Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Planning Board Minutes 02/01/12

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


DATE:           February 1, 2012
TIME:           7:10 PM

PLACE:          Town Hall Annex

ATTENDANCE:     Aldrin, Peak, Stephenson,

BILLS:          Verizon………………$51.43     
MINUTES:                As referred in the January 25, 2012 Meeting Agenda
                        25 January 2012 Deferred        


7:05 PM Douglas Hoehn, SB&H Inc.  
A) Jacqueline and Thomas Neel, Preliminary Discussion – AP 36A15.4, Irene’s Way

Mr. Hoehn submitted a tax map, an aerial map and a sketch of the 3.5 acres property on Irene’s Way to explain that the westerly parcel was the result of a previously endorsed plan of land in 1992. The easterly lot was developed under Ch.40B, while the lot in question remained in Irene Perlstein’s ownership. Mrs. Perlstein’s daughter, Mrs. Jacqueline Neel has since inherited the property and camp house.

Mr. & Mrs. Neel are exploring the possibility of dividing the long and narrow lot into three (3) building lots to pass on to their children, and wanted to solicit the Planning Board’s impressions about the feasibility of their proposal.

Board members were informed that the access to the camp house on the property was through the power lines to Tashmoo Avenue, Hvoslef Way and Serusa Lane, which ran parallel to the property in question. The Neels’ driveway branched off Serusa Lane and ran down the property all the way to the camp house.  

Mrs. Neel advised the Board that the camp house had existed for a hundred years. As he grew up on the island, she and her parents lived across the street from the property on Tashmoo Avenue, approximately one and a tenth mile miles away. The camp house, a fishing shack was used for family gatherings.

Mr. Hoehn noted that the dirt roads leading to the property were in great shape, but that the Neel’s driveway had to be improved.

Mr. Peak inquired if the three abutting lots accessed their properties on Serusa Lane, and if the Neel’s had legal access across Serusa Lane.  Mr. Hoehn replied that he would have to look at the subdivision’s Definitive Plan, and offered to provide the Planning Board a copy.  Mr. Stephenson noted that access was an issue in the area, in that the ways ran in all sorts of directions from the power line.

Mr. Hoehn clarified that Serusa Lane was designed to serve the three lots fronting on that road. The Neel’s driveway ran parallel to Serusa Lane. He did not believe the Neel’s had any rights over Serusa Lane. In fact the road and driveway were only on few feet apart. Mr. Peak raise the issue if they could view the driveway as a road, if it was a road. Mr. Hoehn noted that the applicants could create the road through a Form C subdivision, but suggested a site visit of the property. The issue they’d have to address with the board is the ability to create a subdivision road off a private way.

Mr. Peak agreed that the site visit would benefit the Board. The additional time would also allow him to refer to the Board’s regulations to determine if the proposal was permitted and/or presented issues. Mr. Hoehn offered to accompany the Board members for the site inspection, or accompany each Board member as their schedules permitted.

Mr. Hoehn asked the Board when they believed they could inform him if the applicants could divide the property, and if there were any issues they had to address to make the division possible.

The Board referred to meeting schedule and thought they would be prepared with a response by February 22, 2012 at 7:10 PM.  The Neel’s departed at 7:35 PM.

B) George Balco - Form A Application, Mink Meadows R50, AP 30C01

Mr. Hoehn submitted a Form A Plan of Land creating a 5 acres parcel of land from the Mink Meadows Gulf Course’s common area.  The 5 acres parcel was to be used for the golf pro’s residence during golfing season.

The parcel in question is located in the practice area at a safe distance from the first hole and practice area.  Mr. Hoehn explained that the new structure was going to provide a second housing unit for staff, given that the greenskeeper was living in an apartment above the club house.

Mr. Hoehn submitted the golf course’s plan, dating back to 1965 and compared the plan with the proposed Form A reflecting a five (5) acres parcel fronting on Bigelow and Golf Club Roads, with the latter being the primary means of access. It was demonstrated that the lot exceeded all of the dimensional requirements for the zoning district.

Pursuant to the Board’s questions, Mr. Balco explained that the golf course was given a tax reduction under chapter 61B as recreational land. The five acres of land proposed for the one residential dwelling was the minimum allowed by state statute. The ownership of the lot and residential building would remain the same, except that the tax structure for the land and building would be revised according to the new use. The Mink Meadows Association had to pay back the town, the taxes for the residential use going back five years, and will forever pay the revised tax rate for both land and building.

Mr. Hoehn mentioned that he had included the building envelope on the plan to illustrate the extent of the residential use, because the remainder of the five acre property was still going to be used for the golf course. He also mentioned that the plan may qualify as a DRi because he was dividing a 30 acres parcel into two lots. Although they were only developing a five acres house lot, the land area normally triggers a review for general developments. Board members did not believe the proposal met the intent for the referral.

There being no further discussion, Mr. Peak entertained a motion to endorse the plan of land that was prepared for the Mink Meadows Association Inc, by SB&H Inc on 02/01/12 (Plan No. MV10890) as presented. Mr. Stephenson so moved. Mr. Aldrin seconded the motion, which motion carried.  3/0/0

Tashmoo Park

Mr. Hoehn submitted the Plan of Land in Tisbury, Mass prepared for the Town of Tisbury and the Tisbury Water Works (Plan No. MV 8582, dated 12/15/11) at Mr. Stephenson’s request.

Board members had the opportunity to review the plan. Mr. Stephenson asked Mr. Hoehn if he could discuss the addition of a view corridor, because they needed the additional information as a point of reference for future arrangements.


1. Douglas Hoehn
RE: Carly Simon, AP 55A04       (No Discussion)

2. Jeffrey Robinson’s Subdivision
RE: Upland Drive

Mr. Peak asked the Board Secretary to provide the Board the file, because he did not think the subdivision road was constructed to match the existing road in Oak Bluffs.


1.  Joel A. Baird, Kopelman & Paige PC
RE: Variance not required for expanding/altering non-conforming single/2 family dwellings

2. Tisbury Zoning Board of Appeals
A. Hearing Notice – Zachary Clark, AP 23A16.36 (accessory apartment)
B. Hearing Notice – Vineyard House, AP 22A06 (revised plans, reduction in scope)
C. Hearing Notice – MV Winery, AP 07N06 (food service w/outside seating)
D. Special Permit #2096 – Valerio DeStefani, AP 23A54 (Raise chickens)
E. Special Permit #2099 – Kathryn A. Tate, AP 04D04 (addition to a pre-existing structure & lot)
F. Special Permit #2098 – John Rancourt, AP 22A18 (outside displays)

3. Martha’s Vineyard Commission
A. 02 February 2012 Meeting Agenda
B. 27 January 2012 Extended Schedule

PRO FORM        Meeting opened, conducted and closed in due form at 9:30 P.M.           (m/s/c  5/0/0)