TOWN OF TISBURY
P.O. BOX 602
TOWN HALL ANNEX
VINEYARD HAVEN, MASSACHUSETTS 02568
Fax (508) 696-7341
DATE: June 4, 2014
TIME: 7:00 PM
PLACE: Town Hall Annex
ATTENDANCE: Doble (arrived at 7:16 PM), Peak, Stephenson and Thompson
BILLS: MV Tech Inc…………………….$1039.00
MINUTES: As referred in the May 21, 2014 Meeting Agenda
7 May 2014 m/s/c 3/0/0
21 May 2014 m/s/c 3/0/0
7:00 PM Public Hearing: Richard Paradise, AP 09B19 re Special Permit Application
Attendance: (Refer to the signature sheet)
Hearing commenced in due form at 7:18PM.~ H. Stephenson, Planning Board Co-Chairman read the public hearing notice into the minutes, and noted that there were two applicants. He mentioned Richard Paradise, the Director of the MV Film Society and Wayne Guyther, the proprietor of Hinckley & Son’s had jointly applied for a special permit.
H. Stephenson asked the board members to introduce themselves for the record and for the applicant’s benefit before R. Paradise was asked to present his proposal.
R. Paradise indicated that W. Guyther had allowed him to use Hinckley & Son’s front parking lot last summer on selective nights to accommodate the film center’s patrons when the Tisbury Marketplace’s parking lot was filled to capacity. He utilized the parking lot next door approximately two to three nights a week, and as many as four nights a week during the month of August. The number of cars varied, but there were occasions where R. Paradise parked as many as ten to twelve cars during peak season and as few as three to four cars.~ Hinckley’s parking lot was used as a last resort, and only after staff made sure every single parking space in the Tisbury Marketplace (TMP) was occupied.
R. Paradise explained that staff~functioned as parking attendants and were instructed to check for spaces in the TMP at 7:20 PM just before the show began at 7:30 PM to help the last minute arrivals find parking. At confirmation that there were no longer any parking spaces at TMP, a staff~ member would be dispatched to the lot next door with a sign to direct their patrons to Hinckley’s parking area. The parking attendants at the (TMP) were stationed on the premises to make sure that the stragglers headed next door.~ The system worked very well.
He explained that he did not rent or lease the parking spaces at Hinckley & Sons, because W. Guyther had offered the accommodations gratis to the MV Film Center. R. Paradise added that his staff took down the chain down while they parked the film center’s patrons and secured the lot at the start of the performance. At no time was the parking lot open to the general public.
Because the arrangement worked so well, W. Guyther~offered him the use of his parking facility on an on-going basis. R. Paradise was extremely grateful, because none of the other business entities were responsive to their plea for assistance.
H. Stephenson inquired if the other commercial businesses in the Tisbury Marketplace (TMP) were open late into the evening. R. Paradise replied that it varied most evenings, but that during the summer months, Saltwater Restaurant, Rocco’s pizzeria, and the Net Result were the only establishments to stay open after 5PM.~ They stayed open until 9PM, except for Saltwater, which on occasion stayed open as late as 10:30 PM.~ R. Paradise noted that while the film center utilized the majority of the parking spaces in the evening, the parking accommodations were also being utilized by the food service establishments’ staff and patrons. Establishments such as Hutcker Architects, and ESS parked a few vehicles on the premises overnight.
R. Paradise stated that the film center had access to the parking area in the rear, behind Hutcker Architects and the film center, G&B’s lot, and Rocco’s Pizzeria.
R. Dunn noted that it only happened when the film center sold out, but that it normally all worked out. R. Paradise explained that the parking attendants would hold up signs alerting patrons to keep moving if they sold out. They also sent notifications out on social media (email, FaceBook) to alert patrons that tickets were no longer available because they had sold out.
L. Peak asked the board secretary to explain why the applicant was required to apply for a special permit.~ P. Harris replied that the off-site parking accommodations were viewed as an expansion of the film center’s operations.~ H. Stephenson thought they were using an existing parking lot much more efficiently, but questioned whether any of the retailers at the TMP had complained about the lack of parking spaces. R. Paradise indicated that they had expressed a concern, but were relieved to see that he had secured additional parking on the abutting property.
B. Robinson inquired if they replaced the chain during the movie. R. Paradise replied in the affirmative.
C. Doble inquired if they signaled patrons from the street to prevent them from driving through the TMP’s parking lot, once they sold out. R. Paradise replied in the affirmative, and reiterated that he had parking attendants stationed out front to reroute their patrons to Hinckley’s whenever the backside and side parking areas were filled to capacity. Motorists were not prohibited from entering the parking lots, because they may be patronizing the other retailers.
H. Stephenson referred to the application, noting that there was additional correspondence from the applicant in response to the board secretary’s request. In a letter dated 02 June 2014, the applicant requests a waiver from the town’s filing fee of $300.00 for the special permit application as a non-profit/tax exempted organization. The letter was accompanied by correspondence from:
1. IRS acknowledging their tax exempt status from the Federal Income Tax as a public charity,
2. Commonwealth of Massachusetts acknowledging a change in the name of the public charity from Silver Screen Film Society Inc. to Martha’s Vineyard Film Society, Inc.
3. Commonwealth of Massachusetts affirming Martha’s Vineyard Film Society, Inc. legal existence and standing with the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth, and
4. Massachusetts Department of Revenue’s Form ST-2 (Certificate of Exemption)
An 11”X17” facsimile of Hinckley and Son’s Inc.’s plot plan, dated 26 November 1996 by Schofield, Barbini & Hoehn, Inc. was submitted by the board secretary for the purpose of illustrating the location of the parking spaces, the applicant intended to use for the overflow in parking.
H. Stephenson solicited the board members comments and recommendation regarding the applicant’s request for a waiver from the filing fee of $300.00. L. Peak inquired if the fee paid for the advertisement. The board secretary replied that the applicant was billed directly for the advertisement. L. Peak inquired about the certified mailings. The board secretary replied that the Planning Board paid the certification fee and postage for the mailings. L. Peak about the cost, and was informed that each mailing cost ninety-nine cents. There was a total of 91 mailings for this application for an approximate cost of $91.00. L. Peak recommended waiving $200.00 from the filing fee. J. Thompson seconded the motion, which motion carried. 4/0/0
H. Stephenson solicited additional comments from the board. J. Thompson was concerned about the potential for setting a precedent for parking, if W. Guyther decided to end the parking arrangement within a year or two. He was not sure how the applicant was going to resolve the parking overflow? L. Peak thought they could address the issue within their decision, so that it was subject to the continuing cooperation of the property owners.
C. Doble thought it was dependent upon R. Paradise’s management. Based on her observations the system worked well, and it utilized a commodity that would otherwise remain underutilized.
H. Stephenson indicated that the Planning Board had the ability to revisit the application, if they started to get complaints about the condition of the parking lot.
There being no further discussion, H. Stephenson entertained a motion to close the hearing. L. Peak moved to close the public hearing. J. Thompson seconded the motion, and the motion carried. 4/0/0 The hearing closed at 7:40 PM
7:42 PM Delibertions: Richard Paradise, AP 09B19 re Special Permit Application
H. Stephenson entertained a motion to open the deliberations on an application for a special permit by R. Paradise and W. Guyther. J. Thompson so moved. L. Peak seconded the motion. The motion carried. 4/0/0 H. Stephenson opened the deliberations at 7:42 PM and asked the Board if they had additional comments with regards to the application.
L. Peak moved to approve the applicant’s proposal and to issue a special permit for a period of two years, with the potential for renewal and with conditions that elaborated the precautions R. Paradise outlined about the use of parking attendants, signs, restricting the use of W. Guyther’s parking accommodations to the movie theater’s patrons, etc. L. Peak asked the applicant if the Code Enforcement Officer expected a written decision by a specific time period. R. Paradise replied in the negative. H. Stephenson thought the board secretary could advise K. Barwick of the Board’s decision to approve the accommodations for the theater’s parking overflow. J. Thompson seconded the motion. The board carried the motion. 4/0/0
H. Stephenson entertained a motion to continue the deliberations on June 25, 2014 at 7 PM to review a draft of their decision. L. Peak so moved. C. Doble seconded the motion. Motion carried. 4/0/0 The deliberations were closed at 7:54 PM.
7:30 PM Public Hearing: Tropical LLC, AP 09C01, Special Permit Application
Attendance: (Refer to the signature sheet)
Hearing commenced at 7:56 PM L. Peak, at the Planning Board Co-Chairman’s request read the hearing notice into the minutes, and the Board members introduced themselves to the co-applicants.
The Board was advised that the applicants were referred by the Board of Health at the time they were applying for a Food Establishment Permit. In a conversation with one of the applicants, the board secretary learned that they had just purchased the Tropical and intended to operate the restaurant. Research of the Board of Health records pertaining to the property indicated that the food service establishment had changed ownership and management a few times since the restaurant was first established in July 1999. The applicants were advised that they were required to obtain a special permit for the food establishment since they were not transferrable.
The applicants were issued a letter on April 23, 2014 requesting an updated floor plan for the public hearing. J. Cardoso a hand sketched floor plan for the dining area reflecting the new layout. The seating capacity remained the same at 48.
L. Peak inquired if they were provided with a copy of the most current special permit. C. Doble noted that they were emailed a copy of the original special permit dating 1999 and of an amendment in 2004 in which the applicant was allowed outdoor seating. C. Cardosa noted that the outdoor seating area was open to the general public, and not a part of the 48 seats he was allowed by the Board of Health. His patrons on occasion enjoy eating their food out in the open.
H. Stephenson inquired if they maintained the outdoor area. J. Cardosa replied in the affirmative. H. Stephenson noted that the applicant had essentially re-configured the seats without altering the seating capacity, which was established at 48. Board members inquired if the applicant was revising the service. The board secretary deferred to the notice, indicating that the applicants were offering a buffet style restaurant with take-out service from 11A-11P during the summer and 11A-9PM during the off season. Board members were advised that the special permit was not transferable. H. Stephenson inquired if there was a time limit. The board secretary replied in the negative.
L. Peak noted that the 1999 special permit was sufficiently old to require a revision. The board secretary concurred, and clarified that the application was not an amendment. The previous document predated the wastewater collection system and included information no longer pertinent to the current proposal. L. Peak inquired if they had a report from the Board of Health. The board secretary informed the Board that they have a copy of the Board of Health’s license.
C. Doble inquired about the procedure, and asked if the board secretary was going to draft a new document. The board secretary replied in the affirmative.
There being no comment from the applicants, the Board or the members of the general public present for the discussions, H. Stephenson entertained a motion to close the public hearing and enter into deliberations. L. Peak so moved. J. Thompson seconded the motion, and the motion carried. 4/0/0
8:04 PM Deliberations: Tropical LLC, AP 09C01, Special Permit Application
The Planning Board immediately entered into the deliberations of the previously closed hearing for J. Cardoso and W. Oliveira at 8:04 PM.
H. Stephenson believed many of the issues in the 1999 special permit were no longer germane to the current application, so that the draft document would have to be streamlined to reflect the current situation.
L. Peak moved to approve the special permit for the applicants to operate the business as they described it and to approve of the outdoor seating arrangement as previously permitted, and under certain conditions which may carry forward from past written decisions. J. Thompson seconded the motion. The motion carried. 4/0/0
H. Stephen recommended continuing the deliberations on June 25, 2014 to review a draft document. The applicants were advised that the draft document would be available prior to the hearing, a copy of which they could review by contacting the board secretary. L. Peak noted that the Planning Board would notify the Building Inspector of their decision to avoid any impact on the applicant’s operations.
H. Stephenson entertained a motion to continue the hearing on June 25, 2014 at 7:15 PM. L. Peak so moved. J. Thompson seconded the motion, and the motion carried at 8:08 PM. 4/0/0
8:00 PM Public Hearing: Richard S. Dubin re: Form C Application, and Application for a Special Permit (Accelerate ROD Schedule) AP 26D18.1
Attendance: (Refer to the signature sheet)
Hearing commenced at 8:14 PM. L. Peak at H. Stephenson’s request read the public hearing notice into the minutes, and asked the applicant’s representatives and board members to introduce themselves for the record.
C. Gilstad and G. Sourati of Sourati Engineering Inc. represented the applicant. G. Sourati disclosed his interest in the application as partial owner.
C. Gilstad began his presentation stating that the property in question was off Franklin Street with approximately 550 ft. down Greenwood on the right. The application included a request for a waiver from the minimum pavement requirement of 18 ft. to 12 ft. and the road layout from 40 ft. to 30 ft. starting at the turnout. C. Gilstad noted that the division of land proposed to create two (2) ten thousand (10,000) sf. ft. lots and one (1) thirteen thousand (13,000) sq. ft. parcel.
C. Gilstad noted that he submitted a typical cross section of the proposed subdivision road reflecting a 12 ft. wide traveled way and 3 ft. shoulders. The road spanned 210 ft. in length up to fork of the road, which then spanned an additional 55 ft. in length at the turnout.
H. Stephenson inquired if they had a defined standard for RAP. L. Peak explained that they wanted the specifics about quality of the material to determine if it was acceptable to the Planning Board. The board secretary noted that the Planning Board has recommended that they wanted the quality of the RAP to be similar to the material used to pave Holmes Hole Road.
The board secretary informed the Board that the applicant submitted the application for consideration as a Small Project, which required a vote from the Board determining that it qualified as a Small Project, according to the criteria listed in s. 331 of the Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land in the Tisbury of Tisbury.
L. Peak requested a clarification with regards to the width(s) of the road. C. Gilstad replied that the road layout was 40 ft. wide for the first 125 ft. and 30 ft. wide at the bend. G. Sourati indicated that the 40 ft. wide layout at the turnout was excessive. He wanted the road to appear more like a driveway.
A. Hall, an abutter across the street inquired if she could ask a question of the applicant with regards to the measurements on the map, because there appeared to be some discrepancies. A. Hall noted three different measurements for the sides of the road for the first 75 ft. and was informed that the measurements differed in that did not include the linear footage for the curve. L. Peak inquired if she was asking if there were sufficient setbacks for the existing structure. A. Hall initially replied that it was just for information, and then noted that the inquiry was a question the new property owners had of the applicant. G. Sourati mentioned that A. Fineman, the previous property owner divided her property as an ANR to separate the house lot from the rear lot with the intent of creating three
(3) additional lots. The group of investors for the larger tract of land asked A. Fineman to notify prospective buyers interested in the house lot of their plans to subdivide the rear parcel of land. As far as he understood A. Fineman had given the real estate agent and her attorney a copy of the sketch depicting the three (3) lots.
L. Peak asked G. Sourati if he would measure the distance of the house to the rear property line according to scale. C. Gilstad measured the distance at 52 ft. A. Hall noted that the current property owners would be arriving at 8:30 PM. G. Sourati assured the Planning Board that they were given a sketch of the proposal prior to the purchase of the property. H. Stephenson inquired if G. Sourati would consider placing a bound. G. Sourati replied in the affirmative, provided they compensated him. A. Hall indicated that they were interested in learning the boundary of the road relative to their property. G. Sourati assumed the new property owners had received a plot plan for the property at the time of purchase, which contained the information.
L. Peak inquired if bounds were required for ANRs. C. Gilstad replied in the negative.
L. Peak noted that they were proposing odd shaped lots, and inquired if C. Gilstad had delineated or suggested the location of the building envelopes. C. Gilstad replied in the negative, adding that the buildings would have to comply with zoning district’s setback requirements. H. Stephenson believed L Peak was asking the applicant to delineate the building envelopes on the plan. C. Doble thought it might also be helpful to see the location of the septic systems. G. Sourati commented that they could not obtain a building permit without acquiring a disposal works permit from the Board of Health.
In addition to the odd shapes, C. Doble noticed that the second lot had steep slopes, so that she wanted to know how the applicant intended to set the buildings together, given the character of the neighborhood. G. Sourati commented that the subdivision created average sized lots (10,000 sq. ft.). C. Doble clarified that she wanted to know the configuration of buildings so that they reflected the character of the neighborhood and responded to the slopes on the parcels. H. Stephenson thought it was a good suggestion. The information would benefit the neighbors.
H. Stephenson understood that the heavily wooded areas would have to be cleared to accommodate the residential structures, but he wanted the applicant to exercise some caution to protect the existing vegetation around the perimeter, so that they maintained a visual screen.
L. Peak inquired about the nearest hydrant, and asked if the applicant had any plans to install a hydrant. G. Sourati did not know and added that if they were required to install a hydrant, the water department would notify them at the time they installed the water lines. L. Peak inquired if all utilities were being installed underground. G. Sourati replied in the affirmative.
The board secretary reminded the Board that they still had to determine whether the applicant’s proposal qualified as a Small Project before they continue to review the application, because it will automatically grant the applicant waivers from certain requirements and give the Board the flexibility to grant additional waivers, if they believe it’s in the town’s interest. The Board was asked to consider the following criteria:
33 Small Project Procedures
A. To qualify, the subdivision must create frontage potentially serving six or fewer lots;
B. must not be contiguous with property subdivided within the past five years and now or previously in ownership common with this land;
C. must not be served by access previously developed under Small Project Procedures, unless standard project construction requirements for that access have been met, and must be approved for such procedures by the Planning Board at the time of pre-submission review.
After reviewing the criteria, the Board members agreed that the applicant’s proposal met the requirements for a Small Project Procedure. H. Stephenson inquired if the designation granted the applicant a waiver from the requirements for the road layout and traveled way, because the applicant was requesting a waiver for both. C. Gilstad noted that the pavement requirements were not required under Small Project submittal as was the width.
H. Stephenson inquired about the road, and C. Gilstad replied that they were proposing a travel way that was 12 ft. wide with RAP and 3 ft. wide grass shoulders.
H. Stephenson opened the discussions to the proponents. There being no comment in favor of the application, H. Stephenson opened the floor to the opponents. H. Lee, an abutter on 190 Franklin Street indicated that the development had the potential of impacting the western view from his second floor windows. He noted that the assessor maps and tax maps of the property in question were not matching, nor was the surveyor’s map for the proposal with the property of an abutter identified as F. Piccione. The discrepancy concerned him enough to recommend to the Planning Board and the abutters the possibility of researching the title deeds for inaccuracies, given that he experienced a similar issue with the applicant and surveyor. He thought it was important to determine the error’s origin, and to confirm
whether the starting stone bound was accurately reflected in the deeds for the property in question and the immediately abutting properties.
H. Lee understood the importance in creating a tax base, but he felt they had to carefully weigh the developer’s interest in maximizing the property’s potential and the immediate neighbors’ quality of life, because it did not appear that the developers had considered the location of the buildings’ impact. He was concerned about the potential for overcrowding, and inquired about the number of bedrooms they were considering for each structure.
H. Lee noted that while all of the lots were irregularly shaped. Lot 2C (triangular) in particular would have an impact on the orientation of the building, so that it would not run parallel to Greenwood Ave, as do the existing dwellings in the area. H. Lee further noted that it was important to require the developers to provide a landscaping design to screen the buildings from view, especially since they were oriented against the sun.
H. Lee also asked if the applicant had sufficient land area to accommodate the leaching field for the septic systems, which would have an impact on the land area that needed to be cleared. The size of the leaching field depended on the number of bedrooms being proposed for each dwelling. It concerned him that the activity would impact the bird habitat and disturb the area’s ecosystem.
H. Lee reiterated that he understood the investors had a right to develop the property, but thought the proposal excessive and recommended a modest proposal of two lots. He recommended an environmental analysis to determine the exact number of trees that would have to be removed to accommodate the development, and its visual impact from the road. He reiterated that it would behoove the Board to review the surveyor’s title deed research going back fifty years or more to ascertain its accuracy. He noted that an inaccuracy in survey plans could snow ball into subsequent plans to compound the error. It was an experience he encountered with the applicant.
L. Peak inquired if the solid colored bounds were in existence. C. Gilstad replied in the affirmative, and labeled accordingly. The existing monuments were from previous surveys. L. Peak inquired if C. Gilstad could identify the surveyor(s). C. Gilstad replied that he could obtain the case files for some and provide the Board with a copy of the Land Court plans. The board secretary requested copies of the Land Court plans.
G. Sourati was given the opportunity to respond to H. Lee’s questions and noted that there were two developed parcels between H. Lee’s property and the subject property. He questioned whether H. Lee’s view from his windows on the west side of his property was going to be impacted by the development.
The proposed lots were 10,000 sq. ft. and similar to the average size lots in the zoning district. The residential structures were going to be meeting the setback requirements for the zoning district and to be illustrated on a revised plan. The proposed buildings were going to front on the subdivision road, and may not necessarily run parallel to Greenwood Avenue. In regards to the concern about the septic system, G. Sourati indicated that the town would not issue building permits unless a disposal works permit was approved by the Board of Health. He believed there was ample room for the septic systems.
G. Sourati noted that there were two magnificent trees he intended on saving. He could not avoid the need to cut down trees to develop the lots, but the final result would not make them appear any different from the abutting properties. He did not respond to the H. Lee’s recommendation to reduce the number of lots by one.
N. Tarter-Nevin, an abutter expressed a concern with the future location of the dwelling on the second lot, relative to the shared property line. The potential clearing of trees would expose the swimming pool in her back yard, and eliminate the privacy she’s enjoyed over the years by the vegetative screening and woods. G. Sourati indicated that he would not construct the house close to the property line, which had to be a minimum of 20 ft. from the rear to the property line. He offered to discuss an arrangement for the house to minimize its impact on her property.
H. Stephenson informed the members of the public that the minimum dimensional requirements for a building lot in the R10 District were 10,000 sq. ft. of land area, and 80 ft. of frontage and depth. The front and rear yard setbacks were 20 ft. from the property line and 10 ft. for the side yard. It was nonetheless important to preserve as much of the natural vegetation and trees to minimize the overall damage.
L. Hall, an abutter on 4 Greenwood Ave. inquired about the proposed dwellings’ square footage, and if they were going to be one or two story buildings. The third inquiry pertained to potential plans for low income housing. G. Sourati replied that he and his partners had not designed the houses, but expected them to be similar to the dwellings in the neighborhood. They were going to be modest, two-story buildings subject to the same zoning regulations which currently allowed home businesses under certain criteria. L. Hall inquired if he was building his own home on one of the lots. G. Sourati replied that he was developing one of the lots to house a potential employee.
L. Peak clarified for the record that the process pertained solely to the division of land into separate lots with adequate access so that they can be conveyed to individual parties. The Board made sure the lots conformed to the dimensional requirements of the zoning district and that the subdivision road was constructed to a sufficient grade so as to provide adequate access to the individual lots. It allowed the property owners to develop their lots within the confines of the zoning regulation, as everyone present at the hearing were presently allowed to do on their properties.
B. Jordal and N. Shirley, property owners of 123 Greenwood Ave. were concerned about the road’s proximity to their boundary. L. Peak noted that the 12 ft. traveled way was within the 40 ft. wide road layout. B. Jordal was concerned about the fate of the 200 year old oak tree within the road layout. G. Sourati noted earlier in the evening that he intended to save the tree.
H. Lee believed the surveyor may have misspoken on a couple of issues, and explained how the abutters could refer to their title deeds for the starting point of their stone bounds. Should the title deed not provide this information, they had to research their neighbors’ title deeds. It was important for the surveyor to demonstrate the accuracy of his information, because there appeared to be a discrepancy in the information illustrated for F. Piccione’s property. H. Lee, in addition thought the applicant should be asked to save the trees.
L. Peak interrupted H. Lee to explain that property owners had the right to develop their lots to their maximum potential within the confines of the zoning regulation. The developers in this instance were also licensed surveyors. If H. Lee believed they were culpable of criminal misplacement of bounds, they were subject to a lawsuit, and jeopardized their license. He thought the repercussions alone would have given them the incentive to place the bounds where they belonged. H. Stephenson concurred with L. Peak, reiterating that the review process was limited to the division of land, the lot’s compliance with the dimensional requirements of the zoning district and adequate access, so that if he had an issue with the survey, H. Lee could privately pursue the matter. The Planning Board in their review
process had to rely on the data and plans. He further noted that the assessors’ maps were solely intended as approximations, which could have accounted for the discrepancies. The Board’s scope of address was limited to the creation of lots and not the design of the buildings.
H. Lee clarified that he understood the Board’s scope of address, and explained how the surveyor utilized information from a previous survey that was later found to be incorrect. L. Peak inquired if the error impacted H. Lee’s property. H. Lee replied in the negative, noting that the error led to a wider travel way that encouraged motorists to speed. L. Peak explained that the property owner at the time had the right to construct the traveled way to accommodate the two properties. H. Lee added that the abutters were never informed that the traveled way as it currently existed was a condition enforced on the application to protect the rhododendrons.
B. Jordal wanted to know the actual distance of the road from her property, because it appeared to be 10 ft. from her garden. She was curious to know what the setbacks were going to be from her backyard. H. Stephenson referred B. Jordal to the site plan and profile to illustrate the traveled way’s location. G. Sourati explained that it was located in the middle of the road layout. C. Gilstad measured the distance and stated that it was 58 ft.
B. Jordal noted that at the time she purchased AP 26D18, the plot plan given to her clearly illustrated all of the bounds except for the area abutted the road off Greenwood Ave. G. Sourati advised the Board and property owners of AP 26D18 that he had asked the previous property owner (A. Fineman), the attorney and real estate agent to inform them of their plans to subdivide the property. He offered to submit copies of his emails to the property owner, and real estate agent confirming that the prospective home owner would be informed. He wanted to make sure everyone knew of their plans in advance to avoid any issues.
G. Sourati asked B. Jordal and N. Shirley if they were informed about the subdivision. They advised G. Sourati that they were told that the rear lot could be divided up to three (3) lots for residential purposes only. G. Sourati confirmed that he was not proposing any commercial activity. The three (3) lot division of land before the Planning Board was intended for residential use. B. Jordal & N. Shirley indicated that they were concerned about the road’s proximity to their shed and garden. It wasn’t apparent because the surveyor did not stake out the one section of the road. H. Stephenson inquired if G. Sourati would provide B. Jordal and N. Shirley the information. G. Sourati replied in the affirmative. B. Jordal noted that the name of the trust was their street address and
expressed a concern about the name of the development. They were assured that the name of the development would not be the same.
H. Stephenson was advised that the Board had received an email from H. Lee about the application. L. Peak, at H. Stephenson’s request read the email, dated 04 June 2014 into the record of the minutes (herein attached), reiterating H. Lee’s comments during the hearing pertaining to accuracy of the surveyor’s plan, potential for overcrowding, preserving the trees, septic fields, location of the potential homes, the need for an environmental analysis.
The board secretary noted that the Planning Board has not received a comment from the Board of Health. G. Sourati offered to contact the Board of Health to request a written comment.
L. Peak inquired if storm water presented an issue at station 125 because of the slope. G. Sourati replied in the negative. C. Doble noted there was one low spot where drainage could be an issue, and asked C. Gildstad and G. Sourati if they planned to add a swale to direct the storm water to the grassy shoulder.
H. Stephenson interrupted the discussions, noting the late hour. He thought it best to continue the hearing to another date, since the Board had another hearing scheduled for the evening. H. Stephenson recommended continuing the public hearing on June 25, 2014 at 7:45 PM. G. Sourati requested a couple minutes, and asked the Board to clarify what they were requesting of him for the continuation of the hearing. H. Stephenson replied that the Board was requesting:
1) the addition of building envelopes,
2) the resolution of issues with N. Tarter-Nevin and the property owners on AP 26D18,
3) contacting the Water Department to inquire about their requirements for a hydrant,
4) contacting the Board of Health for their comment on the subdivision plan, and
5) storm water drainage.
C. Gilstad was asked to provide the Land Court plans to address an issue raised by H. Lee.
L. Peak recommended a site inspection, and asked the board if they would refer to their schedules to determine the time and date. H. Stephenson was traveling and departing at the end of the week. C. Doble, L. Peak and J. Thompson agreed to meet on June 9, 2014 at 4PM at the site.
There being no further discussion, H. Stephenson entertained a motion to continue the public hearing on June 25, 2014 at 7:45 PM at the Town Hall Annex. L. Peak so moved. J. Thompson seconded the motion, which motion carried. 4/0/0
At the conclusion of the discussions, H. Stephenson at 9:20 PM recommended a two (2) minutes recess before opening the Dunn Family LLC’s public hearing.
8:30 PM Public Hearing: Dunn Family LLC, AP 09B19.18 & 09B19.19 re: Special Permit Amendment
Attendance: (Refer to the signature sheet)
Hearing commenced at 9:34 PM. L. Peak read the public hearing notice into the record of the minutes. H. Stephenson, Planning Board Co-chairman noted the time and asked the Board Members and applicant to introduce themselves.
S. Dunn, the proprietor of the food service establishment, known as Saltwater advised the Board that he had signed an agreement to sell the restaurant to Jackson and Mary Kenworth within the last month. In the process of the transaction, he discovered that he did not revise his special permit to reflect the increases in the seating capacity he’s obtained through the Board of Health and Sewer Advisory Board over the years.
S. Dunn understood that the oversight was inexcusable, but he wanted to rectify the situation, and asked the Board if they could issue a permit “in a status that was transferable to Jackson and Mary Kenworth”. He inquired if this was possible during the proceeding.
L. Peak could not respond, but thought it would diverge from the public hearing notice. He suggested that the alternative would be to have the Kenworth’s apply for their special permit and change the seating capacity. S. Dunn preferred amending his permit to reflect the current seating capacity. L. Peak thought it was a different topic than what was advertised. L. Peak did not believe they could alter the applicant without re-advertising and starting a separate process. H. Stephenson agreed.
S. Dunn recalled appearing before the Planning Board in 2007 when he was under contract with Saltwater to operate the food service establishment with forty-four (44) seats. In time he was allowed to have a dishwasher and to use plates. He was given an approval for the renovation and expansion of the restaurant in 2009, which allowed him to increase the seating capacity to sixty-two (62) seats. In the spring of 2009 he was permitted an additional fifteen (15) seats, at which time he put a roof on the patio, and has been operating, with the seventy-seven (77) seats the past five years with great success. The application before the board was to essentially formalize the increases in the restaurant’s seating capacity that he’s acquired through the Board of Health and Sewer Advisory Board. S. Dunn
referred the Board to the Board of Health’s correspondence confirming the seating capacity.
S. Dunn explained that the Sewer Advisory Board allotted the Tisbury Marketplace a total of 1700 gpd and found that they were using on the average of about 500 gpd (slightly less than a third of their allotment).
L. Peak noted that the Planning Board received a letter from D. Packer expressing a concern about the damage the tree sustained from the bracket the applicant used to hang the restaurant’s sign. L. Peak added that he received a copy of the November 13, 2010 special permit, pertaining to the modification of the parking lot relative to the construction of the second building. He did not receive a copy of the October 3, 2007 permit, and appreciated an opportunity to review the background information.
H. Stephenson opened the discussions to the board for comments or questions. There being none, the floor was given to the proponents of the application. There being none, H. Stephenson deferred to the opponents of the application.
Dana Hodsdon requested a clarification about the applicant’s proposal, and the circumstances that led to the submittal of an application. L. Peak replied that the applicant was issued a special permit in 2007 to operate a food service establishment within the Waterfront Commercial District per zoning regulations. The restaurant’s seating capacity was determined by the Board of Health, which was initially limited to forty-four. Over the years he obtained permission to increase his seating capacity, but failed to amend his special permit to reflect the increases.
H. Stephenson added that the question the Planning Board had to contemplate was whether they should approve the increased seating capacity from forty-four (44) to seventy-seven (77). L. Peak thought it brought up a point from an earlier discussion pertaining to wastewater collection system’s criteria, which was based on Title V. He granted that the criteria was not as stringent today, but the proposal also raised other issues they had to consider, such as the increase in traffic.
H. Stephenson concurred, noting that when the Board reviewed the film center’s request for additional parking earlier in the evening, he understood when the film center, Rocco’s, the Net Result and Saltwater were open, there were evenings when the Tisbury Marketplace’s parking lot was full. He was curious to know if the TMP Condominium Association had the authority and desire to sort out the parking allocations among its members i.e. timed parking spaces rather than to rely on a municipal authority. S. Dunn noted that the Board of Trustees had three of its members present at the discussions, and deferred to them for a response.
D. Reece, Chairman of the TMP Board of Trustees has discussed the topic on many occasions over the years, and determined that the system was not feasible. It’s forced them to manage with the haphazard arrangement as best as they could. He thanked the Board for granting the film center the use of the parking spaces next door because it alleviated some of the pressure they had experienced the previous year. D. Reece explained that the twenty-five (25) cars they parked on Hinckley & Sons property prevented all of the additional activity required to help people park, back out of their spaces, and stop them from parking on the curbs, etc.
H. Stephenson inquired if the overflow on Hinckley’s property alleviated the pressure for parking for the other establishments. D. Reece replied in the affirmative.
D. Reece thought it interesting that a restaurant could be reviewed by a local board to increase their seating capacity without amending their special permit, since the latter addressed parking, and other issues besides wastewater. He thought it “odd” that they did not have a system in place to coordinate the review processes. H. Stephenson concurred, but thought the one oversight was due to the town’s transitional restructuring from on-site disposal systems to central sewering. D. Reece inquired if they’ve instituted a system to prevent the oversight in the future. L. Peak replied in the negative. H. Stephenson agreed to follow up on the suggestion.
B. Horowitz, a trustee and unit owner asked the applicant the number of patrons he served during the course of an evening during the summer. S. Dunn replied about 180. B. Horowitz noted that the parking situation appeared under control even with the turnover. It appeared to work well for the past five years.
H. Stephenson thought they were fortunate to know from experience that the current parking arrangement has worked with the restaurant’s expansion and increased seating capacity.
S. Dunn noted that the Planning Board in the October 3, 2007 special permit prohibited the applicant from providing table service in the porch, which changed when he closed in the porch and increased their seating capacity. H. Stephenson inquired about the purpose for incorporating the restriction.
L. Peak recalled that the patio was added in an area that was technically part of the common space, which was subject to same restrictions that applied to L. Larsen’s outdoor tables. While they substantially served his business, they were open to the public because they were not on his property. He recalled that a similar condition was incorporated in Saltwater’s special permit. L. Peak explained it was one of the reasons for requesting additional time. He He wanted to review some of the Association’s documents.
S. Dunn could not remember if the porch was a “limited common element” or part of the restaurant, it was the “exclusive right of the property owner”. L. Peak did not think the information was entirely correct, in that L. Larsen (Net Result ) was allowed to place tables on one of the common areas, provided the amenity was open to the general public’s use. S. Dunn clarified for the record that the restaurant provided bathrooms that served the public, unlike the Net Result.
He did not think the designation of a “limited common element” restricted them from eating inside. L. Peak recalled coming across a limited common element in the condominium associations’ documents. He asked S. Dunn to explain the term. S. Dunn explained that it was “an element which is the exclusive use of a particular unit, but not part of the actual boundaries of the unit, i.e. roof decks, patios and lawn areas”. The Saltwater Restaurant had a “limited common element” for the lawn in front that runs all the way down to the lagoon. L. Peak did not find that to be entirely true. He recalled that his development rights were part of the original restriction, and to some degree modified in subsequent agreements with the Planning Board. S. Dunn offered to provide the
Planning Board the documents to verify the area was a limited common element. L. Peak reiterated that he wanted the opportunity to review the condo associations and trust’s documents, the special permits issued the Tisbury Marketplace and the Net Result to make sure he recollected some of the issues correctly.
H. Stephenson acknowledged L. Peak’s request and recommended continuing the public hearing on another evening due to the late hour.
M. Kenworth, the prospective buyer inquired about D. Packer’s letter pertaining to the tree, and if she had to wait to apply for the special permit until she owned the restaurant. L. Peak advised her that she could apply at any time.
L. Peak read D. Packer’s letter suggesting the removal of the restaurant’s “sign and bracket from the tree with an alternative manner of display, separate from the tree” as a condition to the approval of the Saltwater restaurant’s expansion and renovation. S. Dunn explained that the ring was adjustable to prevent any damage to the tree. He’s written to D. Packer to explain, but never heard from her, and noted that the ring was adjusted annually.
There being no further comment, H. Stephenson entertained a motion to continue the public hearing on June 25, 2014 at 8:15 PM. L. Peak so moved. J. Thompson seconded the motion, which motion carried. 4/0/0
The Planning Board resumed their regularly scheduled session at 10:10 PM
1. Charles Gilstad, Sourati Engineering Group LLC
RE: Form A – Scott E. Armer and Robyn A. Armer, AP 24A39, West Spring Street
H. Stephenson noted that the application creates one additional building lot slightly over 13,000 sq. ft.~ The additional lot meets the frontage requirement for the R10 zoning district (80 ft.) and exceeds the dimensional requirements for lot area and depth.
There being no further comment, H. Stephenson entertained a motion to endorse the Form A application as an ANR under the subdivision control regulations.~ J. Thompson so moved. L. Peak seconded the motion, which motion carried.~ 3/0/0
2. Jay Grande, Town Administrator
RE: Meeting with the Board of Selectmen re: B1 District
H. Stephenson informed the Board that the Board of Selectmen was asking the Planning Board to create a development review process and a set of development guidelines for large scale projects in the B1 District. He thought the request may be the result of Stop & Shop’s recent proposal.
Board members engaged in conversation relative to the process, the adoption of a regulation, the timeframe, and community visioning process. H. Lee and B. Robinson inquired if the brainstorming process could be done separately from the Planning Board’s regularly scheduled meetings, or as a subcommittee. H. Stephenson noted that both options were possible, and asked the Board if they were interested in meeting next week to continue the discussions.
C. Doble thought it was important to schedule a meeting in which the Board could have a conversation to discuss the different ways they could approach the planning process. Board members considered meeting on June 18, 2014 for this purpose.
The Board in addition agreed to cancel their meeting on July 2, 2014 and to invite the Board of Selectmen on July 9, 2014 to discuss their proposal for the B1 District and to appoint an Associate Member.
3. Tisbury Water Department
RE: Invitation to meet with Commissioners on June 9, 2014 at 4:00 PM
4. Mark London, MV Commission Director
RE: MV Scenic Roads Initiative on Thursday, 05 June 2014
H. Stephenson planned on attending the meeting to participate in the discussions, and to provide M. London, the Exec. Director a sketch he offered to produce, at the time they were discussing the possibility of obtaining state funds for the improvement and realignment of~ the state’s portion of the Tashmoo Overlook.
H. Stephenson explained that M. London was in the process of preparing a preliminary application to the state to express an interest in obtaining funds to improve the state’s section of the Tashmoo Overlook.
1. Tisbury Conservation Commission
A. Hearing Notice – Vineyard Blues Nominee Trust, AP 30A10 (elevated boardwalk)
B. Hearing Notice – Vera Shorter, AP 16A16
2. Tisbury Zoning Board of Appeals
A. Case #2180 – Michael Panagakos, AP 8N24 (variance from min. frontage requirements)
B. Case #2183 – Jennifer Oliver, AP 39B2.131 (commercial activity outside building)
C. Case #2184 – Matthew Tobin, AP 39B2.131 (commercial activity outside building)
D. Case #2185 – Bernier Realty Trust, AP 23A23 (outside display)
3. Benjamin Robinson
RE: Letter of Interest (Associate Membership)
L. Peak entered B. Robinson’s letter of interest into the record of the minutes.
4. Larry Gomez
RE: Thank you note
PRO FORM Meeting opened, conducted and closed in due form at 10:50 P.M. (m/s/c 4/0/0)
Patricia V. Harris, Secretary
APPROVAL: Approved and accepted as official minutes;
Date Henry Stephenson