PLANNING BOARD
TOWN OF TISBURY
P.O. BOX 602
TOWN HALL ANNEX
VINEYARD HAVEN, MASSACHUSETTS 02568
(508) 696-4270
Fax (508) 696-7341
MEETING MINUTES
DATE: January 5, 2011
TIME: 7:12 PM
PLACE: Town Hall Annex, 66 High Point lane
ATTENDANCE: Peak, Seidman, Stephenson and Thompson
BILLS: Petty Cash (Postage)………………..$15.00
MEETING MINUTES: As referred in the December 15, 2010 Meeting Agenda
15 November 2010 Deferred
15 December 2010 m/s/c 4/0/0
APPOINTMENTS:
7:35 PM Deliberations (Cont): Special Permit Amendment byAT&T, AP 10A01
The continuation of the deliberations was duly opened at 7:35 PM, at which time the Board Members were asked to review the draft special permit document that amended their January 5, 2010 Decision to reflect the applicant’s revision.
Board members reviewed the language and agreed to the typographical revisions and the addition of the following language to:
Finding No. 3 The amendment … , a bulkhead on the Vineyard Haven Harbor (the effective high water line).
Finding No. 4 Based on testimony …warehouse to the doghouse on the rooftop, then across the roof mounted cable tray to the antennas,
Finding No. 20 The applicant met with the Site Plan Review Board on December 15, 2010 and obtained a favorable opinion, provided the buiding and cable trays were painted … visual impact on the building.
Determination: The Planning Board … freestanding new structure.
The Planning Board granted the applicant relief from the following Wireless Communication Facility’s application submittal requirements on January 5, 2010 , at the time they reviewed the original proposal. This still applies.
Condition No. 5. This special permit is valid for a term of ten (10) … from January 5, 2010 and may be renewed upon application to the Planning Board.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Peak entertained a motion to accept the draft special permit document as revised. Mr. Stephenson so moved. Mr. Thompson seconded the motion, which motion carry. 4/0/0
At the conclusion of the discussions, the Board msc to close the deliberations. The Board thereafter immediately resumed their regularly scheduled session at 7:48 PM.
BOARD DISCUSSION:
1. Robert Jewett AP 04G07
RE: Form A Application
Mr. Peak explained that he wanted to discuss the proposal with Town Counsel because he was not certain that the lots had frontage, if the frontage is on the properties. The primary issue is that one of the lots does not have any frontage, even when it was created in a previous Form A. He did not understand why the Planning Board endorsed the plan when it never qualified as a Form A division of land, and thought it important to know what the repercussions were if they re-endorsed the plan knowing that it did not qualify as an ANR.
Mr. Peak contacted Mr. Hoehn to discuss the issues, and was granted an additional extension on the review process until January 12, 2011. It was confirmed that Mr. Hoehn had emailed the Planning Board the extension.
Mr. Peak indicated that he would be contacting Town Counsel for a response in time for next week’s meeting on January 12, 2011.
2. Susan Fairbanks, Winyah Circle
RE: Application of Tisbury Zoning Bylaw s. 07.03.04
Deferred until Mr. Peak reviews the proposal with town counsel. The Board Secretary in the interim was to review the original subdivision plan to see if the developers created substandard lots relative to frontage.
3. Potential Zoning Bylaw Amendments
A. Solar Energy
Mr. Stephenson informed the Board that if the Town wanted to qualify as a Green Community by the state, they had to meet certain criteria, including the adoption of zoning regulations that permitted or encouraged renewable energy as a matter of right. He thought that in their case they could designate a certain territory (a minimum of 5 acres or more) for large scale, land based solar arrays. Tisbury’s landfill was the most likely and practical solution.
If the land area had to be clearly defined, they would more than likely need to have the land surveyed to generate an accurate description of the district on their zoning map. Mr. Stephenson thought it was also equally important to study the proposal’s impact to the town, which meant that they would also have to meet with the Board of Health, the Water Department, the Building Department and the DPW to solicit their impressions.
Mr. Stephenson understood that the town has not officially closed the landfill, and is still working the town met the state’s requirements. Mr. Peak recommended contacting the Board of Health about the status of the Post-Closure plans for the landfill and their idea for a renewable energy district.
Mr. Peak advised Mr. Stephenson that the bylaw amendment had to be submitted to the Town Clerk by a certain date to be allowed on the warrant for Special Town Meeting. Board members referred to the Town Clerk’s schedule, and noted that it had to be submitted to the Town Clerk by February 18, 2011.
Mr. Peak inquired if the state’s model bylaw explains the benefits in adopting the regulation. Mr. Stephenson replied in the affirmative. Mr. Peak inquired if he would continue the lead on the proposal to field questions on the Board’s behalf. Mr. Stephenson replied in the affirmative because it opened up tiers of funding for municipal projects.
Mr. Peak thought they should one composite plot plan for the entire parcel reflecting all existing municipal uses, rights of ways, etc, so that they can discuss their proposal with everyone to learn if there are other municipal projects in the works that the district may impact.
Mr. Stephenson noted that he had to work on a schedule to keep the project moving forward. He thought they had to meet with all of the pertinent boards, develop language, and a hold hearing(s). Mr. Peak thought they’d have to start publishing the hearings at the beginning of March and holding the hearings in the middle of March.
B. Wind Energy Regulations (MVC) - Deferred
4. Planning Board Meeting Schedule
RE: January 26, 2011 Meeting
Mr. Stephenson did not think they had to cancel the meeting since it was not posted. Board members agreed. Mr. Peak recommended voting on the issue even if it was just a formality.
Mr. Seidman moved to cancel the Planning Board’s meeting on 26 January 2011. Mr. Peak seconded the motion, which motion carried. 4/0/0
5. Planning Board FY 2012 Budget
RE: Due January 12, 2011
Messrs. Peak and Seidman agreed to work on the budget on the Board’s behalf. The Board accepted the offer, and agreed to leave a determination on the final budget within the capable hands of Messrs. Peak and Seidman
6. Martha’s Vineyard Museum
Mr. Stephenson reported that John Abrahms, from South Mountain Company wanted to present their proposal to the members of the community, specifically the abutters to solicit their impressions and to address any concerns in converting the old St. Pierre school aka Marine Hospital as the MV Museum’s new location.
The Planning Board has agreed to host the presentation during their regularly scheduled meeting on January 19, 2011, and will be inviting all pertinent Town Boards to the joint meeting. In anticipation of the number of residents that will be attending the meeting, the Planning Board reserved the large room at the Tisbury Senior Center.
Mr. Stephenson noted that the MV Museum group currently has an option on the property, and presently involved in a feasibility study to determine if the site was in fact suitable for this purpose. The local community’s feedback was a very important consideration.
Mr. Peak added that the zoning issue for the use was whether the museum qualified as an educational facility, and if an education facility was permitted within a residential district. Mr. Seidman thought it was important to know if the developers intended to hold other functions on the grounds that were not directly related to the activities of a museum. That would have an impact on traffic.
Mr. Stephenson indicated that he liked the idea of having a museum in town, provided that the developers opened the grounds to the public. The issue that concerned him was access. He thought the town would have to provide a sidewalk to the location.
Mr. Seidman questioned whether that was feasible, given the road’s proximity to wetlands. Mr. Peak believed they had to investigate this before they could say for certain whether or not it was feasible.
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED:
1. Tisbury Board of Appeals
A. Public Hearing Notice – Howell Begle (expansion of a pre-existing, mon-conforming use
B. Public Hearing Notice – 2112 Skiff Avenue LLC (construction of a dwelling on a pre-existing, non-conforming lot)
2. MV Commission
A. 31 December 2010 Extended Schedule
B. 6 January 2011 Meeting Agenda
3. West –Thomson Publishing
RE: Zoning Bulletin, 10 December 2010
4. American Planning Association
Re: 2011 National Planning Conference, Boston MA
Mr. Seidman expressed and interest in attending the conference, and was asked to submit a letter itemizing the work sessions he wanted to attend, and all of the associated costs for the board’s endorsement.
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
Co-Chairman
| 
