Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Planning Board Minutes 05/21/14

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


DATE:           May 21, 2014
TIME:                   7:06 PM

PLACE:          Town Hall Annex

ATTENDANCE:     Doble, Peak, Stephenson, Seidman and Thompson

BILLS:          Verizon…………………………$57.91
P. Harris………………………...$ 8.96

MINUTES:                As referred in the, 2013 Meeting Agenda
                        07 May 2014     m/s/c   5/0/0


7:06 PM Len Morris re: Beach Street Ext, AP 09A11

L. Morris wanted to follow up on an amendment he had proposed at town meeting, in which he asked the town to give its citizens the opportunity to consider other potential uses for the old fire station property on Beach Road, which was currently being used as a parking lot.  He preferred having the lot converted into open space and to provide an entrance to Veteran’s Park, given that the town did not offer such an amenity to accommodate pedestrians. The one direct entrance into the park was by car on Lagoon Pond Road.  

He mentioned that the property was conveniently located just across the street from the Chamber of Commerce, and an obvious location for an entrance to Veteran’s Park. He lamented that the town did not provide a sufficient number of public amenities to accommodate its citizens and visitors.

L. Morris indicated that he was interested in “creating a path for the town to make this decision”. He understood that this project would eventually require the assistance of a professional consultant(s).  He thought it could be the catalyst to get the town to consider similar projects in other locations. L. Morris thought the recently created Natural Resource Department could address the proposal as their first project.  A graded and landscaped area could be done at a very low cost to the town.

D. Seidman inquired how if he would object to having the Caleb Prouty House relocated on site and use the first floor as an information center and the second floor for offices.  He thought they could renovate the building, register it as a National Historic Building and lease the offices on the second floor.

J. Thompson favored the use of lot as an entrance to Veteran’s Park, and always thought the town should have landscaped the area and place an information booth (kiosk) for the tourist.

H. Stephenson clarified that the parking was a short term use. He did not believe the current arrangement served the town’s business community’s interest at all, and has noticed that the parking spaces remained empty on occasions.  He explained that the Planning Board had considered a multitude of uses, including the possibility of utilizing the lot as an entrance to Veteran’s Park. For the present, they still had the opportunity to construct a pedestrian friendly, landscaped corridor to the park around the existing walk. Based on the discussions it appeared that there were three options. The first was to have a small parking lot with a landscaped corridor leading to the park. The second was to landscape the lot so that it served as a primary entrance to Veteran’s park, or relocate the Caleb Prouty house on the property for public functions with a landscaped entrance to the park.

D. Seidman thought they could bring the tourist to the Caleb Prouty house once it was renovated for a quick presentation (video, etc.) about the town, have volunteer docents take people on guided walking tours, and to the restaurants for lunch. The second floor could be rented out to non-profits, or used by the town for offices, etc. The idea was to keep tourists in town.

L. Morris inquired how the Planning Board intended to move forward or studied the options to present to the town for a vote. H. Stephenson explained that the Planning Board was responsible for exploring the options and contracting the consultants so that they could present information to the town via public forums to solicit comments, and suggestions.  It was a requirement for all of their projects. The idea is to make sure the town had ample opportunity to review and comment on the proposals before they vote on their recommendation at town meeting.  

L. Morris inquired about the Prouty house’s fate and was advised that it was presently owned by Ahold (Stop&Shop), who had offered to relocate the building. There was a question whether the offer still stood, since they withdrew their application from the MV Commission. L. Morris inquired if the MV Museum Trustees were approached about acquiring the building. Board members replied in the affirmative and understood the renovations were more than they could afford. L. Morris initially questioned whether D. Seidman’s proposal to relocate the Caleb Prouty house on the property would complement his preference for open space. L. Morris just wanted to make sure it allowed a landscaped access to the park.

L. Peak noted that the town was pressure to sell the property for funds, but that the Planning Board argued against the property’s sale. They suggested the short term use of the property as a parking lot, while the Board of Selectmen studied alternate uses. The improvements to convert the property into a parking lot were minimal. Never did they intend the parking lot as a long term use. He noted that the Planning Board members were all volunteers, so that on occasion it helped to have an independent group of citizens to investigate and address issues to present to their local boards, i.e. Spring Building.

H. Stephenson inquired if the open space component qualified for CPC (open space, preservation and development and historic) funds. L. Morris thought the Embarkation Fees could fund the information/welcome center. D. Seidman thought they could obtain funds from the state to restore the historic building.

L. Morris noted that quite a number of people at town meeting support his amendment, and asked if the Planning Board was aware of a constituent organization that he could contact. L. Peak mentioned the local business association.  C. Doble inquired about the town department that was responsible for their parks. L. Peak replied that it was the Department of Public Works.  L. Morris found the town’s website uninformative when he was researching for information about the park.
7:35 PM Glenn Provost & Nancy Morris, MV Preservation Trustees re: Caleb Prouty House

D. Seidman indicated that he had been thinking about saving and restoring the Caleb Prouty house and invited G. Provost to solicit information they could use to fund the relocation, renovation and management of the building, since they’ve worked on several similar projects. D. Seidman explained that he wanted to relocate the building on the old fire station lot, and restore the historic structure, so that they could operate a docent information center on the first floor and offices, art galleries, etc. on the second floor. The use of the second floor was a work in progress, and subject to change.

D. Seidman asked if G. Provost and N. Morris were aware of additional funding sources, they would qualify for apart from embarkation fees, and CPC funds for this project. G. Provost noted that the properties the MV Preservation Trust owned, such as the Flying Horses, Grange Hall, Alley’s Store, Dr. Fisher’s House and the Whaling Church were renovated with funds acquired primarily through capital campaigns and fund raisers.  N. Morris noted that they were all public landmarks that were opened to the public. G. Provost added that they were also self-sustaining in that they were leased or rented to generate some of the revenue they needed to maintain the buildings.  

D. Seidman understood, and reiterated that he was particularly interested in locating grants that would help them fund the project. He asked if G. Provost if he knew of federal or state grants they could tap if the building was designated a historic building.  G. Provost could not respond, because the MV Preservation Trust’s funds were primarily from fund raisers. L. Morris inquired if the MV Preservation Trust assessed the extent of the renovations involved and the associated costs.  N. Morris replied that their staff member, Chris Scott provided the information to the trustees.

H. Stephenson inquired if they renovated structures and turned the buildings over to nonprofits, so that they owned and maintained the buildings. G. Provost replied that they owned all of the buildings they’ve renovated, and would not consider such an arrangement.

D. Seidman inquired if the MV Preservation Trust could assess the building and give them about the extent and cost of the renovations. G. Provost thought he could raise the project to the Board of Trustee’s meeting, and have them assign the project to a subcommittee and staff to research.

C. Doble inquired if they might be eligible for matching funds if the building was designated as a historical building.  G. Provost and N. Morris could not respond. L. Morris thought the designation process was another issue.  L. Peak mentioned that the building’s historical significance was already recognized by the state, and suggested contacting Harold Chapdelaine, the Tisbury Historic Commission Chairman or the MV Commission.

D. Seidman asked G. Provost and N. Morris if the MV Preservation Trustees could get back to the Planning Board with information about funding sources. G. Provost and N. Morris replied in the affirmative.


1. 2nd Annual Cape Coastal Conference
RE: June 5, 2014 (Thursday)

C. Doble informed the Board that she could not attend the conference. D. Seidman indicated that he would not be available as well.

2. Complete Streets Forum for Martha’s Vineyard
RE: May 20, 2014 at 1-3PM (C. Doble, D. Seidman, P Harris)

C. Doble learned that they were in the process of drafting a “Complete Street” policy for each town on the island to adopt. The public forum served as an informational meeting to introduce the concept of “Complete Streets” and its importance prior to approaching the individual towns for their support.

C. Doble noted that there were representatives from DOT, local health organizations, and the “Walk Boston Group”, who explained that the policy takes into consideration the needs of rural communities, which would serve the island. She also understood that communities who have adopted the policy will be able to secure construction funds from the state for streets and other improvements provided they are multi-user (pedestrian and cars) friendly.

C. Doble met with Peg Regan’s replacement on local Complete Streets program on the Vineyard and thought it was important and beneficial to maintain contact with this group, given that they’ve worked on several projects with the schools on the island’s behalf, with little support from the towns. C. Doble believed they were a valuable resource.

3. Conference on Inclusionary Zoning

D. Seidman reported that he and Cheryl attended different sessions offered at the conference.  The session on inclusionary zoning pertained to the development of affordable housing in the larger scale projects, whereby developers are allowed to increase the number of units if 15% of the units are designated for affordable units. A development with 100 units is required to assign 15% of the units (15) for affordable housing. On meeting the requirement, the developer is then allowed to construct an additional 30 units for a total of 130. The subsidized units have to be equal in quality and value to qualify for the increase in density.

D. Seidman noted that they had also discussed the concept of mitigation payments, of which there were three criteria.  The two recalled were voluntary and practicality, the latter of which the developer pays out money in lieu of constructing the affordable units. D. Seidman noted that there was an issue with the second option, in that it was difficult to substantiate how the developer benefited from the contribution. L. Peak thought the developer was able to sell the units at full cost. D. Seidman explained that the issue was more a legal matter, which had yet to be tested in court.

D. Seidman indicated that he spoke with of one Kendall Square’s developers, Daniel Winney about inclusionary zoning, and learned that it was intended to encourage the development of affordable housing, target all developments over ten units, and allowing a 30% increase in density.   D. Seidman advised him that the concept’s application did not appear to apply to the smaller townships on the Vineyard.  D. Winney agreed and suggested that they could allow the development of affordable units on the substandard lots, and reducing the side and rear setbacks only, so that the frontage remained consistent with the district’s minimum requirements.

D. Seidman indicated that D. Winney referred him to Jim Hexter (617-522-5315) for additional information on affordable housing. He understood J. Hexter has worked with other municipalities to increase their affordable housing stock.

C. Doble indicated that she attended the session on case studies, and learned that the developer shouldered the burden of marketing, selling or renting the units, so that it would be very overwhelming to an inexperienced individual.   Developers however were given options to payout money in lieu of building affordable units, in what is referred to as a “buy-out”, or;  rehabilitating existing housing stock to create affordable units.  

C. Doble did not see how the program or government incentives applied to the smaller rural towns. L. Peak and fellow board members agreed. D. Seidman thought they presented an alternative.  C. Doble replied that it was a ‘friendly’ Chapter 40B.

L. Peak thought a more appropriate alternative was to allow town residents to construct a guesthouse provided the unit was affordable.  D. Seidman noted that the affordable units in Third Square were not in perpetuity.  L. Peak noted that the Town of Lexington adopted a regulation that would allow them to vote at town meeting to exempt a parcel of land from certain zoning restrictions for the purpose of creating affordable housing, provided it met the prescribed criteria.  It was challenged in court as spot zoning, but upheld because the regulation applied to all lots within the town.

4. Mass Department of Transportation – Highway Division
RE: Public Hearing – 21 May 2014 (Wed) at 6 PM on the proposed Bike and Pedestrian Improvements on Beach Road

H. Stephenson, D. Seidman and C. Doble attended what was described to be a presentation of the state’s Department of Transportation’s preliminary plan pertaining to the reconstruction of Beach Road from Five Corners to Winds Up. They noted that the road at Packer’s tanks was 43 ft. wide, which presented an issue for their plan.

H. Stephenson did not find the presentation especially informative and explained that the two concepts the state presented were limited to the following:
1) a sidewalk and shoulder on each side of the road with two car lanes that ran the whole stretch of the road, and
2) starting at the gas station, everything on the north side of the road was shifted to the south side, including a shared use path from the Saltwater Restaurant to WindsUp.

H. Stephenson was of the impression that the assumption was that there would be a bike path behind Saltwater leading up to Lagoon Pond Road, which presented problems.

C. Doble inquired if in the discussions that followed after she left the meeting they decided to have a sidewalk on one side of the road and a shared-use-path on the other. H. Lee described the discussions as one-sided.

H. Lee noted that they presented a textbook snapshot of the road without any consideration of the existing conditions, or pedestrian and vehicular movement.  H. Stephenson thought they had to provide the information, and not rely on the state. C. Doble agreed with H. Lee and was disappointed in the illustrations that lacked sufficient detail for a discussion, much less a consensus. H. Lee thought the state could at the very least color code the different options to make them much more obvious for the average layperson.

D. Seidman claimed that the preliminary proposal were there recommendations to address the pedestrian and traffic flow from the Steamship Authority through Five Corners to the Drawbridge.  C. Doble thought the drawings were horrible and failed to illustrate key elements of the proposals. D. Seidman concurred.

H. Lee asked whether it was safer to accommodate the pedestrians and cyclists together or to combine the bicycle traffic with the automobiles.  He thought they would have fewer accidents if they separated the pedestrians and cyclists from the motorists. H. Lee further questioned M. London’s suggestion that a 12 ft. wide. He disagreed.

C. Doble thought it would be interesting to know when they will be returning and what they will be showing at their next meeting. D. Seidman thought they should invite them to a Planning Board meeting to discuss their plans before they go out to the public.  C. Doble mentioned that the consultant at the presentation was the same individual the MV Commission hired to study the missing links for the shared use paths. She recommended contacting Bill Veno at the MV Commission for information about the state’s contacts.  H. Lee thought it was important to engage them from the onset to stop them from committing to a particular plan or concept without sufficient input from the public.  D. Seidman was of the impression that the state was amenable to ideas.  

C. Doble thought it was important to know their schedule, what they planned to present in the future, stress the importance of the education component in public projects and to review their materials to improve the quality of their presentations.  H. Lee agreed, adding that it was important to keep a regular meeting schedule with the state’s representatives to prevent them from locking into their version.

H. Stephenson noted that it was important for them to have a sense of what they wanted the corridor to look like, or where the sidewalk and the links to the SUP should be before they met with the state. He agreed with C. Doble that they need to engage the public from the beginning if they wanted to keep the project moving forward.

L. Peak inquired if the state had a survey plan of the road to know just how much the abutters were intruding on the public road. No one could respond.

H. Lee did not believe the state was invested in improving the aesthetics. L. Peak did not think they could do much. H. Stephenson thought they could remove the telephone poles. C. Doble noted that there were great examples of attractive “working waterfronts”, and well worth looking at them.

Due to the late hour, L. Peak asked the Board to explain what the state’s plans were. C. Doble did not believe they provided the information.  D. Seidman obtained one of the presenter’s business card and offered to contact her to ask for a better diagram and if she planned to have a follow up meeting in the near future.   

L. Peak thought they had to identify the sidelines of the existing road, and if the abutters were intruding on the road layout. He did not understand how the state could begin to discuss possible ‘takings’ without know how much land they need to acquire.  D. Seidman thought they surveyed the road and offered to ask for a copy.

H. Stephenson inquired about the MV Commission’s ties to the project. C. Doble indicated that the MV Commission created a Master Plan for the down island towns, which included a network for the bicycle paths and SUPs.  The consultant that worked on the Master Plan was now employed by the state.  Funds for the construction of the bike paths and SUPs were review by the Joint Transportation Committee, which was comprised of town representatives. The Joint Transportation Committee met at the MV Commission to review and prioritize state funded construction projects on island.

5.  Tisbury Planning Board’s Appointments       (Board and/or Committee)
A. Site Plan Review Board (Island Road, Coastal District and Waterfront Commercial District)

D. Seidman moved to appoint C. Doble to the Site Plan Review Board as the Planning Board’s representative.  H. Stephenson seconded the motion, which motion carried. 4/0/0                              
B. Land Bank Advisory Committee 

D. Seidman moved to reappoint J. Thompson to the Land Bank Advisory Committee. H. Stephenson seconded the motion.  Said motion carried. 4/0/0

C. Harbor Management Committee  

D. Seidman moved to re-appoint J. Thompson to the Harbor Management Committee. H. Stephenson seconded the motion, and the motion carried.  4/0/0

D. Tisbury Housing Committee

H. Stephenson moved to re-appoint D. Seidman to the Tisbury Housing Committee. J. Thompson seconded the motion, which motion carried.  4/0/0
E. Cabinet (member of the Planning Board)       

D. Seidman moved to re-appoint L. Peak as the Planning Board’s representative to the Cabinet.  J. Thompson seconded the motion. 4/0/0
F. Community Preservation Committee     

D. Seidman moved to appoint C. Doble to the Community Preservation Committee as the Planning Board’s representative.  J. Thompson seconded the motion. The motion carried. 4/0/0

G. Sewage Review Board (formerly Sewer Flow Review Board)

D. Seidman moved to re-appoint L. Peak as the Planning Board’s representative to the Sewage Review Board. J. Thompson seconded the motion, and the motion carried.

H. Wastewater Advisory Committee        .

H. Stephenson moved to re-appoint L. Peak as the Planning Board’s representative to the Wastewater Advisory Committee. H. Stephenson seconded the motion. The motion carried.  4/0/0

6. Tisbury Planning Board
RE: Officers

L. Peak informed the Board that he had been thinking about stepping down from the co-chairmanship for some time, and was hoping someone would be interested in the position. D. Seidman expressed an interest and contacted him to discuss the specifics of the chairmanship’s responsibilities.  

He explained that the Board voted to split the responsibilities the past couple of years because it worked well for him, This did not prevent the Board members from re-organizing.  L. Peak did not know what D. Seidman preferred.  D. Seidman replied that he was open to the Board’s preference.

H. Stephenson volunteered to continue serving as Co-Chairman until the end of the summer, if the board members did not have any objections.

C. Doble inquired about procedural protocol in the event the Chairman was absent from a meeting. L. Peak noted that the Vice- Chairman traditionally assumed the Chairman’s role and responsibility in conducting the meeting.  The Co-Chairman functioned in a similar capacity.  H. Stephenson noted that the co-chairmanship allowed them to share the lead role and responsibility for different projects, and assignments suited to their interests and strengths.   C. Doble inquired if they were considering the Co-Chairmanship this year. H. Stephenson expressed an interest in being co-chair.  D. Seidman reiterated that he would support the Board’s decision.

L. Peak moved to nominate H. Stephenson and D. Seidman as Co-Chairmen of the Planning Board.  J. Thompson so moved. C. Doble seconded the motion. And the motion carried.   4/0/0

7. Island Housing Trust

D. Seidman inquired if the Planning Board had special permit granting authority on IHT’s housing project on 6 Water Street with the recent zoning bylaw amendment. The board secretary replied in the negative and explained that all proposals within the B1 District were within the Zoning Board of Appeals jurisdiction.

She also explained that the bylaw amendment did not expand the Planning Board’s powers as previously suggested by the Building Inspector.  In order to expand the Board’s authority, they had to decide if they wanted to expand their scope of address to all uses within the B1 District or limit it to certain uses, which would require additional revisions in the bylaw pertaining to the specific use or uses.   

Planning Board members were emailed a copy of IHT’s plans, accompanying their application to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a special permit.  H. Stephenson asked C. Doble to report on IHT’s decision to endorse J. Weisman’s proposal over Mr. Canada’s.

C. Doble replied that IHT’s Board felt that the loft structure was consistent with the architecture in the area, whereas Mr. Canada’s proposal for a series of smaller units, similar to courtyards appeared to be much more appropriate in downtown Edgartown. She recalled that there were other issues with the elevators and parking, and other concerns that were raised during the site visit with the state.

C. Doble noted that they opted to remove the commercial unit on the first floor and add a unit for a total of six units, which also entitled them to an additional $150,000 or $300,000.  D. Seidman recalled that there was a monetary incentive for the additional unit.

H. Lee thought the design was very odd and as unattractive, if not more unattractive than Stop & Shop’s proposal. He recalled that IHT promised to keep the porch arch details and columns, but replaced it with a fence.  The long and narrow structure being proposed did not look at all representative of Cape Cod architecture.

D. Seidman noted that the proposed structure was identical to the building across the street. C. Doble observed that the proposed building was higher.  C. Doble noted that it was originally being compared to the Breeze Building.  H. Stephenson did not like the idea that it appeared to be a warehouse on stilts.  He recalled when the roof line stepped down a level when it approached the street, and it was suggested that they would fare better if they added another unit.    C. Doble and D. Seidman corrected H. Stephenson and advised the board that J. Weisman’s proposal never stepped down a level.

H. Stephenson thought “visually it was a mistake”.  It would have been better if it was scaled down towards the street.  L. Peak inquired about the number of units because the plans reflected four means of egress.  

C. Doble noted that she did not like the detailing of J. Weisman’s proposal or the end of the building that faced the street.  H. Stephenson agreed and thought they needed to add   more details and windows to the building if they intended to use Breeze’s building as a reference point.  C. Doble the public hearing process provided them with an opportunity to comment on the architecture and streetscape.

L. Peak noted that he counted five (5) units on the floor plans IHT submitted with their application. C. Doble recommended contacting P. Jordi to ask for the updated plans, because the plans they were reviewing were inaccurate. She suggested inviting P. Jordi to their next meeting.  L. Peak noted that the Board was scheduled to meet on June 4, 2014 and would be able to discuss the proposal before it is heard by the Board of Appeals.

H. Stephenson spoke with J. Grande about a wide range of subject impacting the town. During the discussion, he understood the Board of Selectmen wanted to meet with the Planning Board on June 7, 2014 (Saturday) to discuss or set goals on what as a town they might want to focus on.  D. Seidman wanted to recommend having meetings with the public to ask our constituents what they thought of Tisbury, what business should it be in, its future, etc.  He thought it would be premature to talk with the Board of Selectmen before they had the opportunity to meet with the public.  H. Stephenson disagreed.

L. Peak requested a clarification. H. Stephenson explained that the Board of Selectmen was interested in discussing the process for a Master Plan with the Planning Board in addition to on-going projects. He clarified that they were not setting goals, merely discussing the process to move forward on the projects.  

H. Stephenson noted that in his conversation with J. Grande, T. Israel was interested in speaking with the Planning Board about creating a special permit process for projects in the downtown.  He thought it would be premature to do so without having a plan for the area to understand what they wanted to accomplish.  He recommended that they look into developing a process that would engage the whole town to identify issues and set goals.  It was not a process of selecting specific projects with the Board of Selectmen, rather than opening up a process.  D. Seidman thought it was premature.  H. Stephenson planned on meeting with the Board of Selectmen.

The Board Secretary inquired if the town administrator planned on contacting the Board and if they intended to meet on a weekend as opposed to a scheduled meeting. H. Stephenson did not know, and recommended contacting J. Grande.  C. Doble thought they should have better communication then they’ve had in the past year.

D. Seidman thought they should meet with them at their regularly scheduled meeting, just as the other department heads. L. Peak recommended adding the Planning Board on their meeting agenda.

L. Peak asked H. Stephenson what the Board of Selectmen wanted to discuss. H. Stephenson replied that they wanted an informal conversation about the status of the town and how we might work together to set goals on projects they might want to work on. D. Seidman thought the Planning Board should reach out to their constituents first and ask them what business they thought the town was in, what they wanted it to look like, etc. They had to see what the public wanted before they could draft policy.

L. Peak inquired if there was any reason not to know what their opinion was as part of the public process. D. Seidman replied in the affirmative.

C. Doble indicated that in her experience on planning projects, it was crucial to solicit the Board of Selectmen’s support in the process. Whereas they may not be in the position to share information or thoughts, it would be interesting to see what their thoughts on various projects.

D. Seidman thought they could start attending Board of Selectmen meetings to learn about their issues, and interests and report on Planning Board issues and projects.  The Co-Chairmen could share the responsibility of attending the meetings to report to the Planning Board. H. Stephenson asked D. Seidman if he thought their attendance at the Board of Selectmen’s meeting would create a working relationship with them.  D. Seidman replied in the affirmative.

C. Doble thought the Planning Board should wait and hear from the town administrator for a confirmation. She thought it would benefit the Board to listen and understand the Selectmen’s point of views, ideas, etc. and to also have a presence at their meeting as D. Seidman suggested.  H. Stephenson thought it was important to develop a rapport with the Board of Selectmen, which would not be possible in a public session.

H. Lee approached M. Loberg prior to the elections with advice about creating a public forum where department heads, board members, and commissioners could meet on a monthly basis to discuss their projects, strategize on future projects, share information, etc.

D. Seidman inquired if the informal discussion qualified as a meeting if two or all of the Selectmen met, and if the informal discussion would then have to be posted as an official meeting. H. Stephenson did not know and could not answer. H. Stephenson reiterated that he was interested in establishing good rapport with the Board of Selectmen to avoid the issues that surfaced during Stop & Shop’s hearings process.

D. Seidman reiterated that he still felt it was premature to meet with the Board of Selectmen without first meeting with the public to solicit their impressions about how they view the town, the business it is in, etc. H. Stephenson asked D. Seidman for his opinion.  D. Seidman indicated that he did not have a preconceived idea about the town, but felt the town was not investing in its tourist industry or promoting its waterfront.

H. Lee thought it was important to create and maintain a strong community image to the tourist, who would appreciate its charm as a quaint town. D. Seidman agreed it was important to promote the town’s assets similar to Oak Bluffs, Edgartown and Menemsha.  H. Stephenson did not think their community wanted to be viewed as a tourist service town. D. Seidman understood, but felt they should promote their working waterfront with tours to Benjamin & Gannon where the boats are built. We had to have a plan to develop this.


1.  T. Ewell Hopkins – Zoning Reform with Sen. Dan Wolfe
RE: Public Meeting on May 28, 2014 at 5 PM in the Oak Bluffs Library

2. MV Commission
RE: 16 May 2014 Extended Schedule

3. Thomson-West
Re: Zoning Bulletin, 25 April 2014

4. Massachusetts Municipal Association
RE: TheBeacon, May 2014

PRO FORM        Meeting opened, conducted and closed in due form at 10:10 P.M.  (m/s/c  5/0/0)          
Respectfully submitted;
Patricia V. Harris, Secretary

APPROVAL:       Approved and accepted as official minutes;

______________  _________________________
Date            L. Anthony Peak