DATE: January 11, 2012
TIME: 7:05 PM
PLACE: Town Hall Annex
ATTENDANCE: Aldrin, Peak, Seidman, Stephenson, Thompson
MINUTES: As referred in the 04 January 2011 Meeting Agenda
04 January 2012 As amended 5/0/0
7:05 PM House Business
1. Fire Station
Board members were informed that the Town had prepared a list of the job details the contractor was expected to address in order to complete the construction of new emergency facility.
2. MV Commission’s LUPC Meeting on 01/09/12
Mr. Peak informed the Board Members that the Committee held a post-hearing discussion of Mr. Dunn’s theater, and additional discussions regarding Mr. Silva’s revised proposal for Tisbury Farmer’s Market (Modification). Mr. Silva was proposing to replace the rear building with a new two story structure and full basement.
Mr. Peak solicited volunteers to attend the MV Commission’s meeting on 01/19/12 to participate in the deliberations of Mr. Dunn’s project. Mr. Seidman offered to attend.
3. Cabinet Meeting, 01/12/12 @ 4:30PM. Vineyard Haven Library
Mr. Peak asked Mr. Stephenson if he would attend the meeting on his behalf, since he was going to be off-island. Mr. Stephenson replied in the affirmative.
4. Mr. Seidman learned that the Dept. of Public Works had submitted a warrant g requesting three million dollars to construct the connector road at the Annual Town Meeting.
7:10 PM Public Hearing (Cont.) Sprint Spectrum LC, A.P. 22A11
Attendance: Elisabeth Rutkowski, Agent
The continuation of the public hearing began at 7:15 PM. Planning Board Co-Chairman, Mr. Peak read the revised notice into the minutes, and introduced Mr. Seidman, the one member on the Board absent at the initial hearing. Mr. Seidman listened to the discussions.
Ms. Rukowski submitted several copies of the existing antennas specifications, noting that there were currently two different types of antennas (of the same size – 4’8” tall) on the water tank.
Mr. Peak noted that the new antennas (6 ft.) were about 1.5 ft taller than the existing antennas.
The Planning Board secretary mentioned that the Tisbury Water Works Department and Town Treasurer confirmed that Sprint did not post a bond with their lease to comply with the Zoning Bylaws. Ms. Rutkowski added that she had contacted Sprint to ask them to research their lease with the town to determine if a removal bond was required as part of their current lease.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Peak entertained a motion to enter into the deliberations of the special permit application at close the hearing. Mr. Thompson so moved. Mr. Aldrin seconded the motion. The motion carried. 4/0/1 Mr. Seidman abstained from the vote. The hearing closed at 7:25 PM
7:25 PM Deliberations: Sprint Spectrum LC, A.P. 22A11
Mr. Peak asked Ms. Rutkowski if the noise levels were the same for both the new and existing equipment. Ms. Rutkowski replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Peak informed the Board that the applicant had requested two waivers from the submittal requirements, the first being the photographic simulations of the new equipment. In lieu of the simulations, the Board received drawings for the proposed equipment and photographs depicting the existing antennas.
The second waiver required documentation about the noise level. Based on Ms. Rutkowski’s testimony, there was not going to be any change in the existing noise level with the new installation.
There being no discussion, Mr. Peak entertained a motion to grant a waiver from the submittal requirements No.5 Photographic Simulations and No. 8 Noise Finding. Mr. Stephenson so moved. Mr. Aldrin seconded the motion, and the motion carried. 4/0/1. Mr. Seidman abstained from the vote.
Mr. Peak asked the Board for any questions or comments on the proposal. There being none, he entertained a motion to approve Sprint Spectrum’s application for a special permit to upgrade the existing Telecommunication Facility on the water tank, as presented with conditions and restrictions. Mr. Aldrin so moved. Mr. Thompson seconded the motion, which motion carried. 4/0/1 Mr. Seidman abstained.
Mr. Peak inquired if the applicant intended to keep the existing colors for the new installations. Ms. Rutkowski replied in the affirmative. Mr. Peak noted that he would like to include the requirement for a bond, in addition to the standard conditions, such as the permit’s expiration date. He advised Ms. Rutkowski that the permits were valid up to ten years, at which time the applicant was expected to renew the permit.
Ms. Rutkowski was advised that the Planning Board had to continue the deliberations to review a rough draft of the decision to develop a final draft. Mr. Peak noted that the Planning Board was not meeting next week, and recommended continuing the deliberations until 1/25/12 at 7:10 PM at the Town Hall Annex. Mr. Aldrin so moved. Mr. Stephenson seconded the motion, and the motion carried. 4/0/1 The Planning Board resumed their regularly scheduled meeting at 7:35 PM
Ms. Rutkowski inquired if the Planning Board was going to return the $2000.00 check the applicant submitted for consulting fees, if they did not utilize the funds. The Board Secretary noted that the Board had officially voted at the last hearing to return the funds to the applicant, given that they did not need services of a consultant to make a determination.
The Planning Board resumed their regularly schedule at 7:35 PM.
7:45 PM John, Abrahms, Rob Meyer & Derrill Bazzy, South Mountain Co. Re: Cronig’s Solar Parking Canopy, 357 State Road & 369 State Road
Mr. Seidman understood the applicant opted for the solar paneled parking canopies, because the roof could not structurally support the weight of the solar panels. He also learned that the structural supports of the canopies came in different colors, so that they did not have to be stark white, as depicted in the plans.
Mr. Stephenson noted that he had an issue with the size of the structures. Mr. Seidman did not think they would have any more of an impact than the 60 ft. – 70 ft. long building on the property. Mr. Stephenson replied that the supermarket was also 40 ft back from the sidewalk, so that it had less of a visual impact on State Road. He also did not like the fact that the canopies were 17 ft tall at the highest end. He inquired if the height was intended to give tractor trailers enough head space to pass through.
Mr. Abrahms, Mr. Meyer and Mr. Bazzy joined the Board at 7:47 PM for an informal presentation of the solar paneled canopies at Cronig’s Market on State Road to solicit their impressions and recommendations.
Mr. Abrahms began the presentation stating that Mr. Bernier and Vineyard Power were proposing to erect three canopies with 12,000 sq. ft. of solar panels that will produce electricity, provide electricity for electric cars (via chargers) and shade cars during the hot summer months. To accommodate the canopies, they were going to have to transplant about five fairly large trees.
Mr. Bazzy noted that he had revised plans and pictorial renderings demonstrating some of the color options for both the structure and panels. They did not have to be the white decking and clear glass.
Mr. Stephenson inquired if they could recycle the water that collected on the panels. Mr. Meyer replied that the structures were designed to funnel the rainwater towards the center down to the existing drainage system. Mr. Siedman questioned if the water could be collected in barrels so that it could be recycled. Although this was not part of the design, he thought it was worth considering. Mr. Abrahms concurred.
Mr. Stephenson inquired if the solar panels could be semi-transparent, similar to the one used in the shed to create a light shade. Mr. Abrahms replied in the negative because the panels were glazed. It was not an option at this time.
Mr. Peak inquired if the angle and orientation of the panels had a bearing on the production of electricity. Mr. Abrahms replied in the negative, because all they had to do was to manipulate the panels (i.e. sharper angle during the winter months, and flatter during the summer) to produce electricity.
Mr. Seidman, a member of Vineyard Power noted wanted to confirm with the gentlemen that for the record that the solar panels could not be installed on the roof of the building, because structurally it could not support their weight. Messrs. Abrahms, Bazzy and Meyer confirmed this to be true.
Board members inquired if there were similar plans for other parking lots. Mr. Abrahms replied in the affirmative, noting that they were looking at the High School, airport and landfill’s. The latter was a bit of a challenge, because of the capped areas. They had to figure out they could install the canopies without penetrating the lining. Mr. Stephenson thought they just needed to re-engineer the base. Mr. Abrahms agreed, and commented that they were designing one for Aquinnah.
Mr. Peak inquired about the need for the tall structures. Mr. Meyer replied that they needed the clearance for their delivery trucks. The structures were designed to provide highway clearance.
Mr. Stephenson inquired if there was any reason why they could not add trees to the streetscape to re-establish the tree canopy on State Road. They could not exceed 2.5 times the height of the canopies (i.e. 25 ft.). Mr. Abrahms noted that they would have to remove the shrubs up front if they were going to add trees. If they removed the hedge row, they were going to expose the canopies. Mr. Stephenson was not concerned about hiding the canopies, as much as he was trying to re-establish the canopy of the whole street.
Mr. Abrahms indicated that they wanted to install the canopies in front of the health food store in the late winter or early spring, and the one canopy in front of the supermarket by next fall, so that it gave them time to work out any issues.
Mr. Stephenson thought they might also consider planting trees on Colonial Avenue, he was just concerned that the canopies raised the danger of looking like a gas station.
Mr. Abrahms understood, and noted that they were considering muted colors (moss, blue-gray (City Scape), etc) for the structures and panels to calm the visual impact. The Planning Board members all agreed that they would prefer the muted colors for the structure, deck and glass panels. Mr. Seidman’s recommendations to camouflage the structures as trees were noted but not feasible because of the expense. Mr. Stephenson liked the idea of articulating the frame and the columns, and having some visual contrast between them and the canopies.
Mr. Peak recommended more sedate lighting, such as lighted bollards. Mr. Abrahms indicated that they were going to have a light designer come up with a plan. He thought it was going to be an issue the MV Commission would raise during their review.
Mr. Bazzy submitted a revised set of plans that included the dimensions for the structures and different photo simulations.
1. Cabinet Meeting on 1/12/12 at 4:30 PM (Public Library)
Mr. Stephenson indicated that he would attend the meeting on Mr. Peak’s behalf.
2. Planning Board Projects
Mr. Stephenson requested that the following subjects should be placed on their next meeting agenda: DPW’s warrant article, the demolition of the old fire station, plans for its new use as a parking lot, the connector road, and Boch’s property.
He suggested inviting Mr. LaPiana to the meeting so that they can discuss the DPW’s proposals. He also asked Mr. Seidman if he would forward the Boch’s property’s trustee a copy of the plan he had sketched for discussion purposes, and Mr. Seidman agreed.
1. Martha’s Vineyard Commission
RE: 6 January 2012 Extended Meeting Schedule (No meeting this Thursday)
2. West Tisbury Planning Board
RE: Hearing Notice – (Photovoltaic Arrays in landfill area)
3. Reuter- Thomson
RE: 10 December 2011 issue
1. Planning Board’s FY 2013 Budget (Completed)
RE: Payroll FY 2013 (20 hours +/part time)
1. January 18, 2012 - No Meeting
PRO FORM Meeting opened, conducted and closed in due form at 8:45 P.M. (m/s/c 5/0/0)