Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Planning Board Minutes 08/08/12

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


DATE:           August 8, 2012
TIME:           7:30PM

PLACE:          Town Hall Annex

ATTENDANCE:     Aldrin, Peak, Seidman and Stephenson
ABSENT:         Thompson

BILLS:          Lancaster Typewriter………………………….$95.00
                        Petty Cash (Postage)…………………………..$  6.60

MINUTES:                As referred in the July 25, 2012 Meeting Agenda
                        25 July 2012 - AVAILABLE


7:30 PM House Business

Marine Hospital, Lagoon Pond Road
Mr. Peak informed the Board of his conversation with Jane Varkonda, the Conservation Commission’s Agent about the possibility of constructing a boardwalk across Mud Creek to the old marine hospital.

Board members were informed that Mr. Henry Burt owned much of land abutting the hospital, including the stretch of land across the street from Maciel’s Marine on Lagoon Pond Road, which was being leased out for parking. If Mr. Burt was willing to abandon the use and consider granting the town an easement, the town could build a wooden boardwalk in a straight line across the creek to connect to the hospital property (future museum site).  Mr. Peak wanted to introduce the subject to him privately when the property was no longer beneficial to him, and to see if he would be willing to consider the proposal.  

Mr. Stephenson supported the recommendation given that the town implied that they would cut an access to the museum.

Mr. Stephenson met with Mr. LaPiana, Mr. Weisman (architect) and his staff to review a series of drawings and sketches depicting the potential for creating a public access and path

along both sides of the Beach Road causeway that would add approximately 4000 sq. ft. of waterfront access in town. Mr. Weisman wanted to discuss the preliminary schematics to solicit their impressions. It appeared that Mr. Weisman was amenable to the suggestions that were raised over the course of the conversation.

Mr. Aldrin, fellow board member was present at the discussions. He was representing the Community Preservation Committee, since they funded the project.

Mr. Peak asked Mr. Stephenson inquired about the final product. Mr. Stephenson replied that Mr. Weisman was providing the Dept. of Public Works illustrations, computer generated images and video to reflect different perspectives of the entire Beach Road Corridor, so that they had a few options to review.

7:31 PM Public Hearing: Special Permit Application - Israel Alves Pereira Jr. d/b/a             Harbor Café, ap 09c11
                Attendance: Andressa Pereira, Proprietor/Co-Applicant

Hearing commenced at 7:31 PM. Planning Board Co-Chairman, Mr. Peak read the public hearing notice into the minutes and asked the Board to introduce themselves to the applicant.

Before opening the discussion to the applicant for her presentation, Mr. Peak advised Mrs. Pereira that the Planning Board was obligated to inform her of her rights. He explained that state law required the presence of a full board for special permits. In absence of a full board, she was permitted to postpone the hearing until all five (5) members were present, unless she felt comfortable proceeding with the four (4) present this evening. In this instance the special permit would require the unanimous consent of all four (4) members.

Mr. Peak noted that the property in question has operated as a food service establishment for years, and has been granted a special permit as the restaurants have transferred from one proprietor to another, or modified their food service operations.  Given that special permits are not transferrable, Mrs. Pereira was required to obtain a special permit for her establishment (i.e. Harbor Café). Mr. Peak asked Mrs. Pereira if she had made her decision. Mrs. Pereira replied in the affirmative, stating that she wanted to proceed with the hearing.

Mrs. Periera, at Mr. Peak’s request began her presentation explaining that she and her husband have worked hard to improve the aesthetics of the interior. They’ve also provided outdoor amenities, such as picnic tables and a beverage cart to attract more customers. She explained that the picnic tables were open to the general public, and provided her clientele sitting accommodations to view the harbor as they ate their food.

Mr. Seidman inquired if the containment wall already existed. Mrs. Periera replied in the affirmative. Mr. Peak recalled that it may have provided a protective barrier (cinder block) for a fuel tank.

Mr. Peak inquired if they offered wait staff. Mrs. Periera replied that it was a self-serve operation seen in buffet style restaurants. Mr. Peak noted that there was a discrepancy in

the number of seats listed in the application and the number of seats approved by the Board of Health. He asked the applicant if she had met with the Board of Health regarding their food service. She replied in the affirmative. Mr. Peak referred the Board and the applicant to the Board of Health’s letter dated 24 July 2012 stating that the applicant is currently approved for a seating capacity of 24, and subject to further review for the outdoor retail sale of beverages and outdoor seating. He inquired if she had the opportunity to speak to the Board of Health about the proposal. She replied in the affirmative. He suggested meeting with the Board of Health to address the discrepancy in the number of seats, as it could impact the proposal for outdoor seating. He inquired if the 28 seats in the letter of application to the Planning Board included the outdoor seats. She replied in the affirmative.  He inquired if she wanted to expand the food service operations. She replied in the negative. Mr. Peak noted that the floor plan submitted with the application reflected twenty-two (22) seats, even though she’s been approved for twenty-four (24) seats. Mr. Peak reiterated that the applicant should make it a priority to meet with the Board of Health to secure their approval. Mrs. Pereira acknowledged.

Mr. Seidman inquired if they had a trash receptacle.  Mrs. Periera replied in the affirmative. Mr. Aldrin inquired about the hours of operation. Mr. Peak noted that the letter of application mentioned that the applicants wanted to operate the food service establishment from 6AM to 10 PM, seven (7) days a week during summer, and; 6AM to 8PM, Monday through Saturday for the remainder of the year.

Mr. Peak inquired if she planned to provide additional lighting. Mrs. Perreira replied in the negative, explaining that she was utilizing the existing lighting accommodations.

Mr. Peak noted that there was no one present from the general public or town boards to comment on the application, and took the opportunity to enter the applicant’s letter of application into the record of the minutes. He read Mr. Packer’s letter, granting the applicants permission to make the proposed improvements and asked Mrs. Pereira to modify the hand sketched drawing of the exterior layout to include the beverage cart and trash receptacle for the Planning Board’s records.

There being no further comment, Mr. Peak recommended closing the public hearing and immediately entering into deliberations. Mr. Seidman so moved.  Mr. Aldrin seconded the motion, and the motion carried: 4/0/0  The hearing was duly closed at 7:49 PM.

7:49 PM    Deliberations: Special Permit Application - Israel Alves Pereira Jr. d/b/a ,                       Harbor Café, ap 09c11

Mr. Stephenson inquired if the applicant intended to provide music outdoors.  Mrs. Perreira replied in the negative.

Mr. Peak advised the Board that they were not provided with a draft outline to guide them, but suspected that the draft document would be similar to the previously issued permit, since the operations were very much the same, except for the outdoor seating arrangements.

He suggested that the special permit clearly reflect the applicant’s intent to provide picnic tables that were to be available to the general public. Mr. Peak assumed the trees were potted so that they could be easily relocated or removed.  Mrs. Pereira replied in the affirmative.

According to the applicant’s testimony, Mr. Peak understood that they did not have any plans to add lighting or signs as part of the proposal. Mrs. Pereira replied in the affirmative.  Mr. Peak noted that the overall seating will be based on the regulations of the Board of Health, even though the Planning Board did not have an issue with the applicant’s proposal for twenty-eight (28) seats. The total seating accommodations included the picnic tables. Mr. Peak recommended a condition requiring the use of an outside trash receptacle, and limiting the outdoor retail of beverages and popsicles to the one (1) cooler unit specified in the letter of applicant and plans. He also thought it important to specify that the tables, trees, trash receptacle and cooler will be located so as not to obstruct the existing access.

There being no further discussion, Mr. Peak entertained a motion to approve of the applicant’s proposal as discussed with conditions and restrictions. Mr. Stephenson so moved. Mr. Alden seconded the motion, and the motion carried. 4/0/0

Mr. Peak advised the applicant that the draft decision would not be available for their review until their next meeting on August 22, 2012 at 7:15 PM.  Mr. Peak entertained a motion.  Mr. Stephenson moved to continue the deliberations until August 22nd at 7:15 PM to review their draft decision. Mr. Aldrin seconded the motion. The motion carried. 4/0/0

The Planning Board resumed their regularly scheduled meeting at 8:??  PM.

8:00 PM Peg Regan Re: Complete Streets Policy (To be re-scheduled)

Ms. Regan sent the Planning Board an email earlier in the day to cancel her appointment. She explained that she could not attend the meeting due to a family emergency. She planned to contact the Planning Board Secretary to re-schedule an appointment.

In a related subject matter, Mr. Seidman read that Shared-Use Paths (SUPs) were supposed to be 10 ft. – 14 ft. wide. He also read that in an unidentified community, efforts were underway to encourage 50% of the commuters bike to work. The community in question was either planning or constructing a highway (specific to bikes) in an effort to battle obesity. Mr. Seidman observed that the SUPs on the island were 6 ft. wide at best.

Mr. Stephenson understood the state made allowances for topographically challenged areas, and has allowed SUPs as narrow as 8 ft wide on the Vineyard, such as the SUP on Edgartown Road. The Vineyard presented a separate set of issues, with the most important being “to interconnect the roads to create a continuous network, so that the road system could then serve as a framework for other amenities such as sidewalks, bike lanes, SUPs”.    Mr. Peak thought the primary issue was largely due to the town’s physical confinement which was a standard that prevailed in the era it was constructed. The board members agreed

Mr. Seidman doubted that the Edgartown-Vineyard Haven Road SUP met the minimum 8 ft. wide requirement. It also concerned him that State Road; a heavily traveled way from Crane’s Appliance Store to the West Tisbury town line did not have any sidewalks. It was his observation and experience, that the stretch of road was dangerous for the both the pedestrian and cyclist.


1. Town Counsel
RE: Training Session, August 23, 2012 (Topics for discussion)


1.  Tisbury Board of Health
RE: Israel Alves Pereira Junior d/b/a Harbor Café, AP 09C11

2. Tisbury Zoning Board of Appeals
A. Comprehensive Permit (Modification) – Island Housing Trust, AP 25E25
B. Permit# 2112 – Auguste Rimpel, AP 28C09 (Guesthouse)
C. Permit# 2124 – Dawn Brasch, Bunch of Grapes, AP 07F22 (outdoor seating/no food)
D. Permit #2125 – Jilana & Alan Abrams, AP 12B15 (7 room B&B)
E. Permit# 2116 – Irie Bites LLC, AP 07F23 (Mobile Food Truck)

3. Martha’s Vineyard Commission
A. 09 August 2012 Meeting Agenda
B. 03 August 2012 Extended Meeting Schedule
C. FFY 2013-2016 Transportation Improvement Program & FFY 2013 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP)

4. Comcast (North Central Division) & NSTAR Electric & Gas Corp.
RE: Martha’s Vineyard hybrid Cable Project (Notice of Project Change) , July 16, 2012

5. Commonwealth of Mass. – DEP
RE: Chap. 91 Waterways License – Tisbury Market Place, 70 Beach Road (Reid Dunn’s Bldg)

6. Commonwealth of Massachusetts Clean Energy Center
RE: Land-Based Wind Energy (A Guide to Understanding the issues and Making Informed Decisions)

7. American Planning Association
A. TheCommissioner, Summer 2012
B. AudioWeb Conference Registration (2012-2013 Series)

1.  Public Hearing Notice – T-Mobile Northeast LLC (upgrading equipment)

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