Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Planning Board Minutes 12/05/2012

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


DATE:           December 5, 2012
TIME:                   7:05 PM

PLACE:          Town Hall Annex

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

BILLS:          APA…………………………..$150.00

MINUTES:                As referred in the November 14, 2012 Meeting Agenda
                        17 October 2012 m/s/c   3/0/0
                        07 November 2012        m/s/c   3/0/0
                        14 November 2012        m/s/c   3/0/0

7:05 PM Meeting

a. Planning Board’s Meeting Schedule - Mr. Peak indicated that he was finding it difficult to keep a track on the Board’s topics, issues and/or progress whenever there was a two weeks lapse between meetings. The weekly meetings kept him on top of the issues.

Mr. Stephenson did not believe they had to meet every week to meet their objectives. Mr. Peak noted that the holidays were creating an issue, in that they did not meet for three weeks this last time due to the Thanksgiving holiday. Mr. Stephenson understood, but did not see why the Board could not adjust their meeting schedule accordingly, as they’ve done in the past.

Mr. Peak clarified that he just wanted to introduce the topic to the Board, so that they could give it some thought. Mr. Peak advised the Board that they also had to consider how their meeting schedule impacted ANRs, given that they had only 21 days to vote on an application. It may have to consider adopting a policy limiting ANR applications during a meeting.


1.  Mark London, MV Commission
RE: Delineating Character Areas/Neighborhoods
Mr. Peak noted that Mr. London had asked them to consider delineating areas a while back. He recalled discussing it in the past, when they were attempting to break down the characteristics for North William Street.  He wasn’t sure if Mr. London had provided the Board an outline of the criteria they were to utilize in the analysis. Mr. Peak explained that Mr. London suggested  the information could lead to regulations that would preserve the prevailing characteristics of the various neighborhoods for future projects.

Mr. Stephenson suggested a two prong course of action, in which they first had to describe the neighborhoods as part of the study, and then translate their findings in the form of a zoning regulation(s).

Mr. Peak recommended inviting the MV Commission’s liaison to a Planning Board meeting to help them start the project. Board members concurred. Board members were reminded that Mr. London was the Commission’s liaison to the Planning Board.

2. Zoning Bylaw Amendments
RE: Potential revisions for Annual Town Meeting

Board members were informed that the bylaw amendment Mr. Seidman submitted by the Affordable Housing Committee was discussed with Christine Flynn, who clarified that it was raised only as a suggestion to the town’s representatives on the Commission’s Housing Committee. She never intended to give anyone the impression that the bylaw had to be pursued for annual town meeting.

Ms. Flynn did not believe there was sufficient time to pursue the one revision or any other bylaw amendment for town meeting. She explained that it would be much more prudent if the town, specifically the Planning Board spent the year preparing for all of the bylaw amendments they thought were necessary for the next annual town meeting.  She offered to assist the Board, and to meet with them to initiate the discussions.

Mr. Peak recommended inviting Ms. Flynn to a meeting to ask her what she thought would be the most productive way to move forwards, so that they can get started, even if it meant a meeting with more than one staff member at their office.

Mr. Stephenson concurred and recommended asking them to help them develop a land use plan for the Connector Road area, a regulation for solar arrays and shared-use paths.

Mr. Peak thought they should invite both Mr. London and Ms. Flynn to meet with them.

3. Town Report 2012/13
RE: Assignment

Mr. Peak called Mr. Seidman to inquire if he would do the town report on their behalf. Mr. Seidman responded in the affirmative.

4. Henry Stephenson
A. SSA – Black Dog: connecting path
B. Stop-N-Shop & IHT

A. Mr. Stephenson spoke with Tisbury’s representative to the SSA, Mr. Balco, who was surprised to learn that the gate on the fence had not already been done. He also spoke with the Black Dog’s property manager, Mr. Montambault, and learned that they were very supportive of the proposal as well, but questioned the public’s access through their property, now that the Board of Health was requiring them to construct two handicap bathrooms. The Board secretary advised the Board members that she had the opportunity to review the plans for the two bathrooms, and confirmed that they would  not present a problem for public access.

Mr. Stephenson reiterated that there was a question about the fence’s ownership. Mr. Peak noted that the SSA owned the fence. Mr. Stephenson indicated that he still had to meet with the parking lot and ground’s manager, Mr. Rosum to discuss the possibility of installing a gate in the fence to give people access to Beach Road. Based his discussions with these individuals, it appeared to him that the SSA was not being responsive.

B. Mr. Stephenson reported meeting with Mr. Seidman, Mr. Jordi of IHT, Mr. McGuire of IHT and a couple of representatives from Stop-N-Shop to synchronize their projects. He learned that Stop-N-Shop was thinking of constructing a new and larger building. Based on their discussions they wanted to construct a parking lot in the ground level, and utilize a story and a half for the store. They had raise the structure more than the four ft above ground level to accommodate an underground parking lot, and expand into the abutting property on Water Street and into the rear lot facing Cromwell Lane.

While the discussions were interesting and informative, Mr. Jordi was still struggling with a design given the impediments (e.g. flood storm elevations) he was facing. He couldn’t sell the property because it was gifted with stipulations.

Mr. Stephenson noted that Stop-N-Shop’s project qualified as a DRI and had to be sent to the MV Commission for their review. He was concerned that the Planning Board was the last to know about town referrals. He wanted to know about the project before the Commission started processing the application so that they were involved in its review right from the beginning.

5. Tisbury School Committee Meeting @ Tisbury School Library on 04 Dec 2012 @ 3PM

Mr. Peak informed the Board that the Committee Members were concerned that the projected figures the consultants had presented at the meeting would be disclosed, when they were based on a schematic concept and not on an actual design. The committee members feared they would alienate people before they had an opportunity to refine the design(s) and options.

Board members inquired about the projected costs. Mr. Peak replied 35 million (renovation/addition) to 45 million dollars (new construction/not including the demolition of the existing building).

Mr. Stephenson wanted to attend the meeting, but understood that it was not posted. He would have liked to ask them if they considered that other uses, such as town meetings in their space needs analysis. Mr. Peak noted that it was discussed.

Mr. Stephenson thought it was important to stress to the architects and the committee members that the school’s current location was in the center of town, easy to walk to, and adjacent to other municipal facilities. Mr. Peak understood, and commented that the discussions were reimbursement driven.

6. Community Preservation Committee
RE: Mr. Robert Aldrin’s Report

Mr. Aldrin disseminated an itemized list developed by the aforementioned Committee delineating the names of the recipients, and the dollar amounts they were recommending to award for a final endorsement at town meeting. The total amount of funds available this year added up to $657,425.00.

7. Proposed ground mounted solar photovoltaic installation next to the new Water Tank

Mr. Peak expressed an interest in revisiting the topic to amend their original vote, so that they could add a time constraint. It concerned him that the endorsement allowed the contractor to tie up the land for years, even if they are unable to install the solar panels. If they were pressured to install them within a certain time frame to take advantage of the tax credits, they should be allowed up to two years to complete the project. After the two years, the town should reserve the right to use their land as needed.
Mr. Stephenson reminded the Board that in their Municipal Needs Assessment, they recommended the use of the land for the water department’s new location. If the Planning Board no longer agreed with their own analysis, they should have updated the report before they made a decision.

Mr. Aldrin acknowledged and was open to revisiting the topic when Mr. Seidman and Mr. Thompson were present for the discussions.

Mr. Stephenson recommended emailing the board members a copy of the Municipal Needs Assessment so that they can discuss potential revisions at their next meeting.


1.  Bill Hanrahan, Network Building & Consulting Inc.
A. Removal Bond (T-Mobile Wireless)
B. Letter re: Acoustic Engineer’s Report

2. William J. Cloutier, PE
RE: Notification of a Chap. 91 Waterways License Application – SSA, 47 Water St.

3. Zoning Board of Appeals
A. Case # 2129 – SBS, AP 07F04 (Outside Display)
B. Case # 2130  - Eleanor White, AP 31A6.1 (addition within the shore zone)
C. Case #2131 – Hans Kromhout, AP 23A4.2

4. Edgartown Planning Board
RE: Zoning Bylaw Amendments

5. Martha’s Vineyard Commission
A. 30 November 2012 Extended Agenda
B. 06 December 2012 Meeting Agenda

PRO FORM        Meeting opened, conducted and closed in due form at 8:45 P.M.           (m/s/c  3/0/0)          
Respectfully submitted;
Patricia V. Harris, Secretary

APPROVAL:       Approved and accepted as official minutes;

______________  _________________________
Date                    L. Anthony Peak