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: July 11, 2012
TIME: 7:02 PM
PLACE: Town Hall Annex
ATTENDANCE: Aldrin, Peak, Seidman, Stephenson and Thompson
BILLS: Petty Cash (Postage)
Verizon (March 2012, May 2012, June2012)
Staples (Office Supplies & Furniture)
P. Harris (Mileage – MV Commission, OB)
MINUTES: As referred in the June 20, 2012 Meeting Agenda
13 June 2012 Deferred
20 June 2012 Deferred
APPOINTMENTS:
7:00 PM John Best, Michael Giggey, Wastewater Planning Committee’s Consultant and Sheri Caseau, MV Commission’s Water Resource Planner
Mr. Giggey disseminated a copy of the Tashmoo Pond Watershed Wastewater Flow Map (Neighborhood Boundaries) created by the MV Commission and a one page hand out listing the wastewater flows for all three watersheds (Vineyard Sound, Tashmoo Pond and Lagoon Pond) in town. He explained that the data was compiled from data resources at the MV Commission, and a report he had written for the MV Commission and the Town of Tisbury relative to the latter’s wastewater needs. Mr. Giggey noted that he wanted to meet with the Planning Board to make sure he understood the Board’s impressions and projections for the theoretical build-out, practical build-out and horizon.
Mr. Giggey referred to the handout, noting that studies at the Commission indicated that the Town of Tisbury has approximately 4,183 acres of land, of which 2606 were developed. According to his calculations, the total wastewater flow generated from the developed lots equaled 567,000 gallons per day. Of that amount, only 37,000 gallons were to be treated at the wastewater treatment facility on an annual basis.
If the remaining lots were developed, and the development of the existing lots maximized, the Commission calculated that there could be as much as an additional 1348 new structures. Mr. Giggey calculated the wastewater generated from the additional buildings and found that the town would then generate as much as 859,000 gallons of wastewater per day, which translated to a flow increase of 51%.
Based on his discussions with Mr. Seidman and the Planning Board’s letter, Mr. Giggey understood that the Planning Board did not agree with the MV Commission’s projections. He also wanted to verify if he understood the Planning Board to say that it was in their opinion that the theoretically build-out rate is 1200, the practical build-out is 600 and that they are projecting a maximum of 300 new structures per year for the next fifteen years. Mr. Peak and Mr. Sediman concurred.
Mr. Giggey noted that it was important to know where they expected the growth to occur. It related to his fourth question. He mentioned it because the location could have serious consequences for the Lagoon and Tashmoo ponds. He did not know if they should presume that the 300 new structures should be allocated roughly along the MV Commission’s projections or proportioned altogether differently. Mr. Giggey inquired if the Board noted the locations of the lots that were created or the locations of the new constructions for which building permits were secured. Mr. Seidman replied in the negative. Mr. Peak did not see any reason why they could not rely on the Commission’s statistics.
Mr. Stephenson agreed. He did not see an issue with the recommendation under current zoning, with the exception of the “Wedge”. The area abutting the proposed connector road is being steered towards development, which would require a change in zoning and sewering. It was an area where the Planning Board wanted to implement Smart Growth to allow higher density (infill development, smaller lots). Mr. added that portions of the area lie within the Tashmoo and Vineyard Sound watersheds, so that sewering was an essential component. Mr. Giggey and the Board located the area on the Tashmoo Pond Watershed Wastewater Flow Map, which was identified as T-3a. Mr. Giggey inquired if the Board had an idea about the additional number of units they were projecting for the area. Mr. Peak replied that the Board was
not ready to suggest a specific number.
Mr. Israel joined the discussions, and was brought up to speed by the Planning Board Co-Chairman, Mr. Peak. Mr. Giggey calculated the number of dwelling units per watershed for the Planning Board’s future projections, and noted that he computed approximately 135 new units in the Vineyard Sound Watershed, 90 new units in the Tashmoo Pond Watershed, and 75 new units in the Lagoon Pond Watershed. Mr. Peak did not see any reason to alter the proportions, if the figures represented what could presently be done with in-ground septic systems. Mr. Israel and the Board members agreed.
Mr. Israel was concerned that the sewer plant would become obsolete soon after completion. He thought they should be careful not to under design the facility.
Mr. Giggey understood and noted that there were two ways to do a sewer system. There was a flow neutral approach where once the flows are established for each lot connecting to the system, no one is allowed to increase their wastewater capacity. Many towns were considering this approach because of the benefits in financing (zero percentage loans). The zero percentage loans the state is offering are not available to townships fostering development. It is the reason for separating the economic development component from the overall proposal.
Mr. Stephenson clarified for the record that the Planning Board was not fostering growth to stimulate the economy. He did not see why the areas projected for growth could not include the “Wedge”, since the primary objective is to intercept nitrogen infiltration of Tashmoo Pond, or implement a “Smart Growth” policy to manage the development of the area that will contribute nitrogen to the watershed under existing regulations. Mr. Giggey acknowledged.
Mr. Giggey advised the Board of Chatham’s decision to go for a “growth neutral system” and the Town of Sandwich’s preference for a system that would allow them to develop some areas, and offset the growth by finding a way to control growth in the more sensitive areas that will have a great impact on their watersheds (i.e. net growth neutral approach).
Mr. Best was very concerned about keeping growth in check. The existing system was designed for one flow, with a finite number of connections and assigned flows. It was designed to be growth neutral, and it failed because no one enforced it. Mr. Peak thought they could address the oversight by making it so that any increase in flow will be allowed by town vote alone. He recalled that the restriction was removed on town meeting floor.
Mr. Israel felt partially responsible for that decision at town meeting, and understood its importance, given the resulting situation. It was his opinion that any discussion regarding the restriction’s reinstatement should be discussed in a public forum to solicit public comment.
Mr. Stephenson thought it was important to distinguish the fact that they were discussing “flow neutral” not development neutral, because one could still build without jeopardizing the watersheds. He also did not see why every single applicant could not demonstrate that his/her proposal is flow neutral as required of applicants in the coastal district (i.e. transfer development). Mr. Seidman agreed.
Mr. Israel indicated that there was a political component to the situation that needed to be considered and addressed. He recalled occasions where the Board of Selectmen, the DPW and the Site Plan Review Committee were at odds during the decision make process. Mr. Seidman believed the recommendation for transfer development eliminated the human factor or political component out of the permitting process that was responsible for the overruns.
Mr. Giggey offered to provide the Board a copy of Chathams’s regulations for their review. He also offered to produce a letter report reflecting tonight’s information to the Wastewater Planning Committee, Planning Board and the Board of Selectmen for their review. He wanted to hold another working session to produce a rough document, that will eventually evolve into a draft that is presentable to the public for their input.
Mr. Stephenson questioned whether the process could include a fund or mechanism that would allow a developer to purchase development rights. It would provide a measurable trade off they could rely on. Mr. Seidman thought it was worth pursuing.
Mr. Peak asked Mr. Giggey to explain the purpose and content of his report. Mr. Giggey indicated that the report was going to establish a level of need. He wanted to provide a rough estimate of the cost of growth for the theoretical, actual and potential growth rates. Mr. Peak recommended writing the report in simple terms so that people can understand the concept of “neutral growth”. He suggested attaching numbers to the concept so that people could visualize it.
Mr. Giggey acknowledged and offered to write a memo on the very subject to circulate to the Boards reiterating tonight’s discussions to make sure they were all on the same page. He was going to fold the information into his rough draft, which was subject to their review before he prepared a rough draft that was eventually going to be presented to the public for their comment.
8:00 PM Public Hearing – Special Permit Application by Peter Simon, Mobile Food
Truck, AP 09B31.2
Attendance: Peter Simon (Applicant) and Phil Hale (Abutter)
Planning Board Co-Chairman, Mr. Peak opened the hearing at 8:03 PM and read the public hearing notice into the minutes. Board members introduced themselves to the applicant and Mr. Hale, before the applicant was asked to make his presentation.
Mr. Simon noted that he’s been operating a mobile food service (Irie Bites) for the past year on Main Street, and doing well during the lunch and early dinner hours. After that, business came to a complete halt because the foot traffic died when the storefronts on Main Street closed down for the evening.
Mr. Simon indicated that he has been observing the Art Cliff Diner’s operations on Beach Road, and noticed that it has been successfully drawing people late into the evening. He wanted to capitalize on the Art Cliff’s drawing power to introduce people to the Jamaican cuisine. As a result has decided to relocate his mobile food truck within the vicinity of the Art Cliff Diner on Beach Road, believing that the two operations could coexist and support each other.
He happened upon 151 Beach Road and obtained permission to operate the food truck. Mr. Simon originally planned to operate from the side of the building abutting Granite City Electric until it was brought to his attention that his entire operation exceeded the ten feet to the property line. Although it was the ideal location, he did not realize that the business activity would be occurring on the abutting property. Mr. Simon had to change the location of the business to the other side of the building abutting Mr. Hale’s property because it provided him plenty of space (i.e. twenty feet) to operate the mobile food truck. As he scaled out the area it became obvious that he would be impinging upon Mr. Hale’s property. He’s discussed his proposal with Mr. Hale and has tried to address his
concerns. Mr. Simon also noted that he was proposing to place two (2) benches between the planters up front on 151 Beach Road.
Mr. Simon informed the Board that he understood Mr. Hale’s concern about security, and has met with the Police Chief to explain the situation. The Police Chief offered to have the police monitor the area as part of their run, and recommended the utilization of their emergency service for assistance. Mr. Simon went as far to secure insurance to cover any injuries or vandalism as a result of his food service. The only other item left to address for Mr. Hall was the matter of garbage. He mentioned that they were always very careful about cleaning up the garbage at the end of their shift and will have trash containers available for their patron’s use.
For the present, Mr. Simon expected to operate the food service establishment Thursday through Sunday, from 8PM to 2AM, unless business was slow. He would not know he exact hours until he opened for business.
Mr. Hale noted that he’s been experiencing a fair amount of vandalism in the rear section of his property where he has a beach and dock. He was constantly cleaning up the garbage, replacing the lock on the dumpster and removing illegally parked cars. He was concerned that the applicant’s business could exacerbate the situation. As he explained to the applicant earlier, his three major issues were security, trash and parking. In an attempt to address the vandalism he’s been experiencing, Mr. Hale installed a fence to stop cars from accessing the beach and dock, but it did not prohibit people from gaining access to the rear of the lot.
Mr. Seidman thought Mr. Simon’s operations and presence could also benefit him by keeping an eye on his property. Mr. Hale agreed. Mr. Simon reiterated that he would call the police if anything suspicious occurred. He could also have his staff monitor the area periodically.
Mr. Seidman inquired about the insurance, and learned that Mr. Simon secured coverage up to one million dollars. Mr. Seidman asked Mr. Hale if it was sufficient. Mr. Hale replied that the amount was up to the applicant. If anyone was to incur an injury on his property, Mr. Hale had more than ample coverage to protect his interest.
Mr. Aldrin inquired if the applicant would still be operating on Main Street. The applicant replied in the affirmative. Mr. Stephenson expressed some concern at the applicant’s hours of operations, in favor of an earlier hour, so that it did not become an unofficial hangout, after the bars closed. Mr. Simon inquired if the Planning Board was aware of any issues with the Artcliff Diner’s operations. Mr. Stephenson replied in the negative. Mr. Simon did not want to deal with such situations, and preferred closing down his operations. Mr. Seidman did not believe Mr. Simon would encounter the kind of problems one could foresee in the larger cities. Mr. Thompson thought they could apply the type of restriction(s) they imposed on the Artcliff Diners’ operations to address it.
Mr. Peak inquired if the access to the parking spaces is shared or owned in common. Mr. Hale replied in the affirmative. He asked Mr. Simon if his customers could be directed to the spaces on 151 Beach Road. Mr. Hale did not think that was necessary, he just did not want to see illegally parked cars in the spaces the following morning. Mr. Peak inquired if Mr. Hale would object to the experimental operation of the mobile food unit. Mr. Hale replied in the negative. Mr. Simon offered to meet with Mr. Hale after he’s been in operation a week or two to discuss any issues.
Mr. Peak referred to the applicant’s file and entered the following into the record of the hearing:
1) Board of Health, dated June XX, 2012 stating that the applicant had complied with the Health Code by providing bathroom facilities for his staff,
2) Mr. Wallace, dated June 18, 2012 granting the applicant to operate his mobile food truck on his property, and giving his staff access to the bathroom facilities in the building,
3) Site Plan Review Board’s Minutes of June 13, 2012
Mr. Peak noted that the applicant was providing two (2) benches. He inquired if the applicant intended to remove them on a daily basis. Mr. Simon replied in the negative. Mr. Peak requested that he remove the benches every evening. Mr. Simon mentioned that they were generic benches. He did not have any plans to paint them red, green or gold. Mr. Peak did not have an issue with the benches provided they were not painted in the color scheme of his business. Mr. Hale advised the Board that he had to leave the discussions. He inquired if Mr. Simon would be able to open for business before the 20 day appeal period. Mr. Hale did not have any objections if the applicant opened early. He departed at 8:30 PM
Mr. Peak entered the applicant’s letter of application, received on June 19, 2012, in its entirety. The contents of the letter included the applicant’s hours of operation, number of staff, benches, the provision of garbage cans, bathrooms for staff, lighting, etc.
Mr. Simon informed the Board that he had met with the LUPC at the MV Commission on July 9, 2012 and the Commissioners voted to recommend to the Commission that the proposal did not qualify as a DRI, and should be remanded to the town. The Commission is scheduled to meet this Thursday to vote on the LUPC’s recommendation. The Board Secretary confirmed.
Mr. Peak informed the Board that they could not make a determination on the proposal until they are in receipt of the Commission’s written decision. Until they receive the written decision, they could review the merits of the proposal to find if the applicant’s met or complied with the general conditions of Section 06.09.00 of the by-law. Mr. Peak read the following excerpt from the bylaw, and asked the Board to consider if in their opinion, the applicant met condition:
.01 The proposed use is consistent with the purpose and intent of this by-law and with the Site Plan Standards for Review.
.02 The proposed use is listed in Section 06.06.00.
.03 The proposed use is appropriate for the specific site.
.04 The proposed use will not overburden any road, public water, drainage or sewer system to such an extent that the proposed use or any developed use in the immediate area or in any other area of the Town will be unduly subjected to hazards affecting health, safety or the general welfare.
.05 The proposed use shall not adversely impact the district's visual character, including views and vistas, and will improve opportunities for visual and pedestrian access to the waterfront.
Mr. Peak inquired if any of the board members if they did believed the applicant met the aforementioned conditions. If they did not find any issues with the proposal, he entertained motion stating that the applicant is in compliance with the aforementioned conditions as required. Mr. Stephenson so moved. Mr. Aldrin seconded the motion, and the motion carried. 5/0/0
Mr. Peak recommended continuing the public hearing until July 18, 2012 at 7:15PM, in the hope that they will be in receipt of the MV Commission’s decision relative to the referral. Mr. Stephenson so moved. Mr. Aldrin seconded the motion, which motion did carry. 5/0/0
The Planning Board resumed their regularly scheduled session at 8:45 PM
8:47 PM Douglas Dowling & Susan Fairbanks– Form A Application, Susan Fairbanks, AP 14A10
Mr. Dowling arrived unexpectedly to present his client’s application. He noted that the applicant was submitting a plan of land for two lots, which included one (1) irregularly shaped lot.
He explained that the applicant was allowed to apply for one irregularly shaped lot whenever a plan was submitted for two or more lots, under section 07.03.04 and section 07.03.02. It was further noted that the applicant a had the ability to create a substandard lot relative to frontage (50 ft.) provided that the width of the lot met the district’s minimum linear frontage (100 ft) requirement at the location of the new structure.
Based on the plan, the triangularly shaped lot had fifty (50) ft. of frontage. Approximately midway down the lot, Mr. Dowling added a horizontal line reflecting the nearest point where width of the lot measured one hundred ft. The building envelope, according to Mr. Dowling’s comments could not exceed the imaginary boundary.
Mr. Dowling indicated that the Building Inspector had advised him that he would issue his client a building permit because the proposal met the zoning regulation. He added that he had included an access easement to avoid having another curb cut on Winyah Lane.
Mr. Peak understood that the plan technically met the conditions of the regulations, but he questioned whether it met the intent of the language. He felt it had the potential of causing areas to run counter to the orderly distribution of property that zoning intended to create. The shared driveway compounded the problem, because they do not allow common driveways. He did not favor the use of the easement for a common access. It was an expansion of the concepts allowed in ANRs.
Additional discussions ensued with this regard, and Mr. Peak asked the Board Members for their comments. He advised the board that he could not vote in favor of the Form A with access easements. He did not think the ANR process was intended to create other legal arrangements beside the division of land.
Mr. Stephenson inquired if aside from the shared driveway the plan complied for ANR consideration. Mr. Peak replied in the affirmative. Mr. Stephenson understood that the lots met the regulation regardless of the access easement. He did not see any harm in decreasing the number of curb cuts, and would vote in favor of the proposal.
There being no further comment from the Board, Mr. Peak was prepared to entertain a motion to approve the Plan of Land prepared for Susan Fairbanks as an ANR under the Subdivision Control Law. Mr. Stephenson so moved. Mr. Thompson seconded the motion, which motion carried. 4/0/1 Mr. Peak voted against the proposal
Mr. Peak noted that the plan did not contain the language stating that the ANR did not supercede the zoning regulations. Mr. Dowling replied that it was an oversight.
Mr. Seidman departed at 9:10 PM.
9:14 PM Reid Silva, Vineyard Land Surveying & Engineering Re: Form A Application, Ronald Somers, AP 24D14
Mr. Silva joined the Planning Board to discuss the Plan of Land he had submitted on his client’s behalf proposing a deep lot division of land. He reminded the Board that he had submitted the proposal approximately five years ago. The Board at the time rejected the layout because the house did not meet the zoning district’s side yard setbacks.
The applicant this past spring rebuilt the house, cutting off 1.5 ft. from the side of the existing building to comply with the side yard setback requirement, and rebuilt the garage.
He demonstrated that the division complied with the provisions of the Deep Lot regulations in that the rear lot had thirty (30) ft. of frontage from the road and met the land area requirements. The house complied with all of the dimensional requirements for the R10 District.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Peak entertained a motion to endorse the plan as prepared and submitted to the Planning Board as an ANR under the Subdivision Control Law. Mr. Stephenson so moved. Mr. Aldrin seconded the motion, which motion carried. 4/0/0
8:45 PM Philipe Jordi, IHT re: 6 Water Street
Mr. Jordi advised the Board that the property at 6 Water Street had been donated to Island Housing Trust just a month and a half ago. IHT has been considering its options, but opted to solicit the town’s, specifically the Planning Board’s opinion.
The property was within the BI District with 32 ft of frontage, 117 ft of depth and 46 ft. wide in the rear. Both house and shed were fairly dilapidated so that they would not be salvaged. The property was connected to town water and sewer line, and could have an apartment(s) on the second floor with office space restricted to the first floor. The challenge would be in providing parking. Mr. Jordi thought they could probably accommodate four (4) to five (5) cars at most. That may change with the addition of a handicap access. He’s met with the Housing Authority’s Executive Director and they’ve agreed that the rear side of the building was the best place for the handicap access. Mr. Peak inquired about the number of handicap units. Mr. Jordi replied that one of the units had to be handicap accessible.
Mr. Stephenson inquired if the property was within a flood zone. Mr. Jordi replied in the affirmative, adding that the building would have to be constructed without a basement, and on some type of pier to meet the proper elevation.
Mr. Peak mentioned that it concern him overtime with that section of the street, was that it served as the main entrance to the town and island. He would like to see some continuity in the architectural design or character of the buildings on the street. He recalled that the MV Commission created some nice sketches of the streetscape for Water Street. Mr. Stephenson explained that it was part of a general study of the town, wherein one of the components included the character of the town. He was very interested in seeing IHT’s ideas or proposals. Mr. Peak did not know if the Planning Board had a copy of the streetscape. He thought they could obtain a copy from the MV Commission.
Mr. Aldrin thought the continuity of architectural style was going to be difficult when no one knew what the Stop & Shop was thinking of doing with the building next door.
Mr. Stephenson spoke with Mr. London to let him know that IHT was interested in developing 6 Water Street, while the Planning Board was interested in looking at the area in broader terms. He suggested that the MV Commission could help them develop a set of parameters to structure the development of the area. Mr. London appeared to be very interested in the idea. Mr. Stephenson suggested that they could set up a meeting with him to see if they could help. Mr. Jordi offered to set up the meeting.
Mr. Peak noted that the town did not have any parking requirements in the BI District. Given that IHT was going to have residential units, it seemed reasonable that they would have to provide parking. He mentioned that if IHT had a single lane drive along the property line, you could still have a decent size building with parking for four (4) to five (5) cars. Mr. Jordi noted that it would narrow the building and have an impact on the design.
Mr. Peak referred Mr. Jordi to the Building Inspector to discuss the building code in flood zones, because the first floor elevation has to be built up to the eight (8) ft. elevation. It appeared that the rear of the lot was slightly higher, so it would make sense to install the handicap access in the back. Mr. Stephenson thought it would also make sense to maintain access across a ramp or porch that ran the whole length of the building to the Stop & Shop parking lot to make it convenient. He agreed that the location itself presented a challenge.
If IHT pursued the idea of having a commercial spaces on the ground floor and more than one residential unit on the second floor, he would agreed with Mr. Stephenson’s idea of having a porch that ran the entire front of building, even though it would reduce the size of the first floor. One had to consider that space needs for commercial and residential area were different, so that the second floor could be a little wider. If done in an artistic way, the porch can be under the floor above, and the floor above can cantilever out over the driveway. It would allow IHT to have a substantial building. Mr. Peak also thought they could move the façade of the new building as close to the street as possible and have the stairs to the street run parallel to the front of the house to provide them with additional floor
area, without loosing the parking area in the back.
Mr. Stephenson mentioned that historical references have demonstrated that the buildings were constructed right up the property line. In this particular case it would be nice to allow for a wide walk. The wider sidewalk could accommodate a couple of benches and provide for better sight distances. He thought Mr. Jordi should contact the abutting property owners to see if they would be interested in making a larger complex out of the project. It may be to their advantage to share some of their resources.
Mr. Peak recommended contacting the representatives from Stop & Shop that came to the Vineyard to discuss their plans for expansion. He thought it would be a good strategy to have IHT’s discuss their plans and the possibility complementing their projects to their advantage. He offered to contact Bill Veno to obtain the names of his contact(s) and discussing the advantages in conversing with them about IHT’s project.
Mr. Stephenson thought it was important to start working on standards for that area. It was possible that they might use IHT’s building to establish those standards. Mr. Peak thought Mr. Jordi could entice architects to help if he let them know that they had the potential of defining the Water Street entrance to the island for a long time to come.
Mr. Jordi advised the Board that he would contact Mr. London to set a meeting regarding this project, and approaching Mr. Veno for the names and numbers of his contacts at Stop & Shop. Board members were invited.
Prior to departing for the evening, Mr. Jordi asked the Board if they had any issues if IHT was to demolish the buildings. Mr. Peak replied in the negative. He asked that they plant and maintain some grass so that it did not look barren. The discussions ended at 9:15 PM
BOARD DISCUSSIONS:
1. Planning Board Officers
RE: Chairman and Co-Chairman
2. Peg Regan, MV Mass in Motion
RE: Pre-survey (Physical Activity Opportunities)
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED:
1. Douglas O. Dowling -PE, PLS
RE: Susan Fairbanks - Form A Application, AP 14A10
2. Reid Silva, Vineyard Land Surveying
RE: Ronald Somers - Form Application, AP 24D14
3. Israel Alves Pereira Junior dba Harbor Café
RE: Special Permit Application (Restaurant)
4. Ferro Way Subdivision, AP 24A07
RE: Rate of Development
5. Zoning Board of Appeals
A. Public Hearing Notice – Jilana & Alan Abrams, AP 12B15 (renew lodging permit)
B. Public Hearing Notice – IHT, AP25E25 (Comprehensive Permit- 3 sheds/outside shower)
C. Public Hearing Notice – Irie Bites, AP 07F23 (Food service outside building)
D. Public Hearing Notice – Auguste Rimpel, AP 28C9.1 ( Detached Guesthouse)
E. Public Hearing Notice – Dawn Braasch, AP 07F22 (outdoor seating)
F. Special Permit # 2117 – Amity LLC, AP 07F04 (outside seating)
G. Special Permit # 2118 - John Roriz, AP 22C05 (sheet metal shop)
H. Special Permit # 2119 - Deborah Johnson, AP 07D13 (Food service outside building)
I. Special Permit # 2121 – Noel Gearhart, AP 07C04 (renovation/expansion of preexisting structure)
6. Tisbury Water Works
RE: 2011 Water Report, June 2012
7. Martha’s Vineyard Commission
A. 06 July 2012 Extended Schedule
B. 2 July 2012 MV Commission Meeting Agenda
D. MV Commission’s Determination on Board’s referral re: Pachico Family Nominee Tr.
8. Thomson Reuters
RE: Zoning Bulletin, May 2012 & June 2012
PRO FORM Meeting opened, conducted and closed in due form at 10:18 P.M. (m/s/c 4/0/0)
| 