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: September 5, 2012
TIME: 7:07 PM
PLACE: Town Hall Annex
ATTENDANCE: Aldrin, Peak, Stephenson and Thompson
ABSENT: Seidman
BILLS: DaRosa (Office supply)…………………….$31.81
MINUTES: As referred in the August 22, 2012 Meeting Agenda
22 August 2012
APPOINTMENTS:
7:18 PM Douglas Hoehn, SB&H Inc.
A) Form A Application -Frank & Deborah Knight, AP 54C3.9 & 3.11
Mr. Hoehn submitted a revised plan of land giving the Knight’s sufficient frontage (200.57’) to meet the R3A zoning district’s requirement. He reminded the Board that the Knight’s and Tashmoo Associates Inc. were transferring small equally sized parcels of land. The Knights’ gained frontage on the private right of way, and Tashmoo Associates Inc. protected the cow pasture. As per the notation on the plan, the parcels were not buildable by themselves, and to be conveyed to each other.
Mr. Stephenson entered a motion to approve the plan of land for Mr. & Mrs. Knight and Tashmoo Associates Inc. as an ANR under the Subdivision Control Law. Mr. Aldrin seconded the motion, which motion carried. 4/0/0
Mr. Peak commented that there was a possibility that a future building inspector may require the applicant to construct the road to qualify as frontage for some future event.
B) Discussion: Craig Coutinho, AP 07A02, Proprietor’s Way
Mr. Peak noticed that the drive on Proprietor’s Way went past lot 20 and just past the driveway into lot 21. Immediately beyond that was a row of rocks within the right-of-way. As far as he could see, the 30 ft. road layout was leveled and clear just short of the property line between lots 22 and 22.1, after which there was a hill. If the applicant widened and cleared the road for the whole length of the lot, and improved the road to meet the standards of the existing travelled way, he would not have an issue with the applicant’s proposal. The improvements would have to include the removal of the rocks, and the telephone cable that was lying across the road.
Mr. Aldrin had the opportunity to look at the road and noticed that there was a shed encroaching on the road. He questioned whether emergency vehicles would be able to turn around at the end of the road. They had to back out to the end at Franklin Street, which did not appear safe. Mr. Peak concurred, and thought it was to everyone’s interest to have a fire truck accessible road.
Mr. Stephenson questioned Mr. Mayrand’s ability to obstruct the road and to prevent people or emergency vehicles from getting through. Mr. Hoehn did not know ‘who’ would be able to get Mr. Mayrand to open up the road. He suspected Mr. Mayrand would be opposed to completing the construction of the road.
Mr. Stephenson did not see why they could not have an access for emergency vehicles or an access for pedestrians without opening the road for vehicular traffic. Mr. Peak wanted the opportunity to ask a couple of people on the road what their impressions were about opening the traveled way to Pine Street. Mr. Hoehn thought they had to know all of the property owners abutting the road, and what their rights were on Proprietor’s Way. He offered to secure the information when he returned with a plan.
7:47 PM Public Hearing: Special Permit Application by T-Mobile Northeast LLC, AP 22A11 Attendance: Mary Ellen Larsen
The hearing was duly opened at 7:47 PM. Mr. Peak, the Planning Board Co-Chairman read the public hearing notice into the minutes, and advised the board members that the applicant had sent them an email requesting a continuation.
Mr. Peak explained that Mr. DeCoste, the applicant’s agent was informed that they would not be able to conduct the hearing with all five (5) members. He was asked if his client would feel comfortable proceeding with four (4) members, understanding that an endorsement would require a super majority vote. Mr. DeCoste advised the board secretary that the applicant preferred waiting until the project could be heard by a full board. Mr. Paul DeCoste subsequently sent the Board an email conveying his client’s preference with a request for September 19, 2012.
The board secretary learned that Mr. Seidman would not be available on September 19, 2012. Mr. Stephenson did not believe he would be able to attend the meeting on the 19th as well. Discussions ensued with this regard, and it was suggested that the Board could meet the following week on September 26, 2012 to conduct the public hearing. Messr. Aldrin, Stephenson and Thompson were free to meet on that date.
Mr. Peak recommended continuing the hearing on September 19, 2012 to give the board secretary the time to contact Mr. Seidman about the 26th of September and notifying Mr. DeCoste of their situation. Board members agreed.
Mr. Peak therefore entertained a motion to continue the hearing on September 19, 2012, at 7:15 PM, knowing that they will need to continue the hearing until September 26, 2012, once it was confirmed that Mr. Seidman will be available on that date. Mr. Aldrin so moved. Mr. Stephenson seconded the motion, which motion carried. 4/0/0 The Planning Board resumed their regularly scheduled session at 7:48 PM.
7:48 PM Amy Tierney, Tisbury School Committee (No Show)
7:55 PM Bob Tonti, VNA’s Parking Plan (Revision), AP 22A06, Breakdown Lane
Board members were informed that they were required to review all parking lots of twenty (20) or more vehicles, and to render an opinion to the referring Board or Building Inspector under section 07.07.03(a) of the zoning bylaw.
Mr. Peak noted that the Planning Board had reviewed the VNA’s initial proposal in 2011, when they had submitted an application to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a reduction in the number of parking spaces. The VNA withdrew their application because they learned from the Building Inspector that they only needed thirty-five (35) parking spaces. The applicant was able to accommodate twenty-eight (28) of the parking spaces on site, and lease the remainder from the property owner on the east side of the building.
Mr. Tonti, for tonight’s presentation submitted a revised facsimile of the plan that was prepared for the VNA by SB&H Inc. on 31 October 2011 (Plan No. MV5856) with hand sketched modifications to the front parking lot. He explained that the VNA was required to submit a final landscape plan to the MV Commission. At the time that they were taking an inventory of the existing landscape, they discovered that the existing landscape met the MV Commission’s requirements with just a few additional plants and trees. The MV Commission reviewed their proposal for the
additional plantings and approved the landscape plan with the addition of a landscaped island up front at the entrance to the building. To accommodate the landscaping in the front parking lot, Mr. Tonti had to reconfigure the layout for the twelve parking spaces. He had to change the orientation of the parking spaces, so that the cars faced the landscaped island in the center of the lot, and add a split rail fence about five (5) ft. from the property line on Breakdown Lane to redirect the traffic into the two parking areas from two separate means of egress.
Mr. Tonti noted that they still had the same number of parking spaces, including the two (2) designated for the handicap. Mr. Peak inquired about their access to the front entrance. Mr. Tonti explained that the landscaped area was essentially a patio. Mr. Peak inquired if the asphalt went to the entrance. Mr. Tonti replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Peak observed that the proposal eliminated the one issue they had with the exit at the corner. He asked the Board if they had any comments or questions. There being none, Mr. Peak asked Mr. Tonti to clarify if the proposal had been approved by the MV Commission. Mr. Tonti replied that the proposal was reviewed and endorsed by the LUPC, who was going to recommend the plan to the full Commission on Thursday, September 6, 2102. It was further clarified that the vote was “not to concur that the proposal required further review as a DRI”.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Peak entertained a motion to correspond to the Building Inspector that the Planning Board feels the changes suggested to the initial VNA plan are not inconsistent with the goals of the Planning Board. Mr. Stephenson so moved. Mr. Aldrin seconded the motion, which motion carried. 4/0/0
8:20 PM Peg Regan, Mass In Motion (Policy)
Mrs. Regan informed that Board that she had been working through the County under the auspices of the Department of Public Health, and other local committees to facilitate the concept of walking and biking on an island-wide basis. The project was being funded under the Complete Streets program through the state in an attempt to combat obesity and weight related health issues, such as diabetes. They were targeting children of school age in an attempt to break the cycle, which has been proven to start at an early age.
Mrs. Regan noted that she had met with the Board in the spring to introduce herself, and to promote the concept “Complete Streets” with the objective of soliciting their support and assistance. She was impressed with the Town’s on-going projects, such as the Shared-Use Paths on Beach Road and from Lagoon Pond Road to the Edgartown Road. She also wanted to report that they were inaugurating the program on October 3, 2012 with the “National Walk to School Day”, and was interested in learning whether the Board had the opportunity to review the sample bylaw/ordinance she had emailed. She asked the Board if they had considered the possibility of pursuing the ordinance or bylaw. Mrs. Regan indicated that Complete Street Communities appeared to have an advantage over other communities for
grants from the Department of Transportation. She implied that it could prove useful for projects they were currently pursuing.
Mr. Stephenson inquired if Mrs. Regan would clarify the bylaw’s purpose. Mrs. Regan replied that it made sure the town made all public amenities (roadways, sidewalks, etc) accessible to the pedestrians, vehicles, cyclists and the handicap. Mr. Stephenson inquired if the designation provided the town with planning and financial support (construction) from the state. Mrs. Regan believed so. She asked again if the Planning Board was interested in pursuing a bylaw or ordinance, and if they had any ideas as to how they’d like to tailor the language to meet the town’s needs.
Mr. Peak was concerned that the bylaw had the potential of being viewed as a compulsory regulation that either made a project very expensive or more difficult to achieve. It was an observation he’s made over the years when the projects involved state owned roads. He noted that people disliked the state’s improvements to the Edgartown Road, because the criteria they applied was much more suited to an urban highway. He thought people in general would be less resistive if there was a specific set of criteria attached to the policy, so that it was clear cut.
Mr. Stephenson referred to the language in the proposed bylaw or ordinance to demonstrate that there were occasions where the requirement for sidewalks would be extremely difficult to implement due to the topography or limitation in land area. He wondered if it would be difficult to obtain an exemption. Mr. Stephenson liked the fact that they were encouraging a network of pedestrian paths, bike ways, streets and their relationship to public transportation. He hoped the Complete Street Policy could help them to remove the telephone poles that were in the middle of the sidewalk on Beach Road. Mr. Peak thought the Complete Street designation could provide the town with some leverage in future discussions with NStar about the design issues created by their telephone poles on Beach Road.
Mrs. Regan explained that the thrust for the program was to get their children to bike and walk more, whether it was to town or school. The streets had to be safer. She agreed with Mr. Peak, that it would not be wise to go to town meeting with a policy that could be viewed negatively. Mrs. Regan explained that she and committee members were in the process of generating a walkability audit for the school to solicit the Board’s comments. Mr. Stephenson welcomed the opportunity to assist with the maps. He wanted to make sure that all of the short cuts along the dirt paths were also incorporated. It was important to see where they existed, so that they could be preserved.
Mr. Thomas inquired about the reporting requirements and obligations required of the town once they adopted the Complete Street Program. He referred to certain language in the sample ordinance and asked Mrs. Regan if she could contact the appropriate authorities to respond to his questions. Mrs. Regan replied in the affirmative and offered to provide the Board a copy of the data for their walkability study and map for their review.
BOARD DISCUSSIONS:
1. Planning Board
A. Meeting Schedule
B. Zoning Bylaw Amendments
C. Projects (Cont)
2. Shared Use Paths
RE: Scheduling an Information Meeting
Board members were advised that Mr. Veno had called to inquire if the Planning Board would like to have a more official role in the informal session(s), Mr. LaPaina has asked the MV Commission to conduct in order to present the two SUPs they had previously discussed. He wanted to know if the board members would be available to participate in the meeting the last week in September, and if they thought the two SUPs should be presented separately.
Mr. Peak noted that he did not know what the actual proposal was without a scaled plan or data. He questioned whether they had sufficient room to install the travel lane, or planted buffers that are part of the SUP.
Mr. Stephenson thought the Beach Road SUP could be installed, but questioned whether they had a viable layout between Winds UP and the Tisbury Market Place. It was his impression that they were not as certain either. He felt the road layout presented a real challenge.
Board members questioned whether they had to adhere to the standards, when the physical limitations made it almost impossible. Mr. Peak thought they should contact Mr. Veno to clarify what he was expecting from the board. He asked Mr. Stephenson if he would obtain a clearer idea about the presentation and dates. He wanted to notify Mr. Veno that they would not be able to participate on 9/19 and 9/26/12, because they were scheduled to meet those evenings.
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED:
1. Paul DeCoste, Network Building and Consulting LLC
RE: Request for a five (5) member board at T-Mobile’s Hearing
2. Daniel Seidman
RE: September 19, 2012 (MIA)
3 MV Commission
A. DRI 566-MS – Island Fuels Expansion, 44 Evelyn Way
B. DRI 638 – Rymes Propane, Off High Point Lane, a section of AP 22A06.2
C. 31 August 2012 Extended Schedule
D. 06 September 2012 Meeting Agenda
4 Massachusetts Municipal Association
RE: TheBeacon, summer 2012
5. Thomson Reuters
A. Zoning Bulletin, 25 July 2012
B. Zoning Bulletin, 10 August 2012
C. Zoning Bulletin, 25 August 2012
PRO FORM Meeting opened, conducted and closed in due form at 9:30 P.M. (m/s/c 4/0/0)
| 