Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Planning Board Minutes 06/20/12

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


DATE:           June 20, 2012
TIME:           7:08 PM

PLACE:          Town Hall Annex

ATTENDANCE:     Peak, Seidman, Stephenson, Thompson and Mary Ellen Larsen (Fin Com)
ABSENT:         Aldrin

MINUTES:                As referred in the June 13, 2012 Meeting Agenda
                        13 June 2012    Deferred


7:08 PM House Business

1) Thomas Pachico’s Form A Application

Mr. Peak attended the MV Commission’s Land Use Planning Committee’s (LUPC) meeting on Monday, 18 June 2012 to comment on their referral. He advised the Board that the LUPC voted “not to refer the application to the MV Commission”.  Board members would be able to vote on Mr. Pachico’s application as soon as they received written confirmation of the MV Commission’s decision.  

2) Planning Board Appointments for Calendar Years 2012/2013

Mr. Peak volunteered to continue representing the Planning Board on the Site Plan Review Committee for the Island Road and the Coastal Districts.  Mr. Stephenson declined a re-appointment, and Mr. Seidman and Mr. Thompson did not express any interest in serving on the committee.  Mr. Stephenson therefore moved to re-appoint Mr. Peak, as the Planning Board’s only representative to the Committee. Mr. Thompson seconded the motion, which motion carried.  4/0/0

Mr. Peak asked Mr. Thompson if he wished to be re-appointed to the Land Bank Advisory Committee. On responding in the affirmative, Mr. Peak moved to re-appointment Mr. Thompson to the Land Bank Advisory Committee. Mr. Stephenson so moved. Mr. Seidman seconded the motion, which motion carried.  4/0/0

Mr. Peak asked Mr. Thompson if the Harbor Management Committee had met. Mr. Thompson indicated that they held one meeting, but that he could not attend due to a conflict in schedules. Mr. Thompson informed the Board that the meeting was held on a Tuesday evening. Mr. Peak inquired if he was interested in remaining on the Committee as the Planning Board’s representative.  Mr. Thompson replied in the affirmative. Mr. Peak therefore moved Mr. Thompson’s re-appointment to the Harbor Management Committee. Mr. Stephenson seconded the motion. The Board voted in favor of the motion.  4/0/0

Mr. Peak inquired if anyone on the Board was interested in serving on the Site Plan Review Board for the Waterfront Commercial District. There being no response from the Board, Mr. Stephenson moved to re-appoint Mr. Peak as the Planning Board’s representative to the Site Plan review Board.  Mr. Thompson seconded the motion.  4/0/0

Mr. Seidman indicated that he wanted to remain on the Tisbury Housing Committee as the Planning Board’s representative. There being no objection from the Board. Mr. Peak entertained a motion in favor of Mr. Seidman’s re-appointment.  Mr. Stephenson so moved. Mr. Thompson seconded the motion, and the motion carried.  4/0/0.

Mr. Peak noted that the Chairman and Co-Chairman were customarily assigned to serve on the Cabinet.

Mr. Stephenson advised the Board that he has been serving on the Tisbury Energy Committee for at least five (5) years and projects, and was ready to retire. He asked the Board if anyone would be interested in replacing him. Mr. Peak inquired about the Committee’s Chairman. Mr. Stephenson replied that he was currently serving on the Committee as their Chairman.

Mr. Peak entertained a motion to re-appoint him and Mr. Stephenson on the Cabinet. Mr. Thompson so moved. Mr. Seidman seconded the motion. The motion carried. 4/0/0

Mr. Peak noted that Mr. Aldrin was presently on the Community Preservation Committee. He asked the Board for a recommendation. All agreed to retain Mr. Aldrin as their representative. Mr. Stephenson therefore moved to re-appoint Mr. Aldrin to the Committee. Mr. Seidman seconded the motion.  4/0/0

Mr. Peak noted that Mr. Aldrin was also serving on the Capital Program Committee, and entertained a motion to re-appoint him as the Planning Board’s representative.  Mr. Stephenson so moved. Mr. Seidman seconded the motion.  4/0/0

Mr. Peak expressed an interest in continuing his affiliation on the Sewage Review Board. Mr. Peak entertained a motion.  Mr. Stephenson moved to re-appoint Mr. Peak to serve on the Sewage Review Board. Mr. Seidman seconded the motion.  4/0/0

Mr. Seidman noted thar the Revenue Enhancement Committee does not exist.

7:15 PM John Best, Wastewater Planning Committee
                Attendance: Sheri Caseau, H20 Resource Planner - MV Commission

Mr. Best, Chairman of the Wastewater Planning Committee explained that he had requested an appointment with the Planning Board to inquire about their progress. He wanted to know if they were prepared to respond to Mr. Giggey’s questions when they were due to meet with him and the Wastewater Planning on July 11, 2012.

Mr. Best noted that Mr. Seidman and Ms. Caseau held a conference call with Mr. Giggey to discuss the type of information he was expecting from the Planning Board. He asked Ms. Caseau if she would present the four questions Mr. Giggey wanted the Planning Board to address. Mr. Seidman mentioned that he had reviewed the questions with the Planning. Based on his research and findings, the Board decided that a build-out rate of three (300) hundred new dwellings over a fifteen year period (or an average of twenty new households per year over a fifteen year period) was a much more realistic number.

Mr. Seidman mentioned that the MV Commission’s build-out analysis did not take any restrictions, topographic impediments, etc into consideration.  Mr. Peak concurred.  Mr. Seidman indicated that the Board reviewed the Building Department’s records for permits issued from 1981 to 2011, and the Planning Board’s records for Form C’s and ANRs. They looked at the number of building permits issued for new units, the number of lots that were created, and the number of subdivisions lots that were subsequently developed over the past eleven years. He noted that only half of the lots had been developed to date.

Mr. Stephenson advised Mr. Best that the projections did not take into account the commercial and residential development that could occur on the properties or area abutting the connector road. He thought it could have a bearing on the size of the sewer plant’s addition, if it was determined that the area did in fact contribute nitrogen to the Tashmoo Pond’s watershed. Mr. Best inquired if the Planning Board had an idea about the number of units they anticipated, or if the development would displace growth in other areas. Mr. Seidman did not think the development would have an impact on their projections. The majority of the Board members agreed. Mr. Stephenson thought it was important to keep in mind, because there was a good possibility that the development would include affordable housing.

Mr. Best noted that if they were going to rely on a central sewer system to drive the area’s development, it could have an impact on the facility’s overall flow. It was important to know, because the Committee’s primary goal was to protect the watersheds in terms of reducing nitrogen infiltration by targeting the source (i.e. the densely populated areas abutting the ponds) as inexpensively as possible. Future developments may not be given any priority at this juncture of the project, because the Committee’s main thrust was to address existing conditions.  

Mr. Best asked Ms. Caseau about the remaining questions. Ms. Caseau believed that they’ve just addressed the second question relative to the areas that could still be developed. She inquired if the Board foresaw additional growth in the areas by the lagoon and the Vineyard Sound. Board members replied in the negative. Mr. Stephenson reiterated that the few lots that could be developed would not significantly alter their projects.  Mr. Best believed that there were only ten (10) to fourteen (14) lots that could still be developed by the Lagoon.

Board members did not foresee much development in the private developments or any other area heading towards town.

Mr. Peak inquired if anyone had addressed West Tisbury’s obligation to address their contribution of the nitrogen flow into Tashmoo. Mr. Best replied that it was raised at an All Island Board of Selectmen without any results. It was his understanding that the Town of West Tisbury contributed as much as 25% of the nitrogen load in Tashmoo and a small percentage into the Lagoon.  

Additional discussions ensued with this regard, and Mr. Best redirected the discussions to the questions Mr. Giggey wanted the Planning Board to address. Ms. Caseau noted that the Planning Board had responded to Mr. Giggey’s inquiries, except for the letter. She mentioned that the Committee had requested a letter from the Planning Board affirming their projections and impressions. Board members understood and assigned the task to the Board Secretary.


1. MV Commission
A.  15 June 2012 Extended Schedule
B.   21 June 2012 Meeting Agenda

2. Planning Board Appointments for 2012/13

PRO FORM        Meeting opened, conducted and closed in due form at 8:45  P.M.          (m/s/c    4/0/0)