TOWN OF TISBURY
P.O. BOX 602
TOWN HALL ANNEX
VINEYARD HAVEN, MASSACHUSETTS 02568
Fax (508) 696-7341
DATE: October 2, 2013
TIME: 7:03 PM
PLACE: Town Hall Annex
ATTENDANCE: Aldrin, Peak, Seidman, Stephenson, and Thompson
Mary Ellen Larsen,FinCom
MINUTES: As referred in the September 18, 2013 Meeting Agenda
7:03 PM Charles Gilstad, Sourati Engineering Group – Form A, P&E Properties LLC, AP 26D18
Mr. Peak reminded the Board that he had postponed a determination on the plan because he had an issue with the access. He noted that Mr. Gilstad had modified the plan since their meeting, so that the access to rear lot was redesigned at 40 ft. The modification eliminated any issue with future plans to subdivide the property.
There being no further comment from the Board, Mr. Peak entertained a motion to endorse the proposed modified division of land as an ANR under the subdivision control law. Mr. Stephenson so moved. Mr. Aldrin seconded the motion, which motion carried. 5/0/0
7:09 P Dan Bilezikian, Agent for AT&T Wireless, AP 10A01, 190 Beach Road
Mr. Bilezikian submitted plans illustrating the Wireless Communication Facility the Board approved in 2009, and a separate set of illustrations reflecting the slightly larger false flues.
With the recent advances in technology, the applicant had to use larger antennas. The false flues shielding the antennas also had to be enlarged. Mr. Bilezikian indicated that they needed an additional four inches, and was proposing an increase from the original proposal of 24 inches in diameter to 28 inches. He clarified for the record that nothing in the initial proposal was changing other than the diameter of the flues.
Board members reviewed Mr. Bilezikian’s plans and photographs, while Mr. Peak studied AT&T’s special permit dated January 5, 2010. Mr. Seidman noted that some of the flues were black in color. Mr. Bilezikian noted that the applicant, AT&T was required to paint them white. Mr. Peak concurred.
Mr. Peak inquired if they installed the temporary structure. Mr. Bilezikian replied in the affirmative, noting that they were now preparing to replace the temporary accommodations with the approved WCF. Mr. Bilezikian inquired if the modification was significant in scope to warrant an amendment of the special permit. Mr. Seidman did not think the change in the diameter of the flues was substantial to warrant a modification in the applicant’s special permit.
There being no further comment with regards to the modification, Mr. Peak entertained a motion stating that the proposed modification to the diameter of the antennas and flues is not significant to require a public hearing to modify the applicant’s special permit. Mr. Seidman so moved. Mr. Aldrin seconded the motion, which motion carried. 5/0/0
Mr. Peak informed Mr. Bilezikian that the Planning Board would not be able to produce a letter reflecting their vote until the Board Secretary returned from vacation.
7:15 PM Peter Simon, Re: Irie Bites, Mobile Food Truck at AP 09C03
Mr. Simon explained that his appointment with the Planning Board was for the purpose of holding a preliminary discussion on a potential proposal to operate a mobile restaurant (food truck) at the aforementioned property. He wanted to solicit the board members impressions and recommendations on the food service operation before he entered into an agreement with Mr. Ernie Boch Jr.
Board members were advised that Boch Jr. had approached Mr. Simon to offer him the opportunity to operate Irie Bites with his partner Melody Cunningham on his property. Mr. Simon welcomed the opportunity to expand his operations into the evening hours, and thought the location was ideal. He approached the Building Inspector for information, and was referred to the Planning Board to explore the need for a special permit or any other potential issues. Mr. Simon wanted to know if his proposal was feasible before he entered into an arrangement with Mr. Boch Jr. and his attorney, .
Mr. Stephenson thought the site was a better location than 151 Beach Road, where Mr. Simon attempted to operate Irie Bites two years ago. The proposed location was much more accessible being closer to town, and the activity from Artcliff Diner would provide him the exposure he did not have at 151 Beach Road. He felt the two businesses complemented and benefited each other.
Mr. Simon advised the Board that he had spoken with Regina Stanley, the Art Cliff Diner’s proprietor, who did not have any objections to his proposal Mr. Aldrin thought the location provided Mr. Simon better parking accommodations for his clientele. Mr. Simon agreed, but noted that it would depend on Mr. Boch Jr.
Mr. Peak noted that there could be an issue with the location of the truck. He recommended parking the truck as close as possible to the brick circle to be within the Commercial Management Area, so that the parking would occur behind the truck. Since it was transient in nature, he did not see any issue with the parking accommodations.
Mr. Stephenson indicated that he would like an opportunity to speak with the property owner. Past attempts to contact him have been unsuccessful. The board would like to approach Mr. Boch to explore the possibility of having waterfront access from the property.
Mr. Simon inquired if his proposal would be referred to the MV Commission. Mr. Simon did not believe the proposal qualified as a DRI. Mr. Simon recalled that they had referred his previous application to the MV Commission. Mr. Peak thought that his proposal may have to go before the Board of Selectmen because the property was within the Harbor DCPC. Mr. Seidman recommended scheduling an appointment with the Board of Selectmen for information.
Mr. Peak commented that the advantage with a transient operation, the use did not have a permanent impact that would preclude other uses. Mr. Simon inquired if the board was unanimous in their recommendation. They replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Simon inquired if the property owner or his attorney had to approach the Planning Board. Mr. Seidman and Mr. Stephenson replied that they could attend the hearing or provide the applicant with a letter granting him/her permission to pursue a special permit for a specific use. Mr. Peak explained that the Planning Board had to pursue the requirement so that they did not extend the applicant’s rights when tenants changed.
Mr. Simon was concerned that the proposal may solicit questions about traffic congestion. The Board replied in the negative.
Mr. Aldrin inquired about Mr. Simon’s hours of operation. Mr. Simon replied that he wanted to operate the food truck from 12 Noon to 2 AM, Thursday to Saturday. It approximated Ms. Stanley’s hours of operations.
1. Tisbury Market Place, Beach Road
Mr. Peak understood the Condominium Association wanted to change of angle of the parking spaces between the Net Result and Mark Hutker’s office to expedite the traffic in the parking lot. Mr. Seidman thought straight on parking was better. Mr. Stephenson thought the proposed changes were marginal and ineffectual. Mr. Seidman thought they were supposed to remove the raised septic field. Mr. Peak indicated that Mr. Dunn was prepared to remove the mounded septic system, but that the Condo Association did not want to spend on the landscaping. Board members noted that it did not meet the MV Commission’s 75% shade requirement, or address the additional traffic general by the theater.
In past discussions with the Building Inspector, the Planning Board has expressed their concerns with the market place’s parking arrangement, the need for a crosswalk, and the traffic flow reversal. Mr. Stephenson thought if these issues were not being addressed, they should consider reviewing the project in its entirety.
Board members inquired about the Condo Associations motivation for changing their parking plan. Mr. Peak noted that the plan illustrated a parking area in the rear, where Gannon & Benjamin use to store their boats, which was an illegal expansion and simply not permitted. Mr. Peak clarified for the record that that he had spoken with the Building Inspector about the parking expansion to tell him that he did not like it. Mr. Seidman noted that they appeared to be moving into the green space to accommodate the parking arrangement. Mr. Peak concurred, noting that they were proposing to move the fence into the green space, even though they promised the Conservation Commission that they would not be pursuing any further revisions. Mr. Seidman thought they should hold any approvals until they constructed the improvements they’ve requested.
Mr. Stephenson thought the discussion raised the need for a broader look at Beach Road’s parking requirements and accommodations. He felt the small parking lots serving the array small businesses along Beach Road would be best served if they could provide a series of mid-sized lots or municipal lots that were open to everyone. There was an enormous amount of parking behind the Tisbury Market Place, etc. that were being leased to private parties for long term parking. Mr. Thompson was aware of thirty parking spaces that were being leased behind Hinckley’s, DeSorcy’s paint store, and G&B.
Mr. Peak raised a complaint with regards to Mr. Rosbeck’s property, which he converted into a parking lot. He wanted to ask Mr. Barwick to send Mr. Rosbeck a letter notifying him that it was illegal to have more than 10% of his lot taken up by parking. Mr. Stephenson concurred and thought the law should be enforced. He wanted to revisit the regulations within the context of a study that addressed the previously raised issues.
2. Stop & Shop
RE: MV Commission’s public hearing on October 3, 2013
Mr. Stephenson distributed Stop & Shop’s revised elevation plans and mass models reflecting the revised structure from different vantage points in town. The prints were downloaded from the MV Commission’s website. Mr. Stephenson thought the modification was much better than the original proposal, but that there was still room for improvement.
Mr. Peak did not like the fact that the property lines were not clearly illustrated on the ground. Mrs. Larsen inquired if the applicant surveyed the property. Mr. Peak replied in the affirmative. Mr. Stephenson noted that the applicant was still pushing the building close to the edge, but had removed the ramp on town property.
Board members reviewed the site plan, elevations and 3D illustrations. Mrs. Larsen inquired if they’ve made a decision about the house. Mr. Stephenson replied that the best plan for the house was to relocate the building at the MV Museum site, and have Stop & Shop pay to move the building and possibly restore it, because the MV Museum has enough financial issues of their own. They simply could not afford to renovate the building. Mr. Seidman commented that the Board of Selectmen did not care if the only building to survive the fire was demolished. Unless Stop & Shop or some private benefactor offered to restore the historic building, its fate is uncertain. Mrs. Larsen thought they could approach the CPA for funds.
Mr. Seidman thought the improved southerly façade. Mr. Stephenson again agreed that the revised proposal was better than the original. He liked the fact that they pushed the building back a couple of feet, although he would have like to see them move the structure back more. He did not care for the floor plan, and hoped that they could improve the façade of the building facing the parking lot. Some of the elements should be studied further.
Mr. Stephenson reported the latest traffic reports, noting that the MV Commission’s statistics demonstrated that the traffic impact was 29% more than the original count, and the applicant’s proposal to close off Norton had a negative impact on the access’ rating. He still felt they had to get a better handle on the interaction of all of the traffic flows in and around that area. Mrs. Larsen was of the impression that the traffic studies examined the various traffic flows. Mr. Stephenson clarified that the traffic studies that were conducted reviewed the traffic impact at the intersections. The comprehensive study would provide a hard analysis of all of the traffic impacts presented by this proposal.
Board members reviewed the plans, noting that the building was not taller than existing buildings, just bulkier, so that it appeared huge. Mr. Stephenson would like to see the applicant give up a small amount of area around the perimeter of the building, and articulate the facades to make them a bit more varied.
Mr. Stephenson announced that he planned to attend the MV Commission’s meeting on October 2, 2012 at 7PM in the Senior Center to speak on Stop & Shop’s modified proposal. Mr. Peak planned to attend the hearing as well. Mr. Stephenson thought the MV Commission would like to hear the Planning Board’s impressions, and asked for their comments.
Mr. Stephenson noted that Stop & Shop’s ideas for the parking lot were clear. The Planning Board did not find their proposals to address a number of side issues, such as pedestrian access, landscaping, shade coverage, etc. They’ve always spoken against closing off Norton Lane or relocating the comfort station to accommodate their truck route. As far as they were concerned, the comfort station could stay in its current location or relocated in a location that was convenient to the business district’s shoppers.
Mr. Peak discussed pros and cons in the recommendations that were raised about changing the traffic pattern by altering the traffic circulation on Cromwell Lane, and Union Street.
3. Parking Lot Planning & Design Committee
Mr. Peak informed the Board of his conversation with Mr. Grande, the town administrator about Mr. Stephenson’s, Mr. Seidman’s and his interest to serve on the committee. Mr. Grande thought it could be arranged if the additional members served as ex-officio members.
Mr. Seidman did not want to serve as an ex-officio member, and removed himself from further consideration. Mr. Peak recommended Mr. Stephenson as their representative, since he has been representing the Planning Board at the hearings. Board members agreed.
1. Martha’s Vineyard Commission
A. 27 September 2013 Extended Agenda
B. 03 October 2013 Meeting Agenda
2. Geoghan Coogan
A. 20 September 2013 Email Re: Renderings on Stop & Shop’s revised proposal
3. Zoning Board of Appeals
A. Hearing Notice – The 867, AP 07N03 (reconstruction of a pre-existing, non-conforming structure)
B. Hearing Notice – The 867 Main Street Tisbury Nominee Trust, AP 02H05 (reconstruction/alteration of a pre-existing, non-conforming garage)
C. Hearing Notice – Carroll Buress, AP 12B08 (detached guesthouse)
4. Tisbury Conservation Commission
A. Hearing Notice – Steven Wells, LLC, AP 02H09 (construction/upgrade of a Title V system)
B. Hearing Notice – Eve Martirano, AP 03B01 (tree removal)
C. Hearing Notice – Elizabeth Harris Revocable Trust, AP 60A01 (addition and associated site work)
D. Hearing Notice – Margot Weston, AP 04D08 (Amendment – Order of Conditions/relocation of septic system)
5. Peg Regan, Mass in Motion, MV Steering Committee
RE: Request for written support/inclusion of all new construction paid by DOT in the Complete Street program
PRO FORM Meeting opened, conducted and closed in due form at 8:36 P.M. m/s/c 5/0/0)
Patricia V. Harris, Secretary
APPROVAL: Approved and accepted as official minutes;
Date Henry Stephenson