TOWN OF TISBURY
P.O. BOX 602
TOWN HALL ANNEX
VINEYARD HAVEN, MASSACHUSETTS 02568
Fax (508) 696-7341
DATE: August 22, 2012
TIME: 7:10 PM
PLACE: Town Hall Annex
ATTENDANCE: Peak, Seidman, and Stephenson
ABSENT: Aldrin, Thompson
MINUTES: As referred in the August 8, 2012 Meeting Agenda
18 July 2012 m/s/c 3/0/0
25 July 2012 m/s/c 3/0/0
08 August 2012 m/s/c 3/0/0
7:00 PM Douglas Hoehn, SB&H Inc.
A) Informal Discussion re: Craig Coutinho, Form A on Proprietor's Way, AP 07A02
Board members were given copies of photos taken by Mr. Hoehn depicting the entrance to Proprietor’s Way from Franklin Street, and a portion of the road heading towards Mr. Coutinho’s residence further down to road.
Mr. Hoehn submitted a reduced copy of the tax map, and a copy of a plan, dating 1977 creating the lot in question, as he began his presentation. He noted that the road went past Mr. Coutinho’s property a small way, until it was obstructed with rocks, fallen trees and a recreational craft i.e. boat. As a result of the obstruction, the road is divided into two separate segments, so that Proprietor’s Way can only be accessed from Franklin Street, and Mayrand Way can be accessed from Pine Street.
Mr. Stephenson observed from the walks he’s taken in the area over the years, that Mr. Mayrand essentially utilized the road as his private driveway. While he did not have an issue with the barrier’s impact on vehicular traffic, he would like to see some accommodations for pedestrians, so that people could walk comfortably and safely to Main Street.
Mr. Peak inquired if the road was actually laid out on the ground for the entire frontage of the lot. He wanted the road to go the full length of the new parcel. Mr. Hoehn replied that it was a few feet short. But that they could easily improve the road to the edge of the property in question. Mr. Peak noted that the road had to have a cleared width of 12 ft, and graded so that the storm water did not present a problem. Mr. Hoehn understood, but asked the Board if they would go down Proprietor’w Way to make a determination on its adequacy for ANR purposes.
Mr. Peak did not have an issue with the request, and directed the Board members to go down the road so that they could report their impressions at their next meeting on September 5, 2012. And this was acceptable to Mr. Hoehn.
B) Frank & Deborah Knight and Tashmoo Associates Inc., Form A with a proposal for a Property Line Adj., (AP 54C3.9 and 54C3.11, respectively)
Mr. Hoehn submitted a division of land creating four (4) non-buildable parcels that were to be redistributed between the two aforementioned property owners so that the Knights could obtain frontage on a private way, and Tashmoo Associates Inc. could acquire the privately owned sections of the open pasture as part of their common lands.
Based on the plan of land Lots 1-A-1 and 1-A-2 were to be combined with Assessor Parcel 54C3.11 and Lots 3-B and 3-C were to be combined with the Knights’ property on Assessor Parcel 54C3.9 (Lot 3-A) to create a 3.38 acres parcel with 194.85 ft. of frontage on the unnamed private way.
Mr. Peak noted that the lot was in the R3A District and required a minimum of 200 ft. of frontage. Mr. Hoehn advised his client, Mrs. Knight that the oversight was not an issue and easy to correct. Mr. Peak mentioned that the frontage requirement was not a requirement for an ANR endorsement. Mr. Hoehn agreed, but did not want to create a substandard lot, which could present a problem for his client down the road. He preferred submitting a revised plan. The revised plan was to be submitted for the Planning Board’s next meeting on September 5, 2012.
C) Charlene Judge, Form A, AP 12D24
Mr. Hoehn submitted a plan of land dividing assessor parcel 12D24to create a small non-buildable parcel (referred to as Lot 2) to be transferred to an adjacent lot (AP 12D23).
The small, non-buildable lot combined with the irregularly shaped lot (AP 12D23) transformed the parcel into a rectangular parcel of land.
Mr. Peak entertained a motion stating that the creation and transferenceof the non-buildable parcel to the adjacent lot was in compliance with the Subdivision Control Law. Mr. Stephenson so moved. Mr. Seidman seconded the motion, which motion carried. 3/0/0
D) Tom Pachico, Form A, AP 22A13.11
Mr. Hoehn submitted a revised plan of land reflecting slight modifications to the property lines and access easement; so that the latter ran down straight through. Although a couple of the lots gained land area, all four (4) lots met the dimensional requirements for the Zoning District. Mr. Peak also noted that the MV Commission recently determined that the division of land did not qualify as an ANR, so that the Planning Board was free to act on the division of land.
There being no discussion, Mr. Stephenson moved to endorse the division of land as presented to the Planning Board as an ANR under the subdivision control law. Mr. Seidman seconded the motion, which motion carried. 3/0/0
E) Release of Form C Covenant for Marion Halperin and Judson Schiebel AP 16A23.2 & 16A23.3
Mr. Hoehn submitted the following documentation to verify the applicant’s compliance with the conditions and restrictions of the Form C Decision issued on 17 December 2008.
A) a letter attesting to the Planning Board that the subdivision road identified as Marion’s Way was constructed according to his specifications as presented at the hearing,
B) photographs of the newly constructed road,
C) a copy of a letter from Paul Bettencourt, the electrician who installed the primary underground system, and
D) a copy of an email from Neil Sullivan of Habitat for Humanity notifying the surveyor of the Water Works’ Department’s approval.
Mr. Hoehn referred to the photos to illustrate the apron and road surface.
Mr. Peak advised the Board that the documentation was a prerequisite for the Form O, otherwise known as a Certificate of Completion and Release of Municipal Interest In Subdivision Performance Security. He explained that Mr. Hoehn was asking the Board to release the lots created in the subdivision plan. The applicant had to demonstrate that the road was constructed according to the approve specifications, before the Board could entertain the request.
Mr. Peak referred to the Conditions & Restrictions of the 17 December 2008 to verify that the information Mr. Hoehn submitted satisfied the requirements for the release of the lots. Once released, the lots were available for conveyance. This being confirmed, Mr. Peak did not see any reason not to recommend signing the Form O, Certificate of Completion.
Mr. Peak entertained a motion to accept the letters of completion from the providers for Marion’s Way, and agree that the services and road way has been satisfactorily completed to release the lots for conveyance. Mr. Stephenson so moved. Mr. Seidman seconded the motion, which motion carried. 3/0/0
8:20 PM Deliberations (Cont.): Special Permit Application by Israel Alves Pereira Jr. d/b/a Harbor Café, ap 09c11
The continuation of the deliberations were duly opened at 8:20 PM. Mr. Peak, Planning Board Co-Chairman referred the Board to the outline of the draft decision and recommended starting with the applicant’s proposal on page 1. The Board reviewed the document and recommended a few minor typographical corrections in Findings.
With the exception of the typographical errors that were corrected, the Board did not raise any other any issues or comments on the draft decision. Mr. Peak therefore entertained a motion to approve the document with the amendments as their written Decision. Mr. Seidman so moved. Mr. Stephenson seconded the motion, which motion carried. 3/0/0
There being no further comment, Mr. Peak entertained a motion to close the deliberations. Mr. Stephenson so moved. Mr. Seidman seconded the motion. And the motion carried. 3/0/0 The deliberations were duly closed at 8:29 PM.
1. Henry Stephenson
RE: Letter to NStar regarding the underground installation of the telephone poles on Beach Road
Mr. Peak thought the letter was a bit too harsh, and suggested a different approach, of which he was willing to work on with Mr. Stephenson, if the latter agreed. Mr. Stephenson understood Mr. Peak’s point and was agreeable.
2. Jonathan Silverstein, Kopleman & Paige
RE: Training Session at 1PM on August 23, 2012
Board members were reminded that Town Counsel was coming to meet with them and staff to discuss zoning and any other issues dealing with zoning. Mr. Peak expressed an interest in attending the training session and invited the Board members to join in the discussions.
The Board Secretary posted the meeting, so that everyone could legally attend.
3. Will Craffey
RE: Picnic Tables w/ umbrellas – special permit amendment
Board members reviewed the language of Mr. Craffey’s Special Permit and DRI Decision, and agreed that Mr. Craffey would have to amend his special permit and be referred to the MV Commission for an amendment as well.
Mr. Crafey was to be informed that he would also require the property owner’s consent before he could apply to the Planning Board.
4. Martha’s Vineyard Film Society, AP 09C19, 86 Beach Road
Mr. Seidman noticed a discrepancy in the number of units between the staff notes dated 8/11/2009 , the LUPC minutes of 11/22/2009, the Decision of 11/4/2010 and the Building Inspector’s floor plans. It appeared to him that what was actually being constructed was not in compliance with the MV Decision and the building permit which reflected four (4) units, not the six(6) he’s observed being built.
Mr. Seidman noted that Mr. Dunn was approved for a 5700 sq. ft. building with (one) 1- (two) 2 retail units, one (1) office and one (1) apartment. It was noted that the Building Inspector’s plans reflected two (2) units on the first floor, two(2) units on the second floor and an apartment that was split on the second and mezzanine floor.
Mr. Peak observed that the first floor has three (3) units, and that the constructed floor plan did not correlate with the building inspectors’ construction plans.
Mr. Seidman recalled that he was approved for a total of four (4) units( i.e. one or two retails, one office and one apartment). He did not understand how the project could have morphed into a much larger commercial structure. He spoke with Mr. Foley , who has not responded to his concern.
Mr. Peak thought it interesting that the 2nd floor deck is larger that reflected on the plan. And where it was supposed to be supported by brackets, he’s observed that there are now posts.
Mr. Seidman questioned whether there was anything the Board could do. He thought it was not right to be allowed to expand a project without amending the necessary permits, or decisions required under ordinary circumstances. He also questioned how they were going to accommodate the additional traffic with the theater, when every parking space was filled at 10 PM.
Mr. Stephenson believes he Zoning Enforcement Officer was responsible for responding to a complaint, and for making sure that his plans are the same plans everyone have approved. The Board Secretary approached the Building Inspector with Mr. Seidman’s concerns, and provided her with the building plan before the Board. She noted that the Building Inspector spoke with Mr. Dunn about the floor plan in the magazine and the floor plan he had, and was advised that the magazine’s floor plan was erroneous. Mr. Barwick has been making the necessary inspections during the construction and does see any discrepancy.
Mr. Seidman clarified that what was actually being constructed was not what was illustrated in the approved plans.
Mr. Peak advised him that the protocol was to write a letter to the Zoning Code Enforcement Office delineating your issues and requesting a written response. Mr. Seidman asked that the Board pursue the matter. The DRI Decision was specific about the square footage of 5700 sq. ft, so that the first and second floors could only have 2800 sq. ft. each. Staff notes clearly delineated one or two retail units on the first floor, one office space and an apartment in the second floor.
Mr. Peak offered to approach Mr. Foley and Mr. Barwick to discuss the matter.
1. Thomas H. Urmston, Jr.
RE: West Chop Trust Roads
Mr. Peak read Mr. Urmston’s letter and expressed an interest in responding on the Board’s behalf. He explained that he wanted the opportunity to explain in general terms what they’ve experienced, and to inquire about the Trust’s arrangements for managing their roads. Mr. Urmston’s letter has provided him the opportunity to invite him to a meeting so that they can discuss the subject.
2. Tisbury Conservation Commission
RE: Appointment to the Land Bank Advisory Committee
Mr. Peak informed the Board that the Conservation Commission will not have any representation on the Site Plan Review Board this year.
3. Martha’s Vineyard Commission
A. 17 August 2012 Extended Schedule
B. 23 August 2012 Meeting Notice
C. CPTC Training Sessions
4. Vineyard Power Solar Canopy Event – Friday, 24 August 2012
5. Thomson West
A. June 25, 2012 Zoning Bulletin
B. 10 July 2012 Zoning Bulletin
6. American Planning Association
RE: Planning, August/September 2012
PRO FORM Meeting opened, conducted and closed in due form at 9: P.M. (m/s/c 3/0/0)