1.1 and 16M1.2

Mr. Hoehn submitted a plan of land in which abutting property owners were creating and conveying irregularly shaped parcels (wedges) to each other.

The property owners of Lot 1 will gain .04 acres of land to accommodate future plans for expansion. The property owners of Lot 2 obtain 77 sq. ft. of land to move a property line away from their stone wall and driveway. Both Lots 1 and 2 meet the zoning district’s minimum requirements for frontage, land area and depth.

It was further clarified that Lots 2 and 4 are not building lots or represented to be buildable lots, as noted on the plan.

There being no further discussion, Mr. Peak thought the plan was straightforward and entertained a motion to endorse the Plan (MV5380) as an ANR and as presented by Mr. Hoehn. Mr. Stephenson so moved. Mr. Aldrin seconded the motion and the motion carried. 5/0/0

Form C – 241 Main Street, AP 06C10

Mr. Hoehn submitted 241 Main Street’s subdivision plan for the Board to sign. He noted that the 20 Day Appeal period had expired without an appeal.

The Board Secretary confirmed that the applicant met the conditions of the Decision, so that the Board could sign the Definitive Plan.  Hard copies of the signed plan are on file.

7:15 PM Deliberations (Cont): Special Permit Application by Reid (Sam) Dunn, AP
                09B19    Attendance:  Mary Ellen Larsen, Fin Com

The continuation of the deliberations was duly opened at 7:45 PM for the purpose of reviewing a draft decision. Board members were emailed copies of the decision in advance so that they could come prepared with their comments and/or recommendations.

Mr. Peak initiated the discussion be reading into the record the proposal, and Findings. During these discussions he revised the following language:
1.      Finding No. 2, par. 2  
Town Counsel, Kopelman & Paige confirmed Mr. Vincent’s legal opinion, and clarifies for the record that Mr. Dunn is a viable applicant.
2.      Finding No. 7
The Planning Board …. Neither will it impair existing access to the waterfront or of itself decrease visual access.
3.      Finding No. 8
The Applicant in testimony …that the seven (7) parking spaces should not be leased. It is the Planning Board’s understanding that leasing of parking areas is not a permitted use in the Waterfront Commercial District.
4.      Finding No. 9
The Applicant offered and the Planning Board accepts that he will relinquish  any right to expand or revise the existing parking facilities or occupy or modify the remaining open area as stated in the MV Commission’s Decision DRI  485-M5 page 10 condition 5.9.1
5.      Finding No. 10
The Planning Board accepts the Applicant’s offer… on page 11, condition        5.10.2
6.      Condition & Restriction No. 2
For the purpose of this decision, the conditions set by the Martha’s Vineyard Commission Decision (DRI 485-M5) in Section 5 shall be binding.
7.      Condition & Restriction No. 4
Any and all revisions to the plans listed on pages 1 and 2 of this Special Permit must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Board.
8.      Condition No. 5
The applicant is responsible for ensuring that the proposed use on the property complies with the terms of this Special Permit, Town By-Laws and Regulations, and all applicable State and Federal Requirements; the violation of which shall be deemed cause for revoking this Special Permit. Such revocation shall be in addition to any other penalties assessed, pursuant to Tisbury Zoning By-Law Section 10.01.04

There being no further recommendations. Mr. Peak entertained a motion to accept the draft document for their written decision as revised.  Mr. Stephenson moved to accept the special permit document as amended. Mr. Thompson seconded the motion.   5/0/0

Mr. Aldrin moved to close the deliberations. Mr. Thompson seconded the motion. And the motion carried.  5/0/0  

The deliberations were duly closed at 8:18 PM


1. Right to Farm Bylaw and MV Agricultural Commission Proposal

Mr. Stephenson thought it somewhat premature to comment on the bylaw without first obtaining examples of the regulatory language other towns may have adopted.  Whereas he understands that the proposal is to encourage smaller farms, in areas where the distance between properties becomes smaller the operations of the smaller can become problematic.

Mr. Peak understood, and suggested contacting Ms. Flynn to inquire if she’s had the opportunity to collect additional information addressing their concerns, or updates. Mr. Seidman agreed.

Mr. Stephenson thought he could support the concept if the small farms were allowed by special permit as opposed by right.  Mr. Seidman indicated that it should be “related to the size of the property”.

Mrs. Larsen recalled the presentation, and believed the language was too broad and intrusive. It appeared that the proposal was basically creating another layer of bureaucracy. She did not believe that anyone should require a regulatory permit to plant a garden in their back yards.

Mr. Aldrin inquired about the purpose for the proposal. Mr. Thompson replied that the group Ms. Flynn represented was trying to protect a person’s right to farm even if it was limited to one pig or cow, because the larger corporations i.e. Monsanto could create their own rules to prevent the individual from any type of farming. Mr. Thompson understood that the proposal also functioned as a public statement to government that everyone has a right to farm”.
2. Renewable Energy Committee
RE: Proposal for a renewable energy zoning district

Mr. Stephenson reported that the Committee met earlier in the evening, to elect him as their new Chairman, and begin working towards being designated as a Green Community. To obtain the designation, Mr. Stephenson understood that they had to adopt a few renewable energy policies, including a new building code with a higher energy standard, a solar renewable energy zone, a zoning regulation specifying permitted uses, and locating an appropriate area in town for the renewable energy zone i.e. landfill/parking lot off High Point Lane.

Mr. Stephenson informed the Board that he had just learned that private developers were on the Vineyard looking for potential sites to negotiate low cost power for the town in return for the energy credits.  The financial arrangement, according to Mr. Stephenson worked out in the town’s favor.

For the present, the Committee was moving forward on a adopting a bylaw and designating the landfill (areas B & C) as a renewable energy zone. Mr. Cabana who offered to provide the draft bylaw regulation was going to email the language to Mr. Stephenson, who asked the Planning Board Secretary to assist him with the hearing process.

3. Planning Board Meeting Schedule
RE: December 22, 2010

Mr. Seidman moved to cancel the Planning Board’s meeting on 22 December 2010. Mr. Thompson seconded the motion.  

Mr. Stephenson thought it was important to understand that if there was an emergency they’d reconsider meeting. Board members understood.

3. Community Preservation Committee

Mr. Aldrin, the Planning Board’s representative on the Committee indicated that they’ve been meeting the last three days to hear presentations on the multitude of requests for funds, totaling one million dollars.

Unfortunately the Committee only has five hundred thousand to award this year, which will be decided upon on Monday, 06 December 2010.

Mr. Peak voiced an issue with IHT’s request for funds. He could not support affordable housing projects that cost more that what the units were sold for. The overrun did not even include the cost of the land that the town donated or the forfeited town fees. He did not feel compelled to support LEED Certified housing when he and other town residents could not afford it. It was not affordable housing.  If the town is going to be the major financier, then the Town has more of a right to determine the type of housing to be constructed.

He had an issue with IHT’s  philosophy when he was being asked to reduce the money he has to support his family in order to subsidize others who will enjoy a standard of living greater than his own.  Board members agreed.  

4. Sewer Review Committee

Mr. Peak noted that the discussions were somewhat limited in scope because they only had three members in attendance for the meeting. He did learn that it was no so easy to hook into      the sewer system, so that connecting Owen Little Way is not an easy matter as they suspected.

The Committee is due to meet again on December 20, 2010.

1. ComCast
RE: Hearing on 12/7/10 at 3:30PM and 7PM at HS (Municipal/Board’s needs)

Board members encouraged to consider attending the meeting in support the town’s requests for more coverage, etc.


1.      Tisbury Zoning Board of Appeals
A.      Notice – Howell Begle, AP 06D07 (expansion of a pre-existing, non-conforming use)
B.      Notice – John L. Grandin, AP 29D12.1 (detached guesthouse)

2.      West Tisbury Planning Board
RE:  Public Hearing Notice – Special Ways ( Pine Hill Road, Red Coat Hill, Motts Hill Road and Shubael Weeks)

3.      MV Commission
A.      2 December 2010 Meeting Agenda
B.      24 November 2010 Extended Schedule

PRO FORM        Meeting opened, conducted and closed in due form at 9:20 P.M.           (m/s/c  5/0/0)          
Respectfully submitted;
Patricia V. Harris, Secretary

APPROVAL:       Approved and accepted as official minutes;

______________  _________________________
Date            L. Anthony Peak