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: April 18, 2012
TIME: 7:00 PM
ATTENDANCE: Peak, Stephenson and Thompson
ABSENT: Aldrin, Seidman
PLACE: Town Hall Annex
MINUTES: As referred in the March 28, 2012 Meeting Agenda
07 March 2012 M/S/C 3/0/0
14 March 2012 M/S/C 3/0/0
28 March 2012 M/S/C 3/0/0
29 March 2012 M/S/C 3/0/0
04 April 2012 M/S/C 3/0/0
APPOINTMENTS:
7:00 PM House Business
7:42 PM Public Hearing (Cont): Special Permit Application by Vineyard House Inc. AP 22A06
Mr. Peak opened the public hearing at 7:42 PM and read the notice of the hearing into the minutes. He noted that the applicant and accompanying representatives had departed earlier in the evening after they were advised that the hearing could not be conducted without a quorum. With the applicant’s consent, Mr. Peak entertained a motion recommending another continuation. He recommended April 25, 2012 at 7:15 PM in the Town Hall Annex.
There being no discussion, Mr. Stephenson moved to continue the hearing for Vineyard House Inc. at 7:15 PM on 25 April 2012 in the Town Hall Annex. Mr. Thompson seconded the motion, which motion carried. 3/0/0
The Planning Board resumed their regularly scheduled meeting at 7:44 PM.
7:44 PM Bill Straw re: Relocation of ground mound photovoltaic installation next to the new water tank, High Point Lane, AP 22A11
Mr. Straw indicated that he was soliciting the Planning Board’s endorsement of a new site location for additional ground mounded photovoltaic installations. He explained that the Cape & Vineyard Electric Cooperative was due to meet with the Contractor of Selection to walk the two approved sites that were selected for the second round of installations. The sites included the Department of Public Work’s building and the septage lagoons.
He understood that the latter was not a viable option, because the zoning regulations prohibited the use. Mr. Stephenson noted that he never approved of the septage lagoons as a potential site. Mr. Straw was of a different impression, largely because of the Planning Board’s letter to the Town Administrator. Mr. Peak obtained a copy of the letter, which was read in its entirety. It substantiated Mr. Straw’s claim. Mr. Stephenson indicated that he may have misunderstood Mr. Straw’s proposal, but preferred withdrawing the septage lagoon as a potential site.
Mr. Straw advised the Board that the site staff were going to perform site inspections of the sites on the B List designated for the second round of installations tomorrow. He needed to know if the septage lagoons were to be eliminated from further consideration altogether, or for the moment, until the issue with its designation was clarified.
Mr. Peak noted that the regulation they recently approved allowed large scale installations in the BII District as a matter of right, as long as they had a minimum of five (5) acres. They were not prohibited in any district in town. The problem with the septage lagoon site was that it was designated for a particular use (i.e. space to store vehicles) by town vote, which would require a similar vote to release the restriction. He further added that the septage lagoons were in the southwest wedge, an area that they’ve been closely monitoring because of its potential development. The Planning Board in particular has been concerned about preserving the woodlands. Given that the septage lagoon was already cleared of all vegetation, he did not have an issue with the septage lagoon’s use for the photovoltaic
installation. Mr. Stephenson reconsidered, and agreed with Mr. Peak.
Mr. Straw inquired if the new use on the septage lagoons was going to require a town vote. The Board could not respond, and suggested broaching the topic with Mr. Barwick, when he submitted his building application. Mr. Straw noted that they were aiming to install a sufficient number of solar panels to generate enough power all of the municipal buildings (2 mega watts). At present they were going to generate 800 kw from the installation at the landfill.
Mr. Straw mentioned that a structural engineer eliminated the DPW building from further consideration, because the structure could not support the solar panels on the roof. He noted that he disapproved of Cronig Market’s proposal, because he believed the applicant could have changed the design of the building to accommodate the panels, or construct an exoskeleton on the exterior that could support the solar panels. It was a similar situation at the airport. He felt the solar panels should have been installed on the building, because the ground mounted compromised the future use of valuable land. Mr. Stephenson did not care for Cronig’s proposal because it was going to have a large visual impact on the street. It’s a decision that will contribute to the erosion of the State Road
Corridor’s visual aesthetics.
Mr. Peak thought the state should have changed the building code mandating that all steel buildings had to be constructed to support solar panels, if they wanted to advance their alternative energy program. He also felt that it was not worth abandoning the aesthetics or the character of the districts or town for the marginal gains obtained from solar energy.
Mr. Peak redirected the discussions, and asked Mr. Straw if he had substitute sites in mind for the second round of installations. Mr. Straw replied that Mr. LaPiana recommended a smaller installation on the treatment plant and the area abutting the site of the new water tank. Mr. Peak noted that the proposal contradicted discussions with Mr. LaPiana about using the land for the Water Department’s relocation. Board members were surprised to hear Mr. LaPiana’s recommendation, when he has claimed that he could not remove the composting pile without state approvals. It concerned Mr. Peak, that a use was being proposed for land managed by the Board of Health or the Water Department who manage the property. Mr. Straw indicated that Mr. LaPiana had already moved a portion of the compost pile for this purpose.
Mr. Peak informed Mr. Straw that the Planning Board had always advocated looking at the property as a whole, to prevent the haphazard development of valuable town owned land. Mr. Straw’s proposal only emphasized the need to revive past discussions about the importance in developing a comprehensive plan for the area” to preserve its maximum value to the Town”. He recommended inviting the Board of Selectmen, Department of Public Works, Water Department, and Board of Health to a joint meeting where they could discuss potential uses of the property ”that would
benefit the Town’s long term interests”, and thought they should meet sometime in May. Mr. Thompson entered the recommendation in the form of a motion. Mr. Stephenson seconded the motion, which motion carried. 3/0/0
Mr. Straw advised the Board that the Town could always tailor its agreement with SEAVAC so that they had the right to remove the solar panels when they were ready to pursue other municipal uses. He needed to know if the site next to the new water tower tank should be eliminated from further consideration. Mr. Peak could not respond, and inquired if they had time. Mr. Straw replied that he had to submit a response by tomorrow when the sites were going to be selected for round two. He was somewhat concerned that if they were to eliminate approved sites, it could have negative repercussions for the town.
Mr. Peak asked that they be allowed to hold this meeting with the aforementioned boards before they replied. He directed the Board Secretary to send out the letter tomorrow. Mr. Straw was invited to the discussions.
BOARD DISCUSSIONS:
1. Wastewater Planning Committee’s Request
A. Growth Projections for the Town of Tisbury
Mr. Stephenson mentioned that he did not have the opportunity to coordinate a meeting with Ms. Caseau at the MV Commission. The Board Secretary advised the Board that Ms. Caseau was on vacation this week. Mr. Stephenson asked the Board Secretary to contact Ms. Caseau to schedule an appointment with her on his behalf. He informed the Board Secretary that he was free all of next week, but preferred to meet in the morning.
B. Next meeting date (May 2 or May 9, 2012)
2. Tisbury Market Place Condominium Association’s (TMPCA)Meeting on 04/11/12
RE: Henry Stephenson’s Report
Mr. Stephenson reported as having attended the meeting with Mr. Barwick and five (5) members of the TMPCA to learn that while they were supportive of the proposed use in principle, they preferred a smaller theater because of its potential to interfere with the other businesses.
It appeared that they were also willing not renew some of the parking space leases to make room for additional parking, to remove the trailers, and to have G&B Inc. clean up the area around them.
Mr. Stephenson understood that the TMPCA was willing to reverse the traffic flow into the parking lot to determine whether or not it benefited the business complex. Whereas they liked the concept of removing the mounded septic system, they did not want to be held financially responsible for the improvement. Mr. Barwick stressed its importance, because of his concern about their patron’s safety. Mr. Dunn confided to Mr. Stephenson that the raised system could be easily removed and developed into a pedestrian walk.
Mr. Peak advised the Board that the TMPCA apparently did meet on April 13, 2012, and wrote a letter to the Building Inspector which strongly opposed Mr. Dunn’s project and any of the improvements Mr. Barwick was requesting of the applicant.
3. Carly Simon, AP 55A04.00
RE: Zoning Violation
Board members were advised that the Board Secretary has received an inquiry from Ms. Maloney about the Planning Board’s decision regarding the Building Inspector’s referral relative to Ms. Carly Simon’s zoning violation. He reminded the Board that he spoke with Mr. Hoehn to inform him that they did not see any provision within the bylaw that would permit the habitation of an accessory structure, with the possible exception of the Cluster Development. He questioned the suggestion at the time, because he was not familiar with the provision. It was the reason he wanted to speak with Mr. Barwick.
He thought he had conveyed his reservations to the Building Inspector. He did not think they should comment on the subject until Ms. Simon applied for consideration under the provision. Mr. Peak nonetheless offered to write Mr. Barwick reiterating the board’s discussions.
4. Planning Board Projects
Mr. Stephenson developed a project list, approximately twenty items long, he believed the Planning Board has either been working on and should be involved in. He wanted to discuss them in detail during a work session, and asked if they would consider designating their next meeting, so that they could begin discussing the various projects.
He mentioned that the list included the connector road, the residential development Island Housing Trust was pursing on Water Street, the harbor walk, the town hall, the shared use path at the Tisbury Market Place on Beach Road and other similar topics. Mr. Stephenson noted that the vast majority of the projects required the assistance and cooperation of the Board of Selectmen, the Department of Public Works, the Community Preservation Committee, the MV Commission and private entities, so that the Planning Board would not be addressing some of the issues raised by these developments alone.
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED:
1. Sourati Engineering Group Inc
RE: Notice of a waterway application for Elizabeth Rose & Cindy Anderson, AP 11A15
2. Tisbury Board of Assessors
A) Case #2102 – Vineyard House Inc., AP 22A06 (Sobriety Half Way Home)
B) Case #2103 – Jay Frederick, AP 25C10 (expansion of a non-conforming bldg)
C) Case #2104 – Andrew & Courtney Marek, AP 27A32.1 (construction of a swimming pool)
D) Case #2105 – Moon Owl Realty LLC, AP 31A06 (relocation and renovation of a guest house)
E) Case #2106 – David Spooner, AP 23A29.14 (outside seating at 395 State Rd)
F) Case #2107 – Kim Maleh, AP 59B15-17 (renovation and addition of an existing, non-conforming structure)
3. Martha’s Vineyard Commission
A. 13 April 2012 Extended Meeting Schedule
B. MV Land Use Committee’s Minutes of March 19, 2012
4. Tisbury Market Place Trustees
RE: Response to the Building Permit’s conditions as noted by the Bldg Inspector
PRO FORM Meeting opened, conducted and closed in due form at 9:15 P.M. (m/s/c 4/0/0)
| 
