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 25, 2012
TIME: 7:17 PM
PLACE: Town Hall Annex
ATTENDANCE: Aldrine, Peak, Seidman, Stephenson, Thompson
MINUTES: As referred in the April 18, 2012 Meeting Agenda
18 April 2012 M/S/C 5/0/0
APPOINTMENTS:
7:05 PM Douglas Hoehn, SB&H Inc. Re: Ellen McCluskey, AP 12G08 (Cancelled)
7:15 PM Public Hearing (Cont): Special Permit Application by Vineyard House Inc. AP 22A06
Attendance: Refer to Signature Sheet
The continuation of Vineyard House Inc.’s hearing was duly opened at 7:25 PM by the Planning Board Co-Chairman, Mr. Peak. Board members were reminded that the applicant was proposing to construct three (3) structures within the Ground Water Protection District, which restricted the amount of land area rendered impervious by any use. The proposed use rendered more than 15% or 2500 sq. ft of the lot impervious, requiring a special permit by the Planning Board according to Section 09.11.06.03(c).
Mr. Peak noted for the record that the hearing had been continued to give the Board of Health, Fire Chief, the DPW and the Water Department the opportunity to comment on the proposal, as required by regulation. All submitted their written comments in time for the continuation of the meeting on April 18, 2012. For lack of quorum, the meeting was continued this evening, with the applicant’s consent.
Mr. Peak deferred to the applicant’s representative, Mr. Silva to continue the presentation, at which time he entered a modified site plan and drainage plan. Mr. Silva noted that he had incorporated the easement the applicant just granted the town for the connector road, and the location of the septic system (tank, pump chamber and leeching bed) or advance treatment system. The final system to be installed depended on the MV Commission determination regarding acceptable nitrogen loads.
Mr. Peak inquired about the overflow parking. Mr. Silva replied that the applicant originally proposed to gavel the parking areas, but that the MV Commission modified the proposal in favor of a more natural or grass area for the overflow parking. The modification was reflected in the drainage plan. Both the site and drainage plans, revised on April 18, 2012 reflected the same design for the parking area (part gravel and part grass).
Mr. Peak inquired if he read the plans correctly in observing that the first spaces were “head in”, and just a few feet from the start of the road. Mr. Silva replied in the affirmative. Mr. Peak inquired about the number of parking spaces being offered. Mr. Silva replied twenty-five (25) spaces. Mr. Peak asked if this was acceptable to the Building Inspector. Mr. Silva replied that the Building Inspector calculated twenty (20) spaces.
Mr. Peak asked about the building scheduled. Mr. Jenkins replied that they wanted to complete construction by spring 2013. If that was not possible, then no later than spring 2014. He wanted to see the project completed at the earliest possible.
Mr. Peak inquired if they were connecting to the sewer system if it became available. Mr. Jenkins explained that the town had agreed to pay for their connection to the system in return for the easement they granted the town for the connector road.
Mr. Stephenson thought they should contact the Cape & Vineyard Energy Cooperative to see if they could install solar panels on the site to harvest solar energy for their use or to obtain some subsidies. Mr. Jenkins was receptive to the idea, indicating that they had two acres for this purpose.
Mr. Peak noticed that the MV Commission has kept the plans for landscaping to a minimum. Mr. Jenkins replied in the affirmative. Mr. Peak read the Commission’s decision and noted that they were prohibiting the applicant from cutting along the road to maintain a buffer. Mr. Jenkins informed the Board that in return for the easement, the town was adding low maintenance plantings to the buffer to improve the aesthetics and to cut back on the noise from the traffic. They had every intention of keeping it as natural as possible.
Mr. Peak quickly entered the following correspondence responding to the applicant’s proposal:
a. Tisbury Board of Health did not comment on the proposal, except to say that the applicant was not required to install a monitoring well,
b. John Schilling, Fire Chief in an email indicated that he did not have any issues or concerns conceptually with the project,
c. Department of Public Works did not have any objections to the proposal, accept to ask the Board that the applicant include the easement they granted to the town for the connector road, and
d. Tisbury Water Works indicated that the applicant was required to connect to the town’s water system, and install a hydrant at the hydraulic dead-end of their water main.
Mr. Peak asked the Board if they were prepared to move on the application. There being no discussion, Mr. Stephenson moved to approve the applicant’s development in the Ground Water Protection District with conditions and restrictions. Mr. Thompson seconded the motion, which motion carried 4/0/1 Mr. Aldrin abstained.
Mr. Peak entertained a motion to close the pubic hearing and to enter into deliberations. Mr. Seidman so moved. Mr. Stephenson seconded the motion, which motion carried. 4/0/1 Mr. Aldrin abstained
The Planning Board resumed their regularly schedule meeting at 7:45 PM
7:45 PM Deliberation: Special Permit Application by Vineyard House Inc. AP 22A06
Mr. Peak recommended incorporating the MV Commission’s conditions and restrictions as noted in their Decision of December 5, 2011. He noted that the applicant submitted a revised site plan and drainage plan that were signed and dated April 18, 2012 by Reid G. Silva, PLS.
Mr. Peak advised the Board that they had to address the fact that the impervious footprint of the buildings exceeded the 15% (or 2500 sq. ft.) allowance permitted under the bylaw. This led to another question with regards to the recharge of the storm water. Mr. Silva replied that there were going to be two separate systems. The first was a big basin at the base of the hill. The second collection system was designed to direct the roof run off via gutters into a drainage basin or leaching tank at either end. The drainage basin was also going to serve as catch basin, so that any overflow would travel into a graveled drainage field.
Mr. Peak noted that the applicant made an agreement about the use of fertilizers.
Mr. Peak inquired about the topography, and learned that the applicant was going to cut down the hill and build up portions of the property (3 ft. – 5 ft.) to level the grade for the construction. The run off will flow in the same direction and stay on the property.
Mr. Peak asked about the heating source. Mr. Jenkins replied “propane gas”, which was going to be stored on the premises in two (2) underground tanks.
Mr. Peak was prepared to make a finding that the concerns of the Ground Water Protection District with respect to the impervious surface and other issues were adequately addressed by the applicant in his plan. Mr. Stephenson concurred and moved the recommendation. Mr. Seidman seconded the motion, which motion carried. 4/0/1 Mr. Aldrin abstained.
Mr. Peak entertained a motion to continue the deliberations to review a draft decision reflecting their discussions on May 2, 2012 at 7:15 PM in the Town Hall Annex
The Planning Board resumed their regularly scheduled session at 8:30 PM
BOARD DISCUSSIONS:
1. Planning Board Projects
RE: Mr. Stephenson’s List
Mr. Stephenson submitted a list of projects that were underway or under consideration. He noted that the vast majority of the projects were never presented or discussed with the Planning Board, whose responsibility by statute was to review both private and public projects and their impact(s) on the town.
Since the boards and agencies “were not inclined” to approach the Planning Board for their comments or assistance, Mr. Stephenson felt compelled to draft a list of the projects the Planning Board should look into to determine if they benefit the town, work into their development plans for the area, and to offer assistance in promoting the project to the public so that they are implemented. He believed the Planning Board proved instrumental in past projects such as the Spring Building, Lake Street Park and docks, the drawbridge, the fire house, and could do the same for future projects.
Tonight’s discussions were intended to give the board members an opportunity to review the list to offer recommendations and/or express an interest in pursuing. He thought they could be incorporated into the Municipal Needs Assessment, as opposed to a Master Plan, the latter of which was not fluid or flexible enough to reflect the changes experienced by the town.
The list contained twenty public and private projects in various phases of development, a brief description of the project and the identities of the different boards, agencies and public interest groups pursing them.
Mr. Peak noted that he had the opportunity to review the list, and forewarned Mr. Stephenson that they should make it perfectly clear that the list was for discussion purposes only, and not a formal plan.
Mr. Stephenson discussed the projects in detail including the issues they presented, and the obstacles confronting them. During the presentation, Mr. Aldrin informed Mr. Stephenson that their could be some funds to clean up the causeway on Beach Road leading to the draw bridge, now that the state allotted an additional 25 million dollars to the Community Preservation Act’s Trust. The additional funds will keep the return rate at its current level i.e. 15%. He noted that the funds currently existed for this purpose.
Mr. Peak was of the assumption that the funds could not be used on land owned by the town. Mr. Aldrin concurred, explaining that the existing criteria only allowed them to remove evasive species under Open Space. The CPC’s funds could not be used to improve town owned property such as a playground.
Board members were also informed of the progress made at Owen Park to replenish the beach, improve the parking area and outfall pipe. Mr. Stephenson thought the ribbon cutting ceremony would be soon.
All agreed that they had to revise the Waterfront Commercial District regulations to eliminate the management areas, and address the parking shortage. Board members wanted to revisit the discussions about the management of the new Beach Street (old fire station property) parking lot.
At the conclusion of the presentation, the board members decided to rank the projects, so that they could compare them and re-group them in order or importance.
2. Alternative Wastewater Treatment Center
RE: Site Visit on May 18, 2012 at 2:30 PM
Messrs. Peak and Seidman expressed an interest in attending. Travel vouchers (round trip passenger tickets) were to be secured for the two board members.
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED:
1. MV Commission
A. 26 April 2012 Meeting Agenda
B. 20 April 2012 Extended Meeting Schedule
2. Tisbury Zoning Board of Appeals
A. Public Hearing Notice – Stop-N-Shop, AP 07F06 (seasonal outside display)
B. Public Hearing Notice – David & Christine Kadison, AP 35A01.12 (swimming pool)
C. Public Hearing Notice – Kim Garrison, AP 07N08.3 (food service operation)
D. Public Hearing Notice – MV Chowder Co, AP 08C07.2 (food service operation)
E. Public Hearing Notice – Eleanor Hubbard, AP 31A06+ (appealing Bldg. Insp.’s decision)
3. Tisbury Conservation Commission
A. Public Hearing Notice – Malcolm Campbell, AP 06C37 (Determination of applicability)
B. Public Hearing Notice – Tom Fox, AP 16A17 (replacement of a deck)
CORRESPONDENCE SENT:
1. Kenneth A. Barwick, Bldg. Insp.
RE: Carly Simon, AP 55A06
2. Board of Selectmen
RE: Town Property, AP 22A11
Board members were informed that 95% of the invitees had responded to the letter. Town officials not invited have also expressed an interest in joining the discussions.
The Board Secretary recommended holding the discussions on May 9, 2012. Board members agreed.
PRO FORM Meeting opened, conducted and closed in due form at 9:35 P.M. (m/s/c 5/0/0)
| 