TOWN OF TISBURY
P.O. BOX 602
TOWN HALL ANNEX
VINEYARD HAVEN, MASSACHUSETTS 02568
Fax (508) 696-7341
DATE: January 22, 2014
TIME: 7:07 PM
PLACE: Town Hall Annex
ATTENDANCE: Aldrin, Peak, Seidman, Stephenson, Thompson
Fin Com: Melinda Loberg, Mary Ellen Larsen
MINUTES: As referred in the, 2013 Meeting Agenda
18 December 2013 Deferred
08 January 2014 Deferred
15 January 2014 Deferred
7:07 PM House Business
Mr. Peak advised the Board and members of the general public that there was a question about the legality of tonight’s meeting. He explained that while the meeting was not cancelled, the town offices were officially closed as a result of the snow storm. The public announcement lead members of the general public to expect that any meeting associated with the town would have also been canceled, and therefore not attend.
The board secretary was advised to contact the Attorney General’s Office, but was unable to speak to anyone before the meeting because they were also closed for the day. Until the Attorney General clarified the legal status of the meeting, it was possible that any official action taken at the meeting would be null and void.
Mr. Peak thought it important for the Board to discuss Stop & Shop’s proposal, given that the MV Commission’s hearing was scheduled tomorrow evening. Should the Attorney General render the meeting illegal, the Planning Board will hold a meeting next week to re-enter their comments and votes.
7:12 PM Public Hearing: Tisbury’s Street List for 2014
Attendance: Melinda Loberg, Mary Ellen Larsen, Hyung Lee, Dana Hodsdon, Andrew Worlock, Daniel Vignolo
Hearing commenced in due form at 7: 12 PM. Planning Board Co-Chairman, Mr. Peak read the public hearing notice into the minutes, and explained that the hearing was an annual exercise required to update the town’s street list. The list contained the names of all of the town’s streets, regardless of their status as public or private.
Mr. Peak noted that they were modifying the street list to add “Seasonwein Way”. He deferred to the board secretary for information about the road. The board secretary indicated that correction rectified an oversight. The subdivision road had been approved a few years ago.
Mr. Aldrin inquired about the list, in that he had only received a two page document. The board secretary explained that she wanted to make the modification obvious by generating the face sheet and the portion of the list reflecting the addition.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Peak entertained a motion to close the hearing, and enter into deliberations. Mr. Stephenson so moved. Mr. Thompson seconded the motion, which motion carried. 5/0/0 The hearing was duly closed at 7:14 PM
7:14 PM Deliberations: Tisbury’s Street List for 2014
The deliberations were opened at the conclusion of the previously held hearing at 7:14 PM. Mr. Peak, Planning Board Co-Chairman asked the Board members if they had additional questions or comments about the list or modification.
There being none, Mr. Peak entertained a motion to accept the Tisbury Street List for 2014 as amended. Mr. Stephenson so moved. Mr. Aldrin seconded the motion, and the motion carried. 5/0/0
Mr. Peak entertained a motion to close the deliberations. Mr. Aldrin so moved. Mr. Stephenson seconded the motion. The motion carried. 5/0/0 The hearing was closed at 7:15 PM.
7:15 PM Andrew Worlock, SB&H and Daniel Vignolo re: Informal Discussion - Form A Application for Daniel Vignolo, AP 8K1.1 & 8K1.2, Cook Road & Rogers Farm Road)
Mr. Andrew explained that the informal discussion was requested with the intent of soliciting the Board’s impressions and recommendations with regards to the potential subdivision of the two aforementioned lots.
Board members were referred to assessor map no. 8 and advised the board that Cook Road ( Red Barn) was asphalted from the intersection at State Road to assessor parcel 22C05, but that Mr. Vignolo accessed his property from Rogers Farm Road. Mr. Worlock indicated that he wanted to know if the roads were adequate for subdivision purposes.
Mr. Peak inquired if Mr. Vignolo intended to use Cook Road or Rogers Farm Road as access. Mr. Worlock replied that Mr. Vignolo’s properties fronted on both roads. Mr. Peak recalled there was an issue with the status of the road. The wing off Cook Road was obstructed with what appeared to be someone’s private garden. Rogers Farm Road appears to connect to Cook Road, but is obstructed with the dirt that came from the parking lot on assessor parcel 22C05. The applicant, Mr. Vignolo assured the Board that he did not have any intention of opening the road.
Mr. Worlock noted that there were two roads on the map that were identified as Cook Road. Only one was actually constructed. The paved portion of the road ram from State Road to the end of assessor parcel 22C05.
Mr. Peak reiterated that there could be a control issue with the road, He could not recall the specifics, and asked the board secretary to check their files. If Mr. Vignolo was interested in utilizing Cook Road for the subdivision of the lot, the adequacy of the road would be a consideration for the application. If it did not meet their standards, Mr. Vignolo would have to make the necessary improvements to the road to meet the Board’s minimum standards. The improvements to the second lot were limited to the frontage requirement of 80 linear ft.
Mr. Peak noted that the Board would require the improvements to match the existing road’s traveled surface, and consider the grant of a waiver from the existing minimum requirement to allow twelve foot wide traveled way. He thought storm water mitigation would be taken care of by the natural grade, but recommended an annotation on the plan stating that they would install a basin at the end of the road to mitigate potential erosion.
In a final recommendation to Mr. Worlock, Mr. Peak suggested contacting the Fire Chief to inquire if there were any fire control issues (e.g. fire hydrant) he may have to address.
1. Zoning Bylaw Amendment
RE: Registered Marijuana Dispensary
Mr. Seidman did not believe the draft had adequately addressed issues pertaining to cultivation of the product, the Department of Public Health’s requirement to control nitrogen. Mrs. Doble concurred. Both referred to an email the board secretary sent the Board from Mr. Bill Veno, a planner at the MV Commission and recommended continuing the discussions until the following meeting so that they could address the issues raised in the email and amend the draft bylaw.
Board members agreed to review the latest version of the draft and to come prepared to discuss the language on February 5, 2014. Mr. Seidman thought it was important to control the byproduct(s). The board secretary was to follow up on the issues listed in the email with the Board of Health or the Dept. of Public Health.
2. Tisbury Planning Board
RE: FY 2015 Budget (amendment)
Mr. Seidman noted that the Planning Board at one time had funds ($25,000.00) in their budget for consultants, and inquired if the Board would consider a similar dollar amount for the use of consultants either as a line item in their budget or a separate line item in a warrant article.
Mr. Peak did not think it was a ‘bad idea’, and recalled approaching the Finance & Advisory Committee to inquire about having funds for legal services because of his frustration with the town’s protocol to access town counsel. It conflicted with the statutory ability of the Planning Board to challenge decisions within the twenty day appeal period. He had a strong opinion about being hamstrung by the process. The Finance & Advisory Committee were amenable to the idea and were contemplating a way that the Planning Board could have access to funds for legal services.
Mr. Peak thought they should approach the Finance & Advisory Committee to discuss their options. Mr. Stephenson agreed. Mr. Peak thought they could also address the legal fund. Mr. Seidman concurred.
Mr. Peak asked Mrs. Larsen for direction. Mrs. Loberg and Mrs. Larsen recommended adding the line item in their budget. If it was challenged, they would have the opportunity to discuss and defend their request. Mr. Peak and Mr. Seidman discussed the dollar amount, and $28,000.00 was agreed on.
Mr. Peak also offered to call Mr. Gomez, the Finance & Advisory Committee’s Chairman to discuss the Board’s proposal and any recommendations he may to offer the Board. The board secretary was instructed not to revise the budget, unless instructed by Mr. Peak. Board members were asked if this was acceptable. All agreed.
3. Wastewater Planning Committee
RE: Build-out Projection
Board members were informed that the town had issued 11 building permits for single family dwellings in 2011 and 12 building permits for single family dwellings in 2012. The average number of building permits for single family dwellings between 2000 – 2011 were 23, and only 10 between 2008- 2011.
Mr. Seidman compared the figures and thought they should reduce their recommendation from 23 to 11.5 single family dwellings. Mr. Peak inquired about the consequence (s) if their recommendation dropped from 23 new single family dwellings per year to 11. Mrs. Loberg replied that it would lead them to reassess their need for the expansion, and if the targeted areas remained a top priority. They had to keep in mind that they were planning for the next twenty years.
Mr. Seidman commented that the difference between the two figures was too substantial to ignore. Mr. Peak suggested that the consultants should consider studying the costs of a system for both figures (11 & 23). Mrs. Loberg inquired about the renovations. She questioned whether the renovations included accessory units, which could alter their calculations. Mr. Peak noted that the guesthouses and accessory units would make a difference. Mr. Seidman recommended 17 to take all of the accessory units into consideration.
Mrs. Doble inquired if they knew the locations of the units to see if there was a pattern. Mr. Chapdelaine noted that the ten year average (2000 – 2011) was twenty, followed by a change in the economic cycle (down turn). It was important to know what the number of unbuildable lots existed to determine the town’s build-out. Mr. Chapdelaine noted that the renovations could also include additional bedrooms or a master suite with additional bedrooms. Mr. Seidman understood that the board secretary was still working on obtaining the information. He did not think the additional information would alter the statistics.
Mrs. Stephenson found that the use of existing real estate has changed so that many dwellings exceed the occupancy limits. Rental homes in her neighborhood were overcrowded. Mr. Chapdelaine agreed, noting that in certain neighborhoods, one could easily see several vehicles parked outside single family dwellings, so that the buildings were clearly overcrowded.
Mr. Peak agreed that they had to take the information and balance it out for a more accurate recommendation. The topic was to be revisited at the Board’s next meeting on February 5, 2014.
4. Stop & Shop
A. Proposal for expansion
B. Water Street Town Parking Lot
Mr. Peak admitted that he had not kept up to date with the recent revisions or the Parking Lot Design Committee (PLDC hereinafter). He attempted to watch the PLDCs videotaped recording of their last meeting on January 8, 2014 and was unable to view the whole recording (2 hrs. 40 minutes).
Mrs. Stephenson recommended hiring a consultant to transcribe the videotaped session, as did the MV Commission, so that they could easily locate the information or documents they were specifically interested in. Mr. Peak noted that he was amazed to see how much information he missed on reviewing videotaped recordings of meetings he actually attended. He asked Mrs. Stephenson if she would provide the board secretary the name of the consultant, so that they could decide if they could use and afford the consultant. Mrs. Stephenson did not think they were expensive. Mr. Lee offered to videotape a meeting, now that he had taken the course.
Mr. Chapdelaine commented that Mr. Stephenson’s summary accurately depicted the committee members understanding at the conclusion of their last meeting on January 8, 2014. It was important to note that the Chairman asked for a motion, began his motion, but digressed into a discussion without ever completing his motion. The motion shortly failed, after it was seconded, and the meeting disintegrated into pockets of different conversations. Mr. Chapdelaine thought Mr. Grande conduct as chairman was poor. The process was biased, in that discussions were limited and selective. By manipulating and obstructing the process, Mr. Grande impeded the committee’s ability to develop a comprehensive recommendation to the Board of Selectmen. It rendered the ineffective to the detriment of the town. In his opinion,
Mr. Grande’s treatment of committee members was irreprehensible and insulting.
Mr. Chapdelaine advised the board that he received the latest proposal for the parking lot via email, and submitted a copy. The parking plan was entitled “Proposed Stop and Shop, Tisbury, Massachusetts – Concept Layout Plan D”. Mr. Lee reported the MV Commission received the plan on January 15 or January 16, 2014. Mr. Grande canceled their meeting on January 15, 2014 stating that the parking plan was not ready.
Mr. Lee advised Mr. Peak to review the videotape of the meeting on January 8, 2014 because Mr. Grande revealed his past affiliation with the consulting firm VHB in Framingham. The revelation concerned him. He reported that Mr. Grande appeared to lean towards a design with three isles to retain space on the west side of the parking lot. At the time the committee members were engaged in multiple conversations, so Mr. Grande offered to have VHB’s and Mr. Stephenson’s design merged for discussion at their next meeting.
Mr. Stephenson noted that there was a consensus among committee members for three crossing lanes. Stop & Shop’s consultants presented a plan with four crossing lanes, in which the fourth lane eliminated all of the public space and related elements (seating, landscaping, etc.) that might have been there. Mr. Lee’s layout prioritized a lot of the elements (public space) they’ve tried to emphasize in their discussions about the parking lot’s significance as a municipal public space for the immediate abutters, and business community. He was disappointed that VHB had ignored their comments to develop a plan that essentially “wiped out” any public space, pedestrian and bicycle circulation on the north end with the addition of the one-way crossing.
Mr. Chapdelaine understood that the re-introduction of the fourth cross on the west end was to allow for emergency vehicular access to Beach Road from the police station. He reprimanded the committee for not foreseeing the obvious, which could have been avoided from the beginning if they had invited the emergency service personnel to their meetings.
Mrs. Larsen advised Mr. Chapdelaine that the emergency departments participated in the discussions of their first meeting, and requested the fourth crossing. The Dept. of Public Works voiced their concern with the infrastructure, more specifically the pumping station and sewer. At the first meeting, the committee members were separated into three teams. Each team was asked for their opinion and all were varied. Mr. Stephenson presented three plans for their review, and the committee eliminated the first plan. Mr. Grande concluded the meeting announcing that they would be reviewing Mr. Stephenson’s third proposal, without ever obtaining a consensus from the committee members. Mr. Grande informed the committee members that he would contact them shortly for the second meeting. After several attempts, Mr.
Grande finally scheduled their second meeting on January 8, 2014. At the conclusion of their second meeting, Mr. Grande wanted to see a compromise between Mr. Stephenson’s and VHB’s plans. They were advised that they would be contacted about the time for their meeting on January 15, 2014. The only notice the committee members received from Mr. Grande was that the meeting was canceled, and that there would not be any restrooms.
Mr. Stephenson believed the police department’s need for emergency access could be accomplished in many ways. The layout proposed in VHB’s latest version did not take into account that the police were already out in the community. He realized that on occasion they would have to respond to a backup call, but it did not warrant the elimination of the entire top end of the parking lot, without further study. It was his opinion that the committee should continue to meet to develop a plan that met everyone’s requirements and still preserved the parking lot as a public space. Mr. Stephenson’s primary issue with the process was that VHB’s latest version in no way reflected the committee’s recommendations. Feeling that the process thwarted the committee’s progress
towards developing a layout for the parking lot, he believed they had to consider asking the Planning Board to intercede on their behalf, or ask the Board if they would re-constitute the committee under their auspices to follow through on their mandate.
Mr. Stephenson mentioned that he brought the committee’s issues to the Planning Board’s attention in a letter he had submitted on January 15, 2014 to request their assistance. In addition to the aforementioned recommendations, he asked the Board if they would consider referring the municipal parking lot to the MV Commission as a DRI, if the committee could not be re-constituted or the Board did not create a municipal parking lot committee of their own. While the Board of Selectmen preferred leaving the design of the parking lot within town control, Mr. Stephenson thought they would get better results, since they were professional planners. He cited several regional projects, in which the MV Commission was instrumental.
Mr. Peak referred to VHB’s recent rendering, and inquired if the 3D rendering appeared the same as the plan view, because they did not look the same to him. Mr. Chapdelaine noted that the renderings were of poor quality, but that they were same. Mrs. Doble believed it was reflecting a pattern on the pavement, but that the area was wide open space. Mr. Chapdelaine thought the plans was trying to illustrate a public safety space, and guessed that they were designating police parking on the Belgium blocks. Mrs. Stephenson noted that they included a raised island across the top to separate a space for the police department.
Mr. Lee inquired if there was sufficient space to make a left turn into the loading dock. Mr. Chapdelaine questioned it as well. Mr. Lee spoke with the truck drivers and they replied that they could handle any sharp turn. It concerned him, because the applicant was compromising the public space’s safety for pedestrians.
Mr. Peak spoke with Mr. Grande about the Board of Selectmen’s meeting which was cancelled. He learned from Mr. Grande that it was his intention to present a very generalized consensus for a public space on the west end of the parking lot, and 2) the treatment on Water Street. Mr. Grande claimed that he was not going to make any statements on the proposed layout.
Mr. Peak inquired if the committee members present had seen the Concept Layout Plan D for Stop & Shop, and all replied in the negative. Mr. Lee thought the plan reflected the plan they had displayed in November 2013. He also wanted to note for the record that it was extremely important to come up with a very detailed plan, illustrating all of the essential elements for the municipal parking to guarantee the layout is constructed according to the plan in the future.
Mr. Lee did not understand how the Board of Selectmen could divorce Stop & Shop’s proposal from the parking lot if they were interconnected, and asked Mr. Grande how they could allow the MV Commission to move forward on the application without acquiring a consensus on the parking lot from the town. Mr. Grande replied that a decision would ultimately rely on the town’s decision to open Norton Lane to vehicular access. Mr. Chapdelaine inquired about Norton Lane’s status. Mr. Peak answered that it was part of the parking lot and not a road. Mr. Chapdelaine inquired if that meant the Stop & Shop’s access was on Water Street. Mr. Peak replied in the affirmative, and believed it was corroborated by the applicant’s offer to work on an agreement with the Town to keep Norton Lane open to
vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Mr. Peak interpreted the offer to mean that they needed an easement. Mr. Lee inquired if the easement would require a town vote. Mr. Peak noted that he had asked Mr. Grande for the information but was still waiting for a response. Informal inquiries have led him to believe that at any time there is an exchange, sale or encumbrance of town property should require a town vote. Mr. Stephenson concurred.
Mrs. Larsen inquired if the disposal of town property such as the comfort station, or the pumping station requires a town vote. Mr. Peak had made a similar inquiry of Mr. Grande, and has yet to receive a response.
Mr. Chapdelaine was especially concerned that no one knew what the Board of Selectmen were thinking or voting. They’ve never encouraged or facilitated a dialogue with the Planning Board, Parking Lot Committee, or Historic Commission.
Mrs. Larsen inquired if the current layout was voted on by the town. Mr. Peak replied in the affirmative. He added that the Board of Selectmen were of the impression that if the applicant was paying for the improvements, they improvements did not need to go before the town for a vote.
Mr. Hodsdon noted that he had been asking for the Board of Selectmen’s minutes, and has been unable to obtain copies because they were behind about a year. He also wanted to mention that they the applicant should be approached as a large conglomeration.
Mr. Peak asked Mrs. Loberg if the Finance & Advisory Committee had been approached to comment about the value of the lease agreements. Mrs. Larsen answered that she had asked the Finance & Advisory Committee for a consensus on the issues they considered to be important to them. They listed five issues. They wanted to see four ways kept open, the restrooms, storm water mitigation addressed, and the town’s expenditures kept at zero. She thought that it may account for Stop & Shop’s offer to relocate the restrooms and generator for the town. Mr. Lee inquired if the town could allow public amenities on private property. He’s never heard of such an arrangement. It baffled him that the town would consider such a proposal. It also concerned him that the town would want to eliminate the public
amenity, when every other town on the island offers public restrooms.
Mr. Chapdelaine inquired about strategy. He thought it was important for them to decide what they should do, since the applicant’s hearing was the following evening. Mr. Peak recalled that the applicant had testified in the past that they could continue operate without any changes to the parking lot. Should the applicant make the comment, he would suggest that “nothing be done”. The idea that they can proceed without the use of the parking lot is not true, because they are counting on the use of the municipal parking lot for access to their building, parking garage, ramp and truck bay, 33% of the parking lot for construction staging up to a year, on a percentage of Water Street for staging, storm water mitigation (subsurface), etc. They simply cannot do it with several easements. The
easements could be sold to the applicant for hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Mr. Lee indicated that the town could also increase the embarkation fees to collect money to create and maintain municipal services without encumbering town owned land. He felt they had to evaluate the value or benefits the town enjoyed on encumbering the town parking lot, they would be surprised to find out that for the past years, the town has received one hundred thousand dollars in the first year and an annual payment of ten thousand dollars for the life of the lease. The applicant in return enjoys almost exclusively the use of the parking lot for its patrons, and Norton Lane for staging their trucks. It appeared that the applicant was allowed to break or exceed the limits of the easement without any repercussions. He noted that the lease was signed by the Board of Selectmen and the Department of Public Works, and
questioned if the easement was ever voted on at town meeting. Mr. Peak corrected Mr. Lee to inform him that they were memorandums of understanding. He nonetheless thought it was important for him to call Mr. Grande to inquire about the legal issues that were raised tonight at the meeting; otherwise he will have no choice but to ask them at the public hearing tomorrow evening.
Mr. Stephenson advised the Board that he contacted Mr. London to explain the situation and to ask for his opinion about postponing or continuing the hearing a couple of weeks to give them the opportunity to develop a viable plan for the municipal parking lot. Mr. London in response contacted Mr. Brian Smith to inquire about a continuation, and called Mr. Stephenson to let him know that the MV Commission would consider the request. Mr. Stephenson thought their request may be acted on favorably if the Planning Board requested or supported the request for the aforementioned reasons (e.g. lack of consensus on the parking lot, the applicant’s proposal for expansion is dependent on the town’s parking lot and its impact on the parking lot’s ultimate design). Mr. Chapdelaine recommended an extension of four
Mr. Stephenson thought the Planning Board should also take the position of advising the MV Commission tomorrow evening at the hearing not to take any action on the parking lot, since the town has not come to a consensus on its design. He thought it important to raise the fact that the town was being forced to accommodate the applicant’s issues with wastewater, deliveries and parking needs because of their insistence on constructing the building envelope right to the property lines.
Mr. Stephenson at Mrs. Stephenson’s recommendation advised the Board that he had received an email from Geoghan Coogan to meet with him, Mr. London, Mr. Grande and representatives from Stop & Shop for an informal discussion tomorrow afternoon before the hearing. He did not respond because he felt uncomfortable attending the meeting without asking the Planning Board for their recommendation. He spoke with Mr. London about the meeting and was encouraged to attend the meeting with the bullet list in hand to demonstrate that there was a written description of what the committee thinks is their consensus. Mrs. Stephenson read an excerpt of Coogan’s email to Mr. Stephenson inviting Mr. London and Mr. Grande to the meeting, in which he also wrote that if Mr. Stephenson opted not to attend, he’d still
like to meet with them. The meeting was scheduled at 2:30 PM on January 23, 2014, presumably at the MV Commission’s offices.
Mr. Peak asked Mr. Seidman if in his opinion he believed there was a great value in encumbering town property in perpetuity, and if the subject warranted some discussion. Mr. Seidman responded in the affirmative and believed the town should request a million dollars. Mr. Peak inquired if he felt it should be discussed with the Finance & Advisory Committee. Mr. Seidman replied in the affirmative if the town had to renegotiate their leases. Mr. Peak described the easements and memorandums of understanding the applicant currently had with the Town of Tisbury. Mr. Lee noted that the easements were granted to A&P not Stop & Shop. Mr. Seidman recommended reading the documents before making any assumptions. A legal interpretation would be required.
Mr. Peak deferred to the members of the public and ask if they were members of the parking lot design committee. It was noted that Mrs. Larsen, Mr. Stephenson, and Mr. Lee were appointed to the committee. He asked them if Mr. Stephenson’s summary, dated 01/22/14 comported with their memory of the discussions on 01/08/14. Mrs. Larsen replied in the affirmative. Mr. Chapdelaine replied that he abstained on bullet no. 8, and concurred on the others. Mr. Lee agreed with most of the bullets. Mr. Peak wanted to present as testimony that the all or a portion of the committee members were of the consensus that the summary accurately reflected their impressions. Mr. Stephenson noted that all of the committee members were not aware of the bullet list. He offered to email everyone the document to solicit their comments. He asked Mr. Stephenson to email the committee members a copy of the bullet list so that they could easily annotate the document with their comments and advise them if the
summary accurately reflects their recollection of the discussions on 01/08/14. He asked Mr. Stephenson to request a response by tomorrow evening.
Mr. Peak planned to call Mr. London to inquire about the purpose for the informal discussion. Mr. Stephenson recommended contacting Mr. Grande, since he was the primary recipient. Mr. Chapdelaine understood that all correspondence to the town regarding this project was to be sent to Mr. Grande.
Mr. Chapdelaine noted that the applicant has advised the town that they would be demolishing the Caleb-Proudy House in September 2014 if they could not find a suitable alternative. It concerned him that Mr. Grande did not forward the information to the Historic Commission. It was another demonstration of “lack of communication”. Mr. Chapdelaine thought Mr. Stephenson should attend the meeting even if just to listen to the conversation. Mr. Seidman indicated that he would vote in favor of leaving the parking lot alone.
Mr. Peak entertained a motion “that the financial offset should be abstracted from Stop & Shop through the amenities that require use of the parking lot, but that no changes should be made or plans adopted for the parking lot at this point in time”, since the applicant claimed it could use it as it is. Mr. Seidman believed if the easements needed to be renegotiated, then they should be renegotiated. Mr. Seidman moved the motion. Mr. Thompson seconded the motion to allow the discussion of the motion.
Mr. Stephenson indicated that he would like to offer as testimony “that it was the sense of the Board, that if a decision were to be taken today, concerning the municipal lot, the Board would recommend that we do not make any changes today. We would ask the MV Commission to delay a decision on the parking lot and the building, until a decision was made on the lot. He would also ask for approximately one month to reconvene the committee to continue their review process because the lot and the building were inextricably entwined”.
Mr. Lee recommended against the one month time frame, because it could open the door for the applicant to renegotiate a different timeframe. Others commented that the committee may need additional time.
Mrs. Doble noted that the process had to change if the committee was to move forward on the project, which would require an independent consultant that was not affiliated with the applicant.
Mr. Peak entered a motion “ to conduct a series of meetings with the intention of putting forward a proposal and recommendation to the town and to the Board of Selectmen on the parking lot, which will consist of the members of the Planning board, and any of the appointed member to the original parking committee, who wish to participate, and; that those meetings will be open to the public for the next four Wednesdays. Mr. Chapdelaine thought the MV Commission had the expertise to facilitate the discussions. Mr. Peak asked the former members of the committee if in their opinion they believed they could accomplish their goal if they met for a maximum of an hour and a half in the next four weeks. Mr. Stephenson thought they could, and agreed with the suggestion to have the MV Commission facilitate the
discussions. They could invite interested members of the Planning Board, the parking lot committee and the public. Mrs. Stephenson inquired if they were going to operate under the auspices of the MV Commission or the Planning Board. Mr. Stephenson replied that it would be a Planning Board project facilitated by the MV Commission.
Mr. Peak summarized for the record that the members present had reached the consensus that they should invite the MV Commission to facilitate a series of four meetings to take place at the Planning Board of 29 January 2014, 05 February 2014, 12 February 2014 and 19 February 2014 to discuss the parking lot and make recommendations to the town, the MV Commission, and the Board of Selectmen, to which the Planning Board will invite the former members of the parking lot committee.
Mr. Chapdelaine reminded Mr. Peak that he had a motion on the floor pertaining to Mr. Stephenson’s participation in the ad hoc meeting tomorrow afternoon. He explained that the second motion pertained to the presentation of the Planning Board’s position about the parking lot tomorrow evening at the public hearing.
Mr. Peak asked the Planning Board for their comments on the first motion. Mr. Seidman questioned the legality of the meeting, and did not think Mr. Stephenson should attend the discussion. Mr. Peak thought it was important to know what they were discussing. Mr. Stephenson indicated that he was much more comfortable attending the ad hoc meeting, now that he had discussed the subject with the board. Mr. Peak requested a vote from the board members. Board members voted 4/1/0. Mr. Seidman voted against the motion.
Mr. Peak asked the Board if there was a consensus to continue the parking lot committee’s review process for an additional four to six weeks, and not making any improvements to the parking lot. Mr. Seidman replied in the affirmative. Mr. Thompson had to depart and left the discussions at 9:20 PM. The remaining Board Members agreed.
Mrs. Doble believed they had to divorce the applicant’s consultants from the process. Members agreed.
5. Tisbury Schoo1
PRO FORM Meeting opened, conducted and closed in due form at 9:30 P.M.
Patricia V. Harris, Secretary
APPROVAL: Approved and accepted as official minutes;
Date L. Anthony Peak