TOWN OF TISBURY
P.O. BOX 602
TOWN HALL ANNEX
VINEYARD HAVEN, MASSACHUSETTS 02568
Fax (508) 696-7341
DATE: May 2, 2012
TIME: 7:16 PM
PLACE: Town Hall Annex
ATTENDANCE: Aldrin, Peak, Seidman, Stephenson, and Thompson
MINUTES: As referred in the April 25, 2012 Meeting Agenda
25 April 2012 Deferred
7:25 PM Douglas Hoehn (SB&H Inc), Thomas Pachico and Cole Powers- Informal Discussions of a division of land, AP 22A13.11, High Point Lane
Mr. Hoehn informed the property owner’s son, Thomas Pachico was interested in soliciting the Boards’ impressions about the aforementioned lot’s potential for ANR consideration. Mr. Powers an interested party in the property’s division of land is considering the purchase of one of the lots in which to consolidate his business (office and warehouse).
Mr. Pachico was not prepared with a schematic of the division of land because he had not decided on the number of lots. Mr. Hoehn recommended operating on the premise that Mr. Pachico would pursue four (4) quadrants or three (3) lots and a subdivision road with a turn around on a 1.2 acres parcel of land in the BII District.
Mr. Hoehn noted that the BII District had zero (0) frontage, net land area or depth requirements, and 276 ft of frontage on High Point Lane.
Questions regarding the twenty (20) ft right-of-way were responded to by Mr. Pachico, who explained that his father had created the R-O-W to provide access to the lot in question, when he divided his property. The abutting lots to the R-O-W and AP 22A13.11 were all part of one larger parcel. High Point Lane was not designated as a road at the time Mr. Ernest Pachico divided his property.
Mr. Peak inquired about the location of the ingress/egress. Mr. Hoehn replied that it would be 140 ft. from the intersection. Mr. Peak indicated that his only concern would have been the proximity of the inlet or outlet to the nearest intersection. That not being the case, he did not see an impediment to the proposal. Board members agreed.
7:43 PM Douglas Hoehn, SB&H Inc. Re: Ellen McCluskey, 79 Harding Street, AP 12G08
Mr. Hoehn submitted a facsimile of the tax map and a sketch of the property in question divided into two lots. He stated that the applicant was interested in dividing the property into two (2) building lots as an ANR.
Mr. Hoehn believed the applicant qualified for ANR consideration because Harding Road prior to the adoption of the subdivision rules and regulations. He noted that the layout for Harding Street was created in an old subdivision called Aldworth Heights. The applicant, recently widowed has owned the existing dwelling on the property since the late 1950s. The road itself served the property in question and the property across the street, currently owned by the applicant’s son. Harding Street used to connect to Dunham Avenue, until the property owners at the end of the road have encroached into the road layout and taken the land for their personal use.
Board members were referred to the sketch depicting the division of land, in which the existing dirt road was superimposed over Harding Street’s layout. Board members observed that the existing dirt road did not provide the proposed lot any frontage or even connect.
Mr. Peak thought the Board should go on a site visit to familiarize themselves with the terrain. He prepared Mr. Hoehn that the Planning Board may request improvements to the road. Mr. Hoehn was aware of the possibility and had the opportunity to discuss this with his client.
Mr. Peak deferred to the Board members regarding the date and time for the site visit. All agreed to meet on Monday, 16 April 2012 at 5:30 PM on Harding Street. Mr. Hoehn was to meet the board to field any questions.
8:00 PM Peter Simon and Melody Cunningham for Irie Bites, AP 09C11 (Mobile Food Truck)
Mr. Simon noted that he and his partner, Ms. Cunningham have been operating the mobile food truck on Main Street, with little success because the business district closed down between the hours of 6PM to 8PM. Their relocation to Nectars in Edgartown was very promising, were it not for their hours of operation. They found themselves turning customers away because they were obligated to close down at an early hour.
Mr. Simon and Ms. Cunningham as a result have been looking for alternative sites to relocate, and have been looking at properties along Beach Road, from Five Corners to the drawbridge. He learned that the area was governed by regulations that were administered by the Planning Board. At the Building Inspector’s recommendation, he scheduled an appointment with the Board to solicit information regarding their ability to locate and operate a mobile food service in the Waterfront Commercial District.
Mr. Simon has looked at a variety of sites, but was interested in finding out if there were any issues in relocating their operations at the Shell Gas Station, across the street from the Tisbury Market Place. He wanted to know if it was feasible before negotiating an agreement with the property owner, Mr. Packer. He was hoping that he would be able to operate the food service establishment by July 4th between the hours of 8PM to 2 AM.
Mr. Stephenson did not see an issue having two vending trucks on Beach Road. It was the late hours of operation that concerned him. Mr. Simon indicated that they did not have to be open for business until that late hour. Mr. Peak cautioned that the site was across the street from a very busy food service establishment. Mr. Peak inquired about the Shell Stations hours of operation, and learned that they were open seven (7) days a week until 10 PM.
Mr. Stephenson was concerned about the possibility of creating a hang out after the bars closed down.
Mr. Peak referred to the regulations, and noted that the mobile food truck was included in the definition for a food service establishment, which was permitted by special permit in the Commercial Management Area of the Waterfront Commercial District. The food truck could be stationed no further than the back wall of the building. It also appeared that the use had to be referred to the MV Commission for a concurrence vote.
Mrs. Loberg noted that the Board of Health had denied the use of a vending cart (hot dog stand) at Veteran’s Park. A board member recalled that the Board of Health denied the cart because the applicant wanted to operate a commercial use in a residential district.
Mr. Simon mentioned that the Board of Health did not have an issue with the proposal, except to say that if they intended to provide seating accommodations, they would be required to provide restroom facilities to the premises. There was a question if they had access to the facilities at the gas station. Mr. Simon indicated that the facilities would be available until 10 PM. Ms. Cunningham affirmed that they did not have any intention of providing picnic tables. Mr. Simon believed they were allowed to place a bench. Ms. Cunningham noted that they were also going to provide trash receptacles. Mr. Peak added that the Planning Board also restricted Ms. Stanley’s permit. As the special permit granting authority they could limit the permit to a certain period of time, so that they could review their operations.
Mrs. Loberg commented that people were observed to bring their own alcoholic beverages to Ms. Stanley’s mobile food truck, which did present an issue for the town. Board members voiced mixed opinions. Mr. Simon assured the board that he was not interested in providing or encouraging it alcoholic beverages. Mr. Stephenson thought the Board could address the matter as a condition and restriction.
Mr. Peak was concerned about the noise factor, since the food truck would be next to condominiums. Mr. Simon planned to play reggae music for ambiance, but did not want to jeopardize their operations by upsetting the hotel’s paying customers.
Mr. Simon inquired if the Board had any objections or issues that would prevent them from considering the Shell Station property for the mobile food truck. Mr. Stephenson replied in the negative, barring any applicable restriction imposed by other pertinent town boards.
Board members advised Mr. Simon and Ms. Cunningham about the permitting process, and submittal requirements, but recommended going into the details about the entire process with the Planning Board Secretary.
8: 45 PM Deliberations: Vineyard House Inc., AP 22A06 (Draft Special Permit Decision)
The deliberations were duly opened at 8:45 PM by the Planning Board Co-Chairman, Mr. Peak to review a draft document prepared by the Board Secretary for consideration as a Decision.
Board members were asked to review the document for comments, corrections or recommendations. Mr. Peak initiated the discussions by referring the Board to the section entitled Background. All sections thereafter were entered into the record of the minutes as written and revised according to the Board’s unanimous consent.
The revisions recommended for the final document, are as follows:
A) Background last sentence in 1. Since the original application, the applicant has purchased the two (2) additional acres of land for a total of 4.43 acres.
B) Finding No. 4 2nd par. The 27753 sq. ft of impervious surface resulting from the development constitutes 14% of the site, with some areas unknown.
C) Finding Nos. 13 & 14 to be renumbered as Finding Nos. 15 & 16, respectively.
D) Finding No 15.
Mr. Peak entertained a motion stipulating that the applicant met sections 09.11.06.04.03(a) and 09.11.06.04.03(b) of the Tisbury Zoning Bylaw. Mr. Stephenson so moved. Mr. Thompson seconded the motion.
The motion was opened to discussion. Mr. Seidman thought it made sense for the Board to make sure the applicant took every precaution to protect the quality and quantity of ground water specified in s. 09.11.06.04.03(a). He felt the applicant had the responsibility of complying with the regulation.
Mr. Stephenson understood that the town was planning on installing a sewer line to connect that area. Mr. Peak noted that the town approved $400,000.00 to install a sewer line to the VNA, who is across the street from the Vineyard House. Mr. Stephenson added that the applicant’s septic system met the MV Commission’s Watershed requirement without having to invest in an alternate system. He therefore did not think they should impose the restriction.
Mr. Seidman acquiesced, on recalling that the applicant testified that the town was connecting them to the sewer line in exchange for the easement.
There being no further comment The Board found by motion that the proposal met the stipulated finding of Section 09.11.06.04.03(a). m/s/c 4/0/1 Mr. Aldrin abstained.
E) Finding No. 16
Mr. Peak asked the Board for their impressions regarding the applicant’s compliance with Section 09.11.06.04.03(b).
Board members concurred that the applicant satisfied the requirement. Mr. Peak, therefore recommended the following language: “The Board understands from the testimony that there will be some re-grading at the site. Given that the site is low relative to its surroundings, any run-off will remain on site, even after re-grading due to its topography”.
Mr. Seidman so moved. Mr. Stephenson seconded the motion, which motion carried. 4/0/1 Mr. Aldrin abstained
There being no further comment, Mr. Peak entertained a motion to approve the draft special permit document as amended for their decision. Mr. Stephenson so moved. Mr. Seidman seconded the motion, and the motion carried. 4/0/1
Mr. Peak entertained a motion to close the deliberations. Mr. Stephenson so moved. Mr. Seidman seconded the motion. 4/0/1 Mr. Aldrin abstained.
1. Planning Board Projects
RE: Connector Road, Tashmoo Hill Study, Tisbury Market, Old Fire House, new Town Hall, Water Street Development, Tashmoo Park, Owen Little Way, drawbridge, MV Museum, Lake Street Park, Tisbury Elementary School, , Waterfront zoning, housing, parking, alternative energy
Mr. Stephenson reorganized and prioritized the list into two (2) subcategories i.e. short-term and long-term projects. He asked the board members to review the list for their comments and suggestions.
1. Martha’s Vineyard Commission
A. 27 April 2012 Extended Meeting Schedule
B. 03 May 2012 Meeting Agenda
C. Maps (Building-out Analysis)
Mrs. Loberg advised the Board that Sheri Caseau from the MV Commission had called to inquire if the Planning Board had made any progress with the estimated growth projections.
Mr. Stephenson replied that he and Mr. Seidman met with Ms. Caseau to obtain the MV Commission’s maps this past Friday, and have not studied the information for a report.
Mr. Stephenson thought the Planning Board should review the data as a group, since they had the maps. He would not be able to participate in the discussions because he was going to be out of town. Mr. Seidman requested the maps to look over the weekend, so that he could prepare for the discussions.
2. Bill Straw
RE: MGL C40A s. 9B Solar Access
PRO FORM Meeting opened, conducted and closed in due form at 9:30 P.M. (m/s/c 5/0/0)