Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Planning Board Minutes 02/22/12

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


DATE:           February 22, 2012
TIME:                   7:10 PM

ATTENDANCE:     Peak, Seidman, Stephenson and Thompson
ABSENT:         Aldrin

PLACE:          Town Hall Annex

MINUTES:                As referred in the February 08, 2012 Meeting Agenda
                        08 February 2012        Deferred

7:10 PM Douglas Hoehn, SB&H Inc. Re: Jacqueline Neel (Postponed)

7:15 PM         Linda Sibley Re: Relocating Radio Shack, State Road (Parking Plan)

Board members were advised that Mrs. Sibley had to present Radio Shack’s parking plan for its new location on State Road. It was a zoning bylaw prerequisite for a building permit.

Mrs. Sibley indicated that she was required to provide a total of thirty-three parking spaces. Mr. Seidman commented that the plan illustrated 35 numbered spaces and one handicap space for a total of thirty-six parking spaces. It was further noted that a second handicap space was provided for in the plan and part of the 35 numbered spaces.

Mrs. Sibley noted that she was going to rent Warehouse No. 1 to Rick Mello to operate his screen printing (light manufacturing) operations. She was contemplating the rental of Warehouse No. 2 to a kitchen/cabinet maker or renting the space to two individuals in need of storage space (warehousing).

Mr. Peak inquired if the trees in black on the plan are in fact in existence. Mrs. Sibley replied in the affirmative. She added that the one tree at the entrance on State Road was presenting a problem, because she learned that the existing water was not sufficient to accommodate the sprinkler system and the additional uses (i.e. two apartments above the retail space). The Water Department advised her that she had to replace the 1” main with a 12” main at their own expense to accommodate the increased water usage. The Water Department has also asked them to install a fire hydrant in the spot marked with a blue X on the plan between the tree and the State Road layout. She has since learned that the contractor installing the hydrant can do so without having to relocate the tree.

Mrs. Sibley submitted a Site Plan, 426 State Road, Tisbury Mass, dated December 8, 2011 by Schofield, Barbini & Hoehn, Inc. (Plan No. MV 2309) for the Board’s review. 8.5”x 11” copies of the plan were made available to the Board via email prior to the meeting.  The larger plans facilitated the discussions.

Mr. Peak inquired about the two handicap spaces. Mrs. Sibley noted that the one handicap space against the west side of the building was going to be relocated approximately “one car’s length” down on ground level. As for the additional handicap space in front of the building, facing State Road, she thought there was a good possibility that it would be removed from the plan, since they were only required to provide one handicap space. As this was not definite, Mrs. Sibley offered to return to the Board with the revised plan.

Mr. Peak inquired about the trees being added, and Mrs. Sibley replied that she was utilizing native plants, shrubs and trees. The trees were as follows: 8 Acer Rubrum, 5 Ilex Opaca, 8 Ilex Glabra, 8 Ilex Verticulata, viburnum, switch grass, Black-eyed Susan, etc.

Mr. Peak inquired about the intended users for parking spaces 33-35. Mrs. Sibley replied that two were assigned to the renters and one was going to be designated for retail use. Mr. Peak noted that the renters would have to drive around to the back of the building past parking spaces 29-32 to access their designated parking spaces. Mrs. Sibley replied in the affirmative. Parking spaces 29-32 were for the sole use of Warehouse No. 2. None were available for the public to use.

Mr. Peak inquired if the MV Commission had requested the use of the arrows to clarify the traffic flow in the parking lot and the ingress and egress. Mrs. Sibley replied in the affirmative. He then questioned the layout of the spaces (33-35) along the northeast side of the building, because their access conflicted with the direction of the traffic at the exit. He did not understand why the renters could not drive around towards the back to go around the building in a northwest direction, expected from the tenants in Warehouse No. 2. The traffic flow would be uniform, and the entrance and exit would be clearly defined. Mrs. Sibley agreed.

Mrs. Sibley further noted that she planned to remove and replace the graveled area along the southerly property line property with a vegetative swale to control the runoff into Goodale’s property from the rear of the property. Mr. Goodale’s has apparently given her a verbal consent.

Mr. Stephenson inquired if there was any way the parking area could be linked to Vineyard Home Center’s parking lot, so that they could share one entrance. Mrs. Sibley thought they could make two gaps in the fence to allow foot traffic between the two properties, but questioned whether Mr. Wansciewicz would agree to remove the fencing, because he was using it to stack his lumbar. She suggested that he may not need to use the entire length of the fence, if he rents Warehouse No. 2.  Mrs. Sibley noted that if they consolidated their entrances, the trees would have to be removed.

Mr. Stephenson inquired if they could create a walking trail from their property to Napa. Mrs. Sibley believed she could create a gap in the fence, where “the wood fence” is located on the site plan. The only difficulty is that pedestrians may be walking into Mr. Wansciewicz’s stacked lumber on the other side.

Mr. Peak noted that the 4 ft high wooden fence stops a bit after the 2nd oak tree, so that Mrs. Sibley could landscape the section a bit to allow people to walk through onto the property next door. Mrs. Sibley agreed. The only concern was that his property was so congested with his building materials.

Board members questioned why the sidewalk did not extend past Mr. Wansciewicz’s property. It was suggested that it may have to do with NStar’s restrictions.

Mr. Peak inquired about Mrs. Sibley’s proposal for lighting.  Mrs. Sibley referred the Board to the list of Offers she submitted to the MV Commission as part of her application, which listed:
1)      Applicant will remove the high intensity parking lot light,
2)      Lighting in the parking lot will be low, downward shielded and turned off after the close of business,
3)      Lighting on the building will be downward shielded and turned off after the close of business,
4)      Lighting for the apartment entrances will not exceed what is required by code and may be left on at night,
5)      Any security lighting will be motion sensitive and not left on continuously at night, and
6)      Leases will require commercial tenants to restrict interior night lighting to no more than 20% of full capacity and utilize interior motion sensitive security lighting if necessary.

Mr. Peak inquired if Mrs. Sibley was adding the island with the tree, and she replied in the affirmative.

Mr. Peak inquired if the little balcony was going to remain. Mrs. Sibley replied that it was going to become an enclosed stairway for the apartment. The existing interior staircase will be used by the other apartment in addition to the emergency exit corridor.

Mrs. Sibley noted that the was also constructing two affordable – three (3) bedroom apartments, subject to the Dukes County Housing Authority’s requirements.

Relative to the parking lot’s surface, Mrs. Sibley informed the Board that she was planning to remove the asphalt, since she had to install a new disposal works system in the parking area, and decided to re-grade the area to stop the storm water runoff going to State Road. The asphalt was going to be reprocessed on the property so that she could lay down a gravel & hardener surface. The asphalt at the front entrance into the property was going to remain as it currently exists with additional landscaping for the aesthetics.

 Mr. Peak did not have any further questions regarding the proposal, and asked the Board for their comments. Mr. Stephenson thought the Board could endorse the parking plan with the following revisions:
A)      re-directing the traffic pattern one way around the building
B)      changing the angle of  parking spaces nos. 33 to 35 so that traffic goes one direction (westerly) towards State Highway
C)      adding a pedestrian link to NAPA between the oak trees on the site plan, and
D)      consider adding a landscaped island on the northeast corner of Mr. Wansciewicz’s entrance on State Road (subject to Mr. Wansciewicz’s cooperation).

Mr. Peak recommended issuing the Building Inspector a letter affirming that in general they approved of the parking plan, with the exception of:
A)      suggesting that the traffic pattern go in one direction around the back of the building along the northeast corridor
B)      Reversing the angle for spaces 33-35,
C)      Keeping the front area of the western boundary clear to allow pedestrian flow back to the sidewalk in a westerly direction.

Mr. Seidman so moved. Mr. Stephenson seconded the motion, which motion carried.  4/0/0


1. Douglas Hoehn
A.  Carly Simon, AP 55A04

Board members were reminded that Mr. Hoehn was soliciting a response for the proposals he had presented to them to address a zoning violation. Mr. Hoehn wanted to know if the proposal for a Form C or Special Permit (Multiple Dwelling Units/Structures) would bring the caretaker’s habitable unit into compliance.

Mr. Peak explained that the zoning violation was brought to the Building Inspector’s attention by the property owner’s neighbor, who reported that the special permitted, detached bedroom (w/shower) had evolved into a full scale living unit. Mr. Barwick investigated the complaint to confirm the facts, and affirmed this to be true. The living unit was constructed without any permits.  

Mr. Peak reviewed Section 04.04.02 to find that the regulation permitted a maximum of four buildings, provided one of the dwellings had frontage on a public way. There weren’t any public ways. The only other option would be the Form C division of land. It would require several waivers, including a waiver from access to a public way, and they’ve only granted the waiver on one occasion. But he did not see that the same arguments for allowing the waiver would pertain to this situation.

Mr. Seidman inquired if that meant that the structure would have to be restored as a detached one bedroom, as originally permitted.  Mr. Peak did not see any other option. Section 04.04.02 allowed a maximum of four (4) dwelling structures and required one of the dwellings to have frontage on a public way. The Form C subdivision required access to a public way. Since the applicant could not meet the requirement, the only other viable possibility was to pursue a cluster development.

Board members reviewed the requirements for a cluster development in section 08.01, and agreed to present this as a potential solution to the applicant’s dilemma.

B. Jacqueline and Thomas Neel, 36A15
Board members reviewed Mr. & Mrs. Neel’s proposal for a Form C subdivision to create three buildings lots. All were of the opinion that the applicant’s could not meet the requirements for a Form C subdivision of land without the grant of several waivers.

Board members were not inclined to grant the number of waivers.

2. Dan Seidman
RE: Planning Board’s Town Report (Draft)

Board members endorsed the report with one revision. They asked to include a comment regarding the MV Museum’s efforts to relocate in Tisbury.

Mr. Stephenson recommended adding the following language:
        Former Marine Hospital:
        The Planning Board looks forward to working with the MV Museum’s Board of       Directors to rehabilitate and convert the former marine hospital into a museum.         The MV Museum’s new quarters will be a great asset to the town.

3. Merle A. Hass, Attorney – Goodman, Shapiro & Lombardi, LLC
RE: Proposed construction adjacent to MV Harbor Landing Condos

Board members were advised that the letter was brought to Mr. Bugbee’s attention and sent via fax, so that it could be referred to town counsel.

Mr. Stephenson understood that the Condo Association was concerned that the proposed improvements would eliminate access to four of their parking spaces. Mr. Peak noted that the Condo Association had an alternate means of access. It was not used, because it was easier to drive into two of the parking spaces from town property. Without access on town property the vehicles would have to park head-to-head.

Board members questioned whether the Condominium Association had a legal right to encumber town owned land, when the proposed development was to benefit the town.


1.  West Thompson
RE: Zoning Bulletin, 25 January 2012

2. Michael D. Giggey, PE
RE: Tisbury Wastewater Management Planning (06/2011 Case Studies)

Board members were asked to review the materials so that they could come prepared for the discussions on March 28, 2012 at 7PM.

3. MV Commission
A. 23 February 2012 Meeting Agenda
B. 17 February 2012 Extended Schedule
C. January 9, 2012 Meeting Minutes (Tisbury Marketplace Theater)

Mr. Peak informed the Board that the MV Commission had endorsed the multi-purpose theater, and were in the process of writing their decision.

Mr. Seidman inquired if the town had any further comment on the proposal. Mr. Peak replied that the Building Inspector was going to refer the proposal to the Planning Board because the permitted parking plan was going to be revised.

D. DRI 77-M3 - 426 State Road Modification (and other attachments)
E. DRI 582M, Vineyard House Inc. AP 22A06 (and other attachments)

4. Marion Mudge, Town Clerk
RE: Open Meeting Law

5. Sprint Spectrum LP
RE: Tower Structure Removal Bond (AP 22A11)

PRO FORM        Meeting opened, conducted and closed in due form at 9:35 P.M.           (m/s/c  4/0/0)