PLANNING BOARD
TOWN OF TISBURY
P.O. BOX 602
TOWN HALL ANNEX
VINEYARD HAVEN, MASSACHUSETTS 02568
(508) 696-4270
Fax (508) 696-7341
MEETING MINUTES
DATE: June 25, 2014
TIME: 7:05 PM
PLACE: Town Hall Annex
BILLS: Tisbury Police Relief Association…..$42.00
Staples………………..…………….$115.80
MINUTES: As referred in the June 18, 2014 Meeting Agenda
25 June 2014 m/s/c 5/0/0
APPOINTMENTS:
7:05 PM Planning Board
H. Stephenson noted that it was difficult for him to read the materials that were prepared for tonight’s discussions, and decided to turn the chairmanship to D. Seidman, Planning Board Co-Chairman to continue the meeting.
He added for the record that A. Peak and the board secretary contacted the Attorney General’s Office to inquire about D. Seidman’s participation in the upcoming deliberations and public hearings, and learned that he was allowed to participate in the discussions, with the understanding that he would not be allowed to vote on the applications.
7:07 PM Continuation of deliberations: Richard Paradise, AP 09B18 Re: Parking Accommodations
The deliberations were continued at 7:07PM, and D. Seidman noted that a draft document had been prepared for the Board’s review. A. Peak stated that he had prepared the draft special permit decision with the board secretary’s assistance, and recommended skipping the first two pages containing the standard information about the applicant’s proposal, the public process, and applicable regulations. He asked the Board to review the written decision’s findings and conditions to determine whether all of their concerns had been addressed.
D. Seidman inquired if the applicant submitted documentation regarding the MV Film Society’s tax exempt status as a not-for-profit organization. The board secretary replied in the affirmative. A. Peak did not see a reference to the parking plan that depicted the sixteen parking spaces. He recommended adding a condition stating that the parking should conform to the plan as submitted. D. Seidman noted that the letter of application referred to ten (10) parking spaces, which was very different from the hand sketched plan Reid A. Dunn created for the record. The modified plan illustrated sixteen (16) parking spaces.
A. Peak recommended adding the language as Condition #3 (Parking should be as shown on the plan, not to exceed sixteen (16) parking spaces), and adding another condition, stating “Notification to the Planning Board by either party that they will no longer participate as outlined above, shall be cause for termination of this permit”. D. Seidman questioned the applicant’s ability to park the number of cars, noting that during the day, patrons parked in the center of lot, which accommodated ten (10) cars at most. H. Stephenson thought the parking arrangement could be different during the evening. C. Doble noted a similar parking arrangement the other evening on attending the theater.
C. Doble added that they applicant should have a parking attendant on the street to forewarn patrons heading west on Beach Road that the parking lot was full, so that they could just park at Hinckley’s before having to circulate in the Tisbury Marketplace’s parking lot. A. Peak believed the applicant stationed the parking attendants on the sidewalk with signs to direct people to the abutting lot. C. Doble thought the applicant should have a parking attendant on Hinckley & Sons’ property to alert patrons that the Tisbury Marketplace’s parking lot was full before they arrived at the Tisbury Marketplace. A. Peak concurred and suggested language.
D. Seidman revised the recommendation and suggested “When the Tisbury Marketplace lot is determined to be full, the film center’s parking attendant should be stationed at HN Hinckley’s entrance to intercept the traffic”. A. Peak commented that the modified document now had a total of six (6) conditions. The Board concurred.
There being no further recommendations, A. Peak entered a motion to adopt the draft special permit document with the aforementioned revisions for their final decision. J. Thompson seconded the motion, and the motion carried. 4/0/0 D. Seidman did not vote on the application.
A. Peak moved to close the deliberations and to return to their regular session. J. Thompson seconded the motion. The motion carried at 7:22 PM. 4/0/0
5.7:15 PM Continuation of deliberations: Tropical LLC, AP 09C01
Attendance: Joelson Cardoso, proprietor
The continuation of the deliberations for the aforementioned applicant was duly opened at 7:24PM. D. Seidman referred the Board to the draft special permit document that was prepared for the Board’s review.
A. Peak informed the Board that the revised draft was a modified version of a previously endorsed decision. He had eliminated the information that was no longer pertinent to the current application, except for the seventh paragraph on the third page of the document, which read:
Mr. Charter notified the Board that the property owner had offered him the use of the rear parking area for his deliveries, if the Board objected to his current delivery arrangements.
L. Peak asked the applicant if the parking area was still available to the store for deliveries. J. Cardoso replied in the negative and explained that he made the deliveries in his own van in the rear of the building within the vicinity of the dumpsters. There was sufficient area to back up the vehicle for his deliveries. A. Peak recommended deleting the highlighted paragraph. D. Seidman concurred.
D. Seidman opened the discussions to the Board. J. Thompson did not have any issue with the document. A. Peak recommended asking the applicant if he had any questions or issues with the draft document. D. Seidman directed the question to the applicant. J. Cardoso read the document and stated that he did not have an issue with the document.
D. Seidman referred to the Conditions & Restrictions and read from the document. There being no comment or questions from the Board and the applicant, he entertained a motion on the draft document. H. Stephenson moved to accept the draft special permit document with the one deletion on page 3 pertaining to parking for deliveries as their final decision. J. Thompson seconded the motion, and the motion carried. 4/0/0
D. Seidman entertained a motion to close the deliberations and to return to their regularly scheduled session at 7:30 PM. A. Peak so moved. H. Stephenson seconded the motion, which motion carried. 4/0/0
7:45 PM Public Hearing Cont.: Richard S. Dubin, Trustee for 123 Greenwood Ave. Realty Trust re: Form C, AP 26D18.1
Attendance: Refer to signature sheet
D. Seidman opened the continuation of the public hearing for the aforementioned applicant at 7:45 PM, and read an abridged notice of the proposal for the board’s benefit, and the following correspondence that was submitted by:
1. Paul Wohler, Tisbury Waterworks Superintendent, dated 10 June requesting the installation of a fire hydrant at the entrance to the subdivision, and
2. Tisbury Board of Health, dated 11 June 2014 requiring the installation of a monitoring well on Lot 2C (illustrated on map).
C. Gilstad submitted revised plans, dated 20 June 2014. G. Sourati explained that they shortened the right leg of the road by twenty-six point five (26.5) feet to address the abutter’s concerns with the road layout, and to redirect the traffic away from the two (2) large oak trees. As part of the revisions, G. Sourati added plantings along the southern perimeter of the road layout and property to screen the road and future guesthouse (Lot 2C) drawn from the immediate abutter’s view , as depicted on the revised profile plan .
H. Stephenson inquired if future residents would be driving down the middle of the fork to minimize the traffic flow’s impact on assessor parcel 26D18. G. Sourati explained that the road layout was designed to accommodate emergency vehicles, and to comply with the frontage requirement for the zoning district. They were entitled to access their properties at any point along their frontage. A. Peak explained that the hammerhead on the plan was a requirement. It provided a means by which to turn a vehicle around.
D. Seidman thought one of the stakes outlining the perimeter of the property was behind N. Tarter-Nevin’s fence. He noted that there were several large trees along the northern perimeter, and inquired if there were plans to remove them. G. Sourati replied in the negative, and explained that he intended to remove the minimum number of trees as possible for the road. D. Seidman recalled that N. Tarter-Nevin had a pool in her back yard that abutted Lot 2B, and asked if he had plans to plant trees along the shared property line. G. Sourati replied in the negative, noting that the only trees he offered to plant were the four (4) ft. trees along the southern perimeter which abutted AP 26D18. D. Seidman clarified that he was inquiring about the dense vegetation and trees along the perimeter. He did not want to
see the properties denuded. G. Sourati noted that the dense vegetation was invasive, and not the type of plantings they’d want to have in their homes. A. Peak inquired if an eight (8) or ten (10) ft. no cut zone along the boundary will present an issue. G. Sourati thought the restriction was excessive, given that they were all small lots. A. Peak noted that he was solely referring to the common boundaries. G. Sourati was concerned about having sufficient land area to accommodate the septic systems, because they had to meet the ten (10) ft. setback requirement to the property line, and the twenty feet distance to the building’s foundation and additional ten (10) ft. for the septic system. H. Stephenson they could have a no cut zone within the ten (10) ft. setback requirement, where they did not have the septic field. G. Sourati agreed, but was concerned about having to keep the invasive vegetation. D. Seidman observed a good amount of
specimen trees that should be saved. C. Doble recommended protecting trees of a certain caliper. H. Stephenson thought picking a caliper was too arbitrary, and asked G. Sourati if he could identify the trees to be saved. G. Sourati inquired if they would consider a “no cut zone” within the ten (10) foot outside perimeter of the neighboring properties, excluding the vegetation. D. Seidman thought that was agreeable.
H. Stephenson noted that they were proposing additional plantings within the road layout, and inquired if they would consider additional plantings within the “no cut zone”. G. Sourati indicated that while he did not propose the additional plantings as part of the proposal, he could add some.
C. Doble asked G. Sourati if he intended to construct a cellar, or fill in Lot 2B because of the way it dropped down. G. Sourati replied that the grade had to be raised at least one (1) foot. L. Peak recalled that it was the same information G. Sourati mentioned at the site visit.
L. Peak inquired if the applicant was aware that the local subdivision rules and regulations required property owners, not part of the subdivision to be part of the homeowners’ association if they were to access their property on the subdivision road. C. Gilstad replied in the affirmative, and directed the Board to the fifth notation on the plan addressing the subject.
B. Jordal and N. Shirley, the abutters on AP 26D18 were concerned about the location of the driveway on Lot 2C, and asked if G. Sourati would consider having a shared driveway for both the house and guesthouse. G. Sourati replied in the affirmative. They appreciated the applicant’s response to their concerns and thanked him for shortening the road and adding the plantings. L. Peak inquired about the trees they proposed to plant. C. Gilstad replied that they did not select the tree as of yet, but thought it could be a Leland Cyprus. H. Stephenson thought they should stagger them to create a denser screen. N. Shirley agreed with H. Stephenson.
There being no further comment, D. Seidman entertained a motion to accept the application under consideration as a Small Project. L. Peak moved to accept the application for consideration as a Small Project under the Subdivision Rules and Regulations. H. Stephenson seconded the motion, and the motion carried. 4/0/0
D. Seidman entertained a motion to grant the applicant a waiver from the road surface requirement. The applicant wanted to reduce the improved surface from 18’ to 12’. H. Stephenson so moved. J. Thompson seconded the motion. L. Peak reminded the applicant that the Board wanted to discuss the quality of the RAP to make sure it met a minimum standard. G. Sourati offered to provide the Board the specifications of the material. L. Peak noted that they’ve use the surface material on Old Holmes Road as a benchmark. m/s/c 4/0/0
D. Seidman indicated that the applicant submitted a request for a second waiver, pertaining to s. 06, the forty (40) ft. wide road layout requirement, the concrete pavement requirement and storm water management plan. D. Seidman noted that the applicant was proposing a 30 ft. wide road layout, as shown on the road cross section in the revised plan. L. Peak so moved. C. Doble seconded the motion, which motion carried. 4/0/0
D. Seidman mentioned that the applicant submitted a separate application for a special permit, requesting an accelerated Rate of Development Schedule to allow the development of two (2) lots in 2014 and one (1) lot in 2015. D. Seidman referred to Section 04.07.05 and read the criteria. L. Peak noted that it would be less disruptive to the adjacent properties if more of the construction was done at one time. H. Stephenson thought the regulation applied to the larger developments. D. Seidman deferred to the regulation, which limited development to a maximum of two lots per calendar year.
D. Seidman entertained a motion. C. Doble moved to approve the applicant’s request for an increase in the Rate of Development given that the proposed development contained less than ten (10) buildable lots. The grant of the special permit was to allow the applicant to develop two (2) lots in 2014 and one (1) lot in 2015 as noted in the letter of application, dated 02 May 2014. H. Stephenson seconded the motion, which motion carried. 4/0/0
N. Shirley inquired about potential recourse if the road or driveway is not constructed according to the plan or discussion. She was concerned about the location of the driveway on Lot 2C. L. Peak replied that the road layout was definitive. The applicant had to construct the road according to the plan. D. Seidman noted that he had a concern about the ten (10) ft. buffer to protect the trees of a certain caliper (1 ft diameter). G. Sourati was willing to illustrate the location of the driveway and ten ft. buffer of the trees on a revised plan. L. Peak recommended adding a notion on the plan about the caliper of the trees. C. Doble thought he should include a statement about the feasibility of future growth.
D. Seidman recommended continuing the public hearing on July 16, 2014 to give the applicant time to submit the revised plan. L Peak moved to continue the hearing on July 16, 2014 at 7:10 PM in the Town Hall Annex. C. Doble seconded the motion, which motion carried. 4/0/0 The Planning Board resumed their regularly scheduled meeting at 8:27 PM.
8:30 PM Public Hearing Cont.: Dunn Family LLC re: Special Permit Amendment, AP 09B19.18/19.19
Attendance: Mary & Jackson Kenworth, Ronald Rappaport (Esq.), Benjamin Robinson
Hearing commenced in due form at 8:30 Pm. D. Seidman, Planning Board Co-Chairman read the public hearing notice into the minutes and entered the following correspondence into the record of the minutes:
1. Catherine Fullin, Tisbury Board of Health dated 25 June 2014 approving the applicant’s request for an additional five (5) seats for a total seating capacity of 82.
2. Glenn E. Mauk, Dir. of the Department of Public Works, dated 23 June 2014 confirming that the applicant’s request for additional sewer flow did not require the Department of Public Works’ approval.
3. Douglas Reese, Chairman of the Tisbury Marketplace’s Board of Trustees, dated 23 June 2014 in support of the applicant’s request for five (5) additional seats, additional correspondence dated 19 June 2014 rescinding his previous correspondence of 11 June 2014 in which he asked the Board to keep the restaurant’s seating capacity to 77.
4. Reid (Sam) A. Reid submitted a document entitled “ “Amendment to the Master Deed of the Tisbury Marketplace Condominium and Certificate of Approval of the Trustees of the Tisbury Marketplace Condominium Trust, dated 08 December 2011 (and attachments)”. D. Seidman read section 6 (e-g) in regards to the Exclusive Easement Areas of the Master Deed.
D. Seidman informed the Board that the board secretary took pictures of the tree in front of the restaurant illustrating the metal bracket supporting the restaurant’s sign was cutting into the bark.
R. Dunn was invited to continue his presentation to the Board. R. Dunn recounted that the Board had expressed concern about his ability to serve food in the screened porch. L. Peak inquired if the applicant was amending his proposal for an additional five (5) seats. The applicant replied in the affirmative, but wanted to demonstrate to L. Peak and the Board that he obtained the right to serve food in the porch as an exclusive area to the restaurant via the amended deed. R. Dunn noted that the four (4) booths were designed to seat five (5) people, but has accommodated six (6) to seven (7) people. The Board of Health has not had an issue with additional accommodation.
He informed the Board that he was in the process of selling the restaurant to Mary and Jackson Kenworth, and wanted to wanted to make the additional seating capacity official. He explained that he’s been operating the restaurant the last four or five years at maximum capacity without incident and with the Board of Health’s approval, as per their correspondence.
R. Dunn reiterated that he wanted to add the five (5) seats to his proposal for the Board’s consideration and approval. He read the Board’s regulations, and believed he met all of the requirements. The use was listed in section 06. and appropriate for the site, in that it has been historically used as a restaurant in one form or another. He did not believe the restaurant would overburden any road, public water, drainage or sewer system to such an extent that the proposed use or any developed use in the immediate area or in any other area of the Town will be unduly subjected to hazards affecting health, safety or the general welfare; otherwise they would have become obvious in the seventh year of operation.
R. Dunn did not believe the restaurant would impact the view or vista of the lagoon or harbor since he was not proposing any exterior changes. The current design was approved by the Site Plan Review Board when he expanded and renovated the restaurant.
L. Peak reviewed the undated (2011) amendment to the Master Deed Mr. Dunn submitted and noted that the document postdated the approval of the two-story structure in 2010. He requested a clarification about the status of the brick patio. He inquired if was part of the Saltwater Restaurant, and if it altered the dimension of the condominium’s common lands. He asked if the applicant owned the brick patio or if it was still part of the common area. R. Dunn replied that he did not own the brick patio or the land underneath the patio L. Peak asked the applicant to clarify the meaning of the notation “LCE to benefit Building B” in pragmatic terms. R. Dunn explained that it was limited common area for the use … similar to a roof deck …. similar to Louis Larsen’s”.
L. Peak did not see a similar reference to L. Larsen’s units on any plan. L. Peak recalled the discussions of the L. Larsen’s outdoor seating, at the time he renovated his units, which were acknowledged to be on common land and open to the general public. The same criteria were employed when the outside patio was added to the Saltwater Restaurant. R. Dunn agreed and noted that it had since been revised.
L. Peak noted that in doing so R. Dunn had changed documents on which his original permits were granted. It concerned him that the applicant was revising agreed upon limitations for Areas A & B that were set in place for the grant of the previous proposal. He did not think the applicant could change the limitations after the fact. R. Dunn replied that the Condominium Association amended the Master Deed. L. Peak did not think the Trustees of the Condominium Association could approve amendments impacting the limitations. As such he wanted to ask the Planning Board to continue the hearing to confer with town counsel. L. Peak recalled that the MV Commission and Planning Board accepted his offer to relinquish any further use of the areas that were originally part of the development’s designated areas. R.
Dunn concurred, adding that the offer occurred after the improvements. L. Peak noted that the amendment occurred in 2011, after the approval of the two story building, which was based in part on the applicant’s offer to relinquish the use. The applicant further relinquished any claim on the common property when R. Dunn modified the parking area. R. Dunn clarified that the amendment to the Master Deed did not pertain to the limitation. L. Peak noted that the document indicated R. Dunn retained exclusive use of some of the property. R. Dunn noted that L. Peak was confusing the rights of the Developer with those of a condominium owner. R. Dunn explained that he relinquished certain development rights as a developer. He recommended reviewing the Master Deed.
Additional comments were made and L. Peak reiterated that R. Dunn had changed agreements upon which permits were granted. The separation of the two entities (developer vs. unit owner) has raised questions that will require a legal commentary for the Board. L. Peak felt that the incremental changes that have occurred after agreeing to the limitations were solely to suit the applicant’s purpose.
D. Seidman, Planning Board Co-Chairman offered to clarify the issue, and referred the Board and applicant to the October 3, 2007 Decision. He read the second entry under Background “ The Board of Health, at their regularly scheduled meeting on 12 June 2007 approved the applicant’s proposal for a full service restaurant with a seating capacity of 44 seats, with the understanding that the applicant was not to provide any wait service in the patio”. D. Seidman inquired if the applicant had documentation from the Board of Health allowing him to provide wait service in the patio. R. Dunn believed the Board of Health’s correspondence referred to the seats in the patio. He applied for an increase in seating capacity from 62 to 77. C. Doble noted that the applicant applied for the
additional seats in 2009. R. Dunn added that he had also applied to renovate the patio. D. Seidman inquired if R. Dunn asked the Board of Health to provide wait service in the patio. R. Dunn replied that was the purpose of the application. L. Peak noted that the applicant had seats in the patio. R. Dunn explained that the application was to provide wait service to customers in the patio. Otherwise an application to the Board of Health was not necessary.
R. Dunn explained that he returned to the MV Commission and the Town of Tisbury in 2009, one year after Saltwater opened he applied to the Building Department to close in the porch, and to get an additional fifteen (15) seats from the Board of Health. D. Seidman noted that the applicant during this time did not amend his special permit and inquired if there was a reason for not returning to the Planning Board. R. Dunn noted it was an oversight that did not come to light at the pending sale of the restaurant. He reiterated that it was unintentional.
H. Stephenson understood that L. Peak had asked the Board to continue the hearing to obtain a legal opinion. He wanted a summary on the issues and the status of the application. L. Peak was concerned that no consideration was given to the size of the restaurant, and if had a bearing on traffic. He’s witnessed traffic stopped in both directions on Beach Road because of the obstruction to the entrance of the parking lot. D. Seidman noted that the applicant’s incrementally increased the size of the restaurant so that it did not appear to be substantial. The fact was that the applicant nearly doubled the size of the restaurant without undergoing a review process that was required by special permit.
H. Stephenson noted that the Trustees present at the initial hearing appeared to be pleased with the existing parking pattern, provided the MV Film Society obtained off-site parking. In response to his question with regards to the parking situation, the Trustees indicated that they had managed well with the existing conditions, including Saltwater’s operations. Summer may be slightly different because there are more people on island, but it did not appear to bother the operations of the Tisbury Marketplace. He did not think the increase from the 65 seats to the 82 seats was significant to have a negative impact on the traffic. D. Seidman thought they had to consider the possibility that the restaurant could enjoy a high turnover, so that it could have an impact on traffic. L. Peak also noted
that the applicant was changing conditions on which other decisions were made.
H. Stephenson asked the applicant if he had considered securing additional parking via a lease or agreement similar to the MV Film Society or valet parking. R. Dunn replied that he did consider the option because it had not been an issue for the restaurant, even in the last two years that the movie theater has been in operation.
C. Doble believed there had to been an issue about the parking and traffic for the Tisbury Marketplace Board of Trustees letter, even though the letter in question was subsequently withdrawn and replaced with a letter in favor of the proposal for 82 seats. From her perspective the MV Film Society addressed the need for additional parking by utilizing the parking area next door to make the Tisbury Market Place parking lot work better. She noticed that the Condominium Association designated short term parking for the Rocco’s Pizza and the Net Result, and asked the applicant if he had given thought to re-designating the parking spaces around the restaurant to secure parking for his clientele. It would decrease some of the overflow of traffic on Beach Road as people circulated through the Marketplace’s
parking lot in search of a parking space.
R. Dunn replied that his clientele did not have issues finding parking spaces because the first and second seatings were timed before the movie theater opened at 7:30 PM. If they were fortunate to have a third seating, customers did not arrive until after the Net Result closed. He acknowledged that the movie theater placed a significant burden on the marketplace, but the condominium unit owners worked it out. He could not respond to Chairman of the Board of Trustee’s letters, except to say that it stemmed from “pure politics”.
L. Peak asked the applicant to explain the meaning of Section 6 in the 2011 amendment. R. Dunn explained that he had relinquished just about all rights, except for the waterfront as Declarant. It did not apply to his rights as the owner of Saltwater Restaurant. L. Peak noted that Section 6 stated “But for rights to construct additional units in Area “B” as shown on the sketch plans…..the Declarant hereby releases all other rights…..”. R. Dunn noted that it pertained to the theatre. L. Peak noted that the document was dated after the theater. R. Dunn explained that the amendment was a global agreement between him, the developer and the Condominium at the time they did the theater. L. Peak commented that he was the developer, and a member of the
condominium association. He asked the applicant to provide the Board with the recorded and dated copy of the amendment, because the date was pertinent to his concerns.
R. Dunn inquired if L. Peak was concerned that he may have retained rights to build on other places in the property. L. Peak replied that he was worried that he may have changed conditions, which were part and parcel to earlier decisions granting him permits.
L. Peak asked the applicant to explain what he actually owned. R. Dunn replied that he owned the two units comprising Saltwater, the two units comprising the movie theater and one other unit. As Declarant, or developer, he had retained rights along the waterfront. L. Peak referred to the amendment, which stated “but for B & C”. R. Dunn explained that they had already been developed.
D. Seidman recommended continuing the hearing. L. Peak entered a motion to continue the public hearing until July 23, 2014 at 7:15 PM in the Town Hall Annex to obtain legal comment. H. Stephenson seconded the motion, which motion carried. 4/0/0
D. Seidman thought it would be helpful to the Board if the applicant could provide documentation from the Board of Health with regards to the wait service on the patio.
The Planning Board resumed their regularly scheduled meeting at 9:17 PM.
BOARD DISCUSSIONS:
1. Community Visioning
A. Manning the booth at the Tisbury Fair on July 8, 2014
B. Volunteers
C. Survey
D. Posters, brochures, handouts
The board secretary reported that John Custer, Tisbury School Principal had emailed her to inform her that the school auditorium was available. Given that it is open to other organizations and events, he recommended getting back to him with the dates to secure the venue.
J. Schilling, Fire Chief emailed his response to the Board and confirmed that the meeting room would be available in the summer and fall, but that it may be difficult to accommodate us the fall when he held training sessions for staff. He too suggested getting back to him as soon as possible with potential dates.
The board secretary was still waiting to hear from Joyce Stiles-Tucker about the availability of the Tisbury Council on Aging’s meeting room.
C. Doble prepared an outline for the Board delineating the “next steps” in the visioning process to start the project. The one item she wanted to bring to the Board’s attention was the importance of having conversations with people who were going to be instrumental to the process right from the start.
She emailed Aase Jones to ask for an appointment with the Board of Selectmen on the Planning Board’s behalf to inform them of their efforts to initiate the planning process, and introduce the subject prior to the discussions she anticipated holding with the Board of Selectmen at their joint meeting on July 9, 2014.
C. Doble noted that the project went beyond the abilities of the Board, which meant that they would have to create a committee to set up the venues and workshops. She was hoping that they would be able to convene a group of people after the Street Fair to brain storm through the details (venues, strategies, facilitators, workshops, etc.) and help launch the project.
The outline contained information about organization, the preparation of the workshops, the scheduling of the workshops and a summary. C. Doble also wanted to discuss what they needed to do at the Street Fair, and prepared a sample survey for the board to review. C. Doble explained some of the materials she was preparing to introduce the concept, and information for the displays at the table. Board members were advised that steps 1, 2, and 3 had to be taken care of within the next two or three weeks.
Board members approved of the draft survey with minor modifications. C. Doble asked for volunteers to set up the table, man the booth and survey the crowd at the Street Fair. D. Seidman planned to set up the table and help with the survey. J. Thompson offered to help. C. Doble was to contact C. Sidel for the maps, and to work on the handouts with the board secretary.
The board secretary indicated that she had ordered twenty (20) clipboards for the surveys, which were due to arrive soon.
C. Doble inquired if they could announce the project on the town’s website. The board secretary offered to list the inauguration of the project on the town’s web page.
2. Tisbury Planning Board
RE: Meeting Schedule
3. Island Housing Trust
RE: Request for letter of support of housing project
D. Seidman asked the Planning Board if they would consider writing the MV Commission a letter of recommendation for the 6 Water Street project.
H. Stephenson did not have an issue supporting the concept of affordable housing, but he could not support the design. D. Seidman understood, and asked the Board if they would be willing to support affordable housing on the site.
H. Stephenson thought they could design four (4) units on the property, in lieu of the six (6) units. e He He did not support the trend in development to maximize the use of the property, when it jeopardized the tenant’s quality of life. Otherwise he’s always supported affordable housing, and support affordable housing at that particular site
D. Seidman understood, and asked if they would support writing to the MV Commission that they were supportive of the concept for affordable housing at that location. H. Stephenson so moved. J. Thompson seconded the motion, which motion carried. 4/0/0
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED:
1. Doug Reece, Tisbury Marketplace Board of Trustees
A. Letter requesting the withdrawal of email dated 06/11/14
B. Letter in support of the additional seating capacity up to 82 seats
2. Douglas Hoehn, Schofield, Barbini & Hoehn
RE: Form B Application
3. Glenn E. Mauk, Dir. – Tisbury Dept. of Public Works
RE: Grant of wastewater flow for an additional 5 seats (Saltwater) up to 82 seats
4. Martha’s Vineyard Commission
A. 20 June 2014 Extended Schedule
PRO FORM Meeting opened, conducted and closed in due form at 10:00 P.M. (m/s/c 5/0/0)
Respectfully submitted;
____________________________________________
Patricia V. Harris, Secretary
APPROVAL: Approved and accepted as official minutes;
______________ _________________________
Date Daniel Seidman
Co-Chairman
| 