PLANNING BOARD
TISBURY BOARD OF SELECTMEN
TOWN OF TISBURY
P.O. BOX 602
TOWN HALL ANNEX
VINEYARD HAVEN, MASSACHUSETTS 02568
(508) 696-4270
Fax (508) 696-7341
MEETING MINUTES
DATE: July 9, 2014
TIME: 5:30 PM
PLACE: Town Hall Annex, 66 High Point Lane
ATTENDANCE: Doble, Peak, Seidman, Stephenson and Thompson
J. Grande and M. Loberg
MINUTES: As referred in the June 25, 2014 Meeting Agenda
25 June 2014 Deferred
BILLS: MV Times………………………..$228.00
Vineyard Gazette…………………$106.00
Staples…………….……………...$173.32
Postage …………………………..$ 14.79
APPOINTMENTS:
5:30 PM House Business
Attendance: Melinda Loberg, Selectperson and John Grande, Town Adm., Mary Ellen Larsen, FinCom
Infrastructure Improvements
J. Grande, Town Administrator understood that the MV Commission was working on projects to improve the Tashmoo Overlook, Beach Road and Vineyard Haven-Edgartown Road, and had applied for Transportation Improvement Project funds.
M. London notified him that the MV Commission had to refine their initial submittal to the state in order to move forward on the Edgartown-Vineyard Haven Road project. He and G. Mauk were just invited to meet with him tomorrow at 10AM. The discussions were to be focused on refining the proposal, addressing traffic calming and the re-vegetation of the road.
J. Grande further mentioned that he was also meeting with Pam Hasner from the Mass. Dept. of Transportation (District 5) sometime next week to discuss these projects. Ms. Hasner visited the island periodically to meet with the local official representatives about ongoing and potential projects.
Community Visioning
C. Doble reported that seventy-seven individuals at the Tisbury Fair filled out their surveys. She planned to approach the local library to inquire if they would offer the Planning Board some space to give people another opportunity to participate in the survey.
She mentioned that it was important for the Board to begin the next phase, which was to identify the stakeholders (and interested parties) that would be willing to work on a steering committee by September. The steering committee would assume the responsibility of conducting the workshops, the materials, etc. and free C. Doble to oversee the whole process. She advised J. Grande and M. Loberg that the project included “a heavy planning component” that would require the expertise of planning consultants.
Muncipal Government/Vision Planning
J. Grande noted that in the year he’s worked for the town as administrator he’s observed that the town departments were disconnected from each other because they worked independently even though they shared mutual interests. The Board of Selectmen wanted to bridge the gap to change the organizational system. J. Grande recommended that they start the process by identifying areas of mutual interest, and by identifying each department’s needs and priorities. He thought the Cabinet Meeting was the appropriate venue for the discussions, and scheduled a meeting on Thursday, 10 July 2014 to initiate the process. The Planning Board Chairman was invited to the meeting and asked to come prepared with the Board’s two or three significant goals they were looking to achieve in the upcoming year. The
information would allow the Board of Selectmen to determine if they could support, facilitate or take a leading role in the various projects.
J. Grande also intended to utilize the information in the boards’ performance reviews to help him understand the various boards’ functions, ongoing projects and the degree to which they met the Board of Selectmen’s expectations. J. Grande planned to assimilate the information into a report to disseminate to each department.
H. Stephenson inquired if J. Grande included the school in the project. J. Grande replied in the negative and explained that they had access to separate funding sources from the municipality that allowed them to function independently. He understood that the school committee had progressed in their plans for the school to the point where they were presently meeting with a consultant and the state. D. Seidman inquired about the building’s ownership. J. Grande could not respond, but offered to look for the information. H. Stephenson noted that the school committee was not on board with the Planning Board’s recommendation to keep the school at its current site, and was concerned that they would not consider the recommendation as an option in their needs assessment. It was an issue the Board encountered with
the Water Department, when they suggested relocating their operations on High Point Lane with the DPW, and other municipal offices. J. Grande thought the Cabinet Meeting offered them the opportunity to bring these comments on the table.
M. Loberg thought it was important for the town to take an inventory of all of the municipal buildings before they discussed future renovations or new structures. H. Stephenson noted that the Planning Board generated a report on the subject, in which they recommended consolidating some of the departments in select territories (i.e. repairs, etc.), such as relocating the Fire Department across the street from the school, etc. because they were scattered around town. He mentioned that the report did not include an analysis of the school.
J. Grande inquired if the Board offered recommendations for alternatives in the Capital Needs Assessment. H. Stephenson replied in the affirmative, adding that the report had to be updated. J. Grande inquired if they could make the assessment a town plan. C. Doble replied in the affirmative and thought they could tie the use of municipal lands, the relocation or reorganization of municipal services within the visioning process as related topics were brought for discussion. It connected to one of the conversations the Planning Board held about linking the visioning process with ongoing issues and projects, and possibly using speakers and discussion panels to focus on specific topics. She noted that the topics would require additional studies by planning consultants.
C. Doble mentioned that M. London had committed staff resources from the MV Commission’s to help move the visioning project forward. She was going to discuss the offer with the Planning Board so that they could identify the type of support they would like to obtain from the MV Commission to retain control over the process.
J. Grande stressed the importance of having a Capital Facilities Plan that was accepted by both elected boards to the extent feasible. The Board agreed. He thought time was a crucial element to consider in light of the recent developments pertaining to the School Committee’s and Water Department’s capital plans. J. Grande suggested that the Board proceed forward sooner rather than later, so that they arrive at some conclusion or recommendation on the subject at the close of the visioning process. C. Doble indicated that it was the Planning Board’s intent to conclude the process, and have recommendations for town meeting.
C. Doble informed J. Grande and M. Loberg that the Planning Board needed a committee to help them reach out to the community and to move the process along. She asked if they would recommend how they could go about organizing a steering committee, in which they could draw people from a mix of organizations, elected or appointed bodies that would assist with the logistics, outreach and communication. She inquired if it would have to be an ad hoc group or a committee appointed by the Board of Selectmen. L. Peak noted that the Planning Board had the authority to appoint a subcommittee, but understood J. Grande recommended against it. J. Grande thought the Board of Selectmen had to establish a formal, town wide committee, and to appoint its members; whereas the Planning Board could serve as members on the
committee.
C. Doble reiterated her request for a clarification on the process for establishing a steering committee. J. Grande replied that the Planning Board had to identify the need for a steering committee for the visioning process, identify the areas of expertise that would be helpful in carrying out the tasks of the steering committee, and have the Board of Selectmen acknowledge the need for a steering committee or, assist in establishing the committee.
J. Grande recommended scoping out a master plan for the future in terms of what they wanted to emphasize and spend the greater part of their resources. C. Doble thought it was important to know if there was anything the Planning Board could draw from the Island Master Plan or previous plans that would be helpful and appropriate for the visioning process. J. Grande concurred.
6:25 PM Tisbury Board of Selectmen re: Zoning Bylaw Amendments, Community Visioning, and Appointment of the Tisbury Planning Board Associate Member
Attendance: M. Loberg, Selectperson; J. Snyder, Selectperson, and; J. Grande, Town Administrator; Mary Ellen Larsen, FinCom
J. Snyder arrived at 6:25 PM from work, and apologized to the Planning Board for arriving late. At the Board’s prompting, J. Snyder opened the Board of Selectmen’s meeting.
D. Seidman, Planning Board Co-Chairman advised the Board of Selectmen that the Planning Board had received a letter of interest for the position of Associate Board Member from Benjamin Robinson and Patricia Carlett, the latter of whom subsequently withdrew.
D. Seidman read B. Robinson’s letter of interest into the record of the minutes. B. Robinson came forward and joined the Planning Board and Board of Selectmen. H. Stephenson asked B. Robinson if he was an architect. B. Robinson replied in the affirmative. H. Stephenson thought it was important to note B. Robinson’s occupation as an architect, which he considered to be an asset for the town.
L. Peak clarified for the record that the Associate Planning Board Member’s prime responsibility was to be a substitute member on hearings for special permits applications if there was less than a five member board due to a conflict of interest or absence. The Associate Member would then be a voting member for the course of the hearing. L. Peak explained that the Planning Board had always encouraged its Associate Member to participate in all of their meetings and to be fully involved in their projects. It’s been their experience that the Associate Members become members of the Board over time.
D. Seidman heard via the grapevine that B. Robinson helped with the online petition against the Stop & Shop’s proposal. He asked if this was true, and if B. Robinson would have an open mind on any future proposals. B. Robinson believed he had an open mind on the proposal, and would remain so, depending on the proposal they returned with for the town’s consideration.
M. Loberg inquired if B. Robinson worked independently or with a firm. B. Robinson replied that he worked independently and collaborated with others on the island. There being no further questions or comments, H. Stephenson moved the accept B. Robinson’s application for Associate Planning Board Member. J. Thompson seconded the motion. 5/0/0
J. Synder entertained a motion from the Board of Selectmen to appoint B. Robinson as the Planning Board’s Associate Board Members. M. Loberg so moved. J. Snyder seconded the motion, which motion carried. 2/0/0
M. Loberg departed at 6:36 PM due to a previous commitment, and the Board of Selectmen lost their quorum.
Discussions ensued with regards to the attendance requirements required by the Mullin Rule for public hearings. D. Seidman inquired about remote participation. J. Grande discussed the arguments for and against the use of remote participation. J. Grande advised the Board that they could create a warrant article allowing remote participation for town meeting. L. Peak recalled that the Planning Board submitted an article to adopt the Mullin Rule, which would have allowed a member of a local adjudicatory board to miss one session of a public hearing and still vote on the application, provided the member reviewed a transcript, audiotape or videotape of the session. It failed on town floor. In absence of the Mullin Rule, the Attorney General’s Office indicated that board member could attend other
meetings pertinent to the application and participate in the discussions with the understanding that he/she could not vote. J. Grande recommended bringing the subject to town counsel for a recommendation. D. Seidman appeared to favor the ability to skype so that board members could participate in the discussions.
L. Peak thought J. Grande should recapitulate the discussions the Board had with M. Loberg. J. Grande concurred and brought J. Snyder up to speed. In the course of the summary, D. Seidman mentioned that the town needed a maintenance schedule for municipal buildings that would allow them to set up a system for their obsolescence, repair or renovation, and more importantly a budget. M. Larsen, a member of the Finance & Advisory Committee noted that no one in the town ever budgeted for the maintenance of their buildings. The previous DPW Director was asked to create a schedule and it never materialized. She thought the town should ask every department head to assess their building. D. Seidman thought it was the town’s responsibility to assess its buildings, not the departments inhabiting the
structures. J. Grande thought it could be a shared building services department between the school and town or a separate entity.
Based on his observations, the town has relied on a very small group of people in the DPW to clean and repair town buildings, without ever creating the database or capacity to keep up with the maintenance of their buildings. The situation has worsened over the years with the construction of new buildings. They also needed a maintenance schedule for the park and recreational facilities, which had been showing signs of neglect. L. Peak thought it fair to note that the town originally had separate departments to attend to the parks, then consolidated the functions within one entity that was short of staff and resources to do the work. J. Grande agreed. J. Grande inquired if the Planning Board’s facilities plan raised and address these issues. C. Doble replied that they did not develop of a
facilities plan. J. Grande thought they could use the services of a Facility’s Director should be responsible for the maintenance and repairs of their buildings.
J. Snyder interrupted the discussions, noting that the Board of Selectmen was interested in discussing the Visioning process. He asked if the Planning Board had discussed the subject. D. Seidman replied that the Planning Board introduced the concept at the Street Fair and managed to get 77 people to take the survey.
H. Stephenson added that they had discussed the need for a steering committee; and the likelihood that the Board of Selectmen would have to officially create a town-wide board, in which the Planning Board could participate as members, as opposed to having the Planning Board create a subcommittee.
C. Doble thought she should write to the Board of Selectmen to request that they organize the committee and to recommend its purpose, structure, etc. She explained that they had to move forward quickly and suggested that by the end of August or the beginning of September, they had to hold the first town-wide workshop to discuss the resident’s goals or issues and from which they could prepare a draft vision statement of their goals. Since the Board of Selectmen were currently involved in initiatives of their own, it appeared to her that it was important to continue the communication open between the boards, so that if there were issues they’d like the Planning Board to explore at the workshops, they could design activities that would focus on the topics of interest. She offered to cc J. Grande on their
progress to keep him in touch and to offer him the opportunity to feed into the process.
D. Seidman advised J. Snyder that the Planning Board did not have the opportunity to discuss the Board of Selectmen’s recommendation for the BI District. He offered to bring the topic to the table after they met with their 7PM appointment. He did not think the discussions would take long. J. Snyder and J. Grande agreed to wait.
7:00 PM Reid (Sam) A. Dunn re: Tisbury Marketplace Condominium Association
Attendance: Jackson Kenworth
R. Dunn did not understand the Board’s issues with the condominium and wanted to help clarify or respond specifically to L. Peak’s questions because he did not understand what was being asked of him. L. Peak could not respond because he had not clearly formulated his questions to town counsel. It was a work in progress.
L. Peak read the amendment of December 8, 2011 relative to the Limited Common Areas. R. Dunn explained that the Limited Common Areas (LCA) or Exclusive Use Easements (EUE) were interchangeable terms. L. Peak inquired if there were any other documents, with the exception of the amendment of 2011 that defined and outlined the beneficiaries of the LCA’s and clarified their rights and benefits. It was information he thought would be helpful at the public hearing.
L. Peak asked R. Dunn if he would also provide documentation that clarified the types of uses that were implied, specified or prohibited in the blanket statement “these areas are reserved to be used for the benefit of a limited number of persons”.
D. Seidman noted that the special permit of 2007 specifically stated “no wait service in the patio”. Since the applicant was providing wait service in the patio, he asked if R. Dunn had documentation from the Tisbury Marketplace approving the exclusive use of patio in the common area. It was his understanding that the all of the unit owners had to agree. R. Dunn noted that they did. L. Peak inquired if the consent was in writing, because he could not find any documentation that verified their consent. R. Dunn replied that the 2011amendment reflected the consent. L. Peak stated that the document did not respond to D. Seidman’s question. D. Seidman concurred because the 2011 document was dated after 2009, when he applied for patio’s enclosure. He was inquiring about the consent for the
patio. R. Dunn indicated that it was constructed as part of the restaurant in 2008. L. Peak did not want to discuss the restaurant outside of the public hearing.
R. Dunn submitted a letter from the condominium’s attorney, R. McCarron to him, dated 01/30/09 incorporating the Net Result, and other items. The board secretary obtained a copy of the document. D. Seidman noted that there did not appear to be any documentation that allowed for wait service in the patio. The Board of Health’s approval did not specify that the additional 15 seats were allowed to have wait service. R. Dunn noted that a request for additional seats in a restaurant implies that they would be served.
L. Peak indicated that he was concerned about “what uses are envisioned or permissible in these areas to which certain individuals have exclusive benefit”. R. Dunn replied the expansion granted to the individual would be an expansion of the unit’s use, so that if one had a business office, the unit owner could conduct business on that patio, or expand the restaurant’s activities on a patio. L. Peak thought it pertained to the entire swath of property between the restaurant and the lagoon. R. Dunn disagreed. L. Peak referred to the condo association’s documents where the property in question was listed as Area A – LCE. R. Dunn response appeared to clarify that it gave him the right to expand into that area. L. Peak reiterated that it was the information he
sought. He wanted a clarification about the number of LCE’s and uses R. Dunn, and any other unit owner(s) who may have been assigned. It was important information for which documentation should exist, so that the town, the condo association and condo members know what they could anticipate in the future. It was what concerned him. He advised the applicant that the documentation would address his concern.
D. Seidman recalled R. Dunn wanted to add a door from the building to the outdoors, and in the discussions, the applicant was advised that he would have to return to the Board to amend his special permit. R. Dunn replied that he did not to pursue his plan. D. Seidman thought that the applicant would require the condominium’s consent for the addition of the door. R. Dunn explained that the LCE’s are typically for the outdoors and for the purpose of obtaining a use right. L. Peak did not think they should continue the discussions that pertained to the public hearing.
R. Dunn clarified that he had surrendered his development rights and could not sell them to anyone. The LCE allowed him to place a tent on the lawn area for outdoor events. He could not construct building in the area without obtaining the necessary permits. L. Peak commented that the condominium association would have to sell him the land first, because he could not expand on land he did not own. R. Dunn explained that the land was owned by the condominium.
L. Peak reiterated that the Board could not discuss the specifics of the proposal outside of the public hearing, and clarified that he was requesting for information about what the condominium association was aware of, what you believe the LCE’s grant certain unit owners and what the current owner believes to have obtained with the grant of a LCE.
D. Seidman reiterated that he was interested in the wait service, specifically in the fact that he was offering a service that was prohibited.
R. Dunn requested a clarification about the questions being asked of him. He understood that the Board wanted him to explain how he came to provide wait service in the patio, and to provide information about what is stated, implied, expected or reasonably expected by a current owner, condominium association and future owner(s) in what an LCE allows them to do.
R. Dunn inquired if the Board expected Town Counsel to respond to their questions by the hearing on July 23, 2014. L. Peak replied that the Planning Board had ninety days to review the application, but wanted to take the time to process the information correctly. R. Dunn believed it was personal.
L. Peak recognized Louis Larsen, the proprietor of the Net Result at the Tisbury Marketplace, who noted that Robert McCarron was no longer the Tisbury Marketplace’s attorney. He wanted to make clear to the Board that Mr. McCarron represented the applicant not the association.
7:20 PM Tisbury Board of Selectmen re: Zoning Bylaw Amendments, Community Visioning
Attendance J. Snyder (Selectman) Tristan Israel (Selectman) and; J. Grande, Town Administrator; Mary Ellen Larsen, FinCom
L. Peak noted that in the previous discussions with J. Snyder and M. Loberg relative to the Visioning process was that zoning bylaw amendments were envisioned to occur at the end.
T. Israel arrived at 7:20 PM at the conclusion of the County Commissioner’s executive meeting with their attorneys to address a time sensitive issue. He wanted to convey to the Planning Board that the town should a bylaw amendment prepared for town meeting that would allow them to review proposals of the magnitude Stop & Shop presented to the MV Commission, irrespective of the visioning process. Stop & Shop’s project brought home the fact that the town did not have a review process in place for the BI District. He thought the Planning Board could incorporate language that would allow them to review projects of a certain sq. footage, similar to the MV Commission.
It would give the town boards, including the Board of Selectmen the opportunity to review the large scaled proposal’s impacts on the community, address those impacts and within the eyes of their constituents, legitimately negotiate betterments. It would also give the Planning Board the standing they needed to present the town’s concerns to the MV Commission.
L. Peak thought they could amend the bylaw to incorporate language that would allow them to review the project. He thought it was beneficial for the town to have their review process occur simultaneously with that of the MV Commission.
T. Israel thought the set of regulations would give the applicant a sense of the town’s sensibilities if they returned with a proposal in the near future. He wanted the town to be prepared. D. Seidman concurred. L. Peak indicated that they had a review process in place for the Waterfront Commercial District that they could tailor for the BI District, or consider adding language that would require a review process for all proposals within the BI District that triggered a DRI review. Because a blanket statement would also cause an unnecessary imposition on many people, he thought they could review the checklist to select the most critical elements to warrant a review. J. Grande was concerned that the DRI Checklist may not include other important elements the town would consider important, such as the
re-use (as opposed to change of use) of the building for other activities. D. Seidman thought it could become burdensome.
Additional discussions ensued, and T. Israel indicated that they needed a regulation in place by town meeting. They could always amend the language over time. D. Seidman agreed with T. Israel, otherwise they will not have the town’s support. H. Stephenson that they should also amend the regulations restricting the waterfront and recalibrate the boundaries to simply the existing review process, which has become cumbersome for the Board and applicants. T. Israel agreed, adding that the district was burdened with layers of regulations that needed to be revisited.
T. Israel also wanted to mention to the Board that the Board of Selectmen did not have a particular use in mind for the old fire station property, and had agreed to use the property as a parking lot temporarily until the town decided what they wanted to do. When the Selectmen’s article for funds they intended to use to improve the parking lot failed, he promised a citizen at town meeting that he would join him at a Planning Board meeting to discuss the property’s potential use. L. Peak indicated that they’ve met with the individual and discussed potential options, noting that ultimately the town would be conducting meetings on the subject before they came to a conclusion.
J. Snyder understood C. Doble laid out a process that was to move fairly quickly. He wanted to know what the Planning Board needed from the Board of Selectmen to move the project forward. C. Doble replied that she needed a committee to help with the logisitics. L. Peak understood from J. Grande that it would be more appropriate for the Board of Selectmen to create the committee and appoint the members to avoid some of the issues that developed on the parking lot design committee. He did not oppose the suggestion, provided the Board of Selectmen assigned the chairmanship to the Planning Board. T. Israel disagreed with the recommendation because the process created the issues they encountered with the parking lot design committee. C. Doble clarified that the Planning Board was approaching the Board of
Selectmen and offered to draft the letter requesting the need for a steering committee, and delineating the requirements for group (i.e. size). J. Snyder indicated that the Board of Selectmen would support the Planning Board. T. Israel concurred, noting that he would like to have the Town Administrator participate in the discussions. C. Doble clarified for the boards that the committee was not analyzing any information or generating recommendations. They were going to assist the Planning Board to launch the project and make it a community process. J. Grande was interested in the implementation portion of the project. C. Doble thought the process would help initiate the conversations in the BI District.
H. Stephenson utilized the opportunity to notify the Planning Board and Board of Selectmen of his decision to step down from the Board at the end of the month or early part of August at the conclusion of the hearing process for a few applications.
He had considered leaving earlier, but stayed for the Stop & Shop proposal in the hopes the town would address some of the issues in the BI District. He’s researched and generated material over the years to address some of the issues raised by S&S’s proposal and reviewed his work. He noted that most of his efforts were to create public space. In order to be a community, they had to have a place where people could meet, relax and enjoy.
T. Israel indicated that they were going to get the wrap around deck under the bridge, which could spur interest in the harbor walk.
H. Stephenson noted that he stayed on the Board to make sure that S&S’s proposal did not interfere with the town’s plans for open space, and shared use paths. It made him happy to see B. Robinson and C. Doble join the Board, because it was difficult to draw professionals on town boards. It was also important to support the MV Commission, on whom the towns relied for planning assistance.
J. Snyder acknowledged H. Stephenson’s contribution to the town. H. Stephenson offered to help and participate in the visioning process, but felt confident in the board’s abilities. T. Israel noted that the Planning Board benefited with H. Stephenson’s background and expertise in planning and his ability to illustrate their proposals that allowed them to convey their thoughts to the community to generate a discussion or debate that did not exist prior to being a member of the board.
H. Stephenson also wanted the Board of Selectmen to keep the town picnic going, because the current committee did not think they had the ability to organize and manage the event. T. Israel understood, noting that P. Carlett had approached him about soliciting help.
There being no further discussion, J. Snyder entertained a motion to adjourn. T. Israel so moved. J. Snyder seconded the motion, and the motion carried at 7:55 PM 2/0/0
BOARD DISCUSSIONS:
1. Tashmoo Overlook
RE: Planning Board representation
2. Community Vision Planning
A. Street Fair
B. Tisbury Library – Surveys
C. Subcommittee
D. Seidman asked if C. Doble was planning on writing to the Library Director to allow the Planning Board space to display their posters and surveys. C. Doble planned on contacting the director, and asked the board secretary to follow through given that she was leaving the island tomorrow. She was going to draft a write up on the committee that she wanted to email to the board of their comments. Once the board contacted her, she would send an email to the Board of Selectmen. B. Robinson requested a copy of the letter.
3. Douglas R. Hoehn, SB&H, Inc.
RE: Form B Application, SBS Properties, LLC - AP 20A01 (Postponed til 7/23/14)
4. Vineyard Land Surveying & Engineering, Inc.
RE: Form A Application – Mary I. Marshall, AP 12E09, Dunham Ave.
D. Seidman informed the Board that they’ve received an application for a division of land in which the property owner was creating a non-building parcel to convey to an abutter on AP 12E19.1. The notation on the plan clearly indicated that the non-buildable lot was going to be held in common ownership with AP 12E19.1 L. Peak noted that the additional land area allowed AP 12E19.1to have a guesthouse.
There being no issue with the proposal, D. Seidman entertained a motion. L. Peak moved to endorse the plan of land as an ANR by the Planning Board. H. Stephenson seconded the motion, which motion carried. 5/0/0
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED:
1. MV Commission
A. 10 July Meeting Agenda - 6 Water Street Affordable Housing (DRI – TBD)
B. 03 July 2014 Extended Schedule
2. Tisbury Board of Appeals
A. Public Hearing – James Jones, AP 05K04 ( Expansion/pre-existing ,non-conforming house)
B. Public Hearing – Charles Crovitz, AP 61B06 (swimming pool)
C. Public Hearing – Mark & Jenn Nicotera AP 37A14.1 (above ground swimming pool)
D. Public Hearing – Randi Hadley, AP 26D06 (raising fowl)
E. Public Hearing – Philip Tucker, AP 37A03 (36 Vincent’s Way)
F. Special Permit #2186 – Jilana & Alan Abrams, AP 12B15 (B&B)
G. Special Permit #2188 – Rosemary Nelson, AP 03B08 (expansion/coastal district)
H. Special Permit #2189 – Gary Stuber, AP 22A09 (food service outside building)
I. Special Permit #2190 – Brian & Tara Meehan, AP 01G04 (modification/height/coastal)
PRO FORM Meeting opened, conducted and closed in due form at
8:15 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
| 