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: August 6, 2014
TIME: 7:03 PM
PLACE: Town Hall Annex
ATTENDANCE: Doble, Peak, Robinson, Seidman, Thompson
ABSENT: Stephenson
BILLS: Postage…………………………….$7.40
MINUTES: As referred in the July 23, 2014 Meeting Agenda
23 July 2014 - AVAILABLE
APPOINTMENTS:
7:00 PM House Business
Attendance: Mary Ellen Larsen, FinCom
L. Peak inquired if the Board had heard from the Attorney General’s office with regards to the bylaw amendments that were passed at Town Meeting. The board secretary replied that the Attorney General approved the amendments, which were now part of the zoning bylaw. He inquired if the Attorney General had an issue with the bylaw amendment that included a member of the Zoning Board of Appeals on the Site Plan Review Board. The board secretary replied in the negative.
L. Peak indicated that one of the questions forwarded to town counsel inquired if an approved amendment was mandatory, so that the applicable board or committee had to participate in the Site Plan Review Board despite their concerns about the appearance of a conflict of interest. He wanted to pursue the question so that he could reconstitute the Site Plan Review Board.
D. Seidman inquired if they were scheduled to confer with Town Counsel. The board secretary replied that she had emailed the Board’s questions to D. Doneski, and had not heard from him. She offered to follow up with another email.
7:10 PM Guy Codding Re: Potential subdivision of a 3 acres parcel, 46 Codding Lane, AP 51A01 (R50 District)
Attendance: Guy Codding, Brenda Codding and Eve Codding
G. Codding indicated that he wanted to divide his property (5.32 acres) into two lots to separate the guesthouse from his primary residence to convey to his son and daughter-in-law.
G. Codding that approximately 2.5 acres of his land was in West Tisbury , and the remaining 3.47 acres lie in the Town of Tisbury. The two structures in the portion of land that lie in Tisbury had their own separate septic systems, wells and driveways.
B. Codding thought they could apply for a ANR given that the lots had sufficient land area, and frontage on Codding Lane .
G. Codding informed the Board that he had developed the subdivision approximately 35 years ago and constructed the guesthouse 25 years ago.
L. Peak noted that the property was within the Island Road District, so that the curbcut would have to be off Codding Lane. J. Thompson and D. Seidman acknowledged and agreed with L. Peak. They all agreed that they did not see any issues with the proposal as long as the driveway remained on Codding Lane.
7:22PM Paul Adler Re: Informal Discussion of a potential subdivision - AP 24A24, 14 Pine Street Attendance: Karen ???
P. Adler advised the board that prospective buyer of 14 Pine Street was unable to secure the financing to conclude the purchase, and had approached him to see if he was interested in buying the property. He was considering the proposition, but had only 24 hours to make a decision. Before accepting the offer, he wanted to know if there were any issues he should be aware of.
P. Adler indicated that he had met with the Board of Health, the Conservation and the Building Inspector, and was interested in soliciting any information about the property from the Planning board that would impact his proposal to develop the land into one road lot and nine building lots. He noted that he intended to renovate the existing structure, but keep the exterior intact.
P. Adler submitted a sketch of the Form C Subdivision he wanted to pursue if he purchased the property. He explained that the lots were approximately 20 -40 % larger in land area than required for the zoning district (R10). P. Alder noted the subdivision road was designed to meet the minimum 40 ft. width, and incorporated the hammerhead at the end to accommodate the turnarounds. He could not speak to the topography because he did not have a perk test done or survey the land.
J. Thompson inquired about the odd shaped jog at the entrance of the proposed 40 ft. way. P. Adler could not respond, because the property had not been surveyed. He added that the shed by the road layout had to relocated to meet the minimum setback requirements. C. Doble inquired if all of the existing structures were going to remain on the same lot with the existing building. P. Adler replied in the affirmative.
L. Peak inquired about the length of the road. P. Adler did not know. It was estimated at 760 ft. L. Peak could not remember if their location subdivision regulations had a limitation for the length of the road. It was the only question he had with regards to the proposal.
D. Seidman noted that the subdivision road was very close to the corner, and busy intersection. P. Adler thought the road could be moved to the other side, but the change meant that he’d have to relocate the garage. B. Robinson noted that it was also the existing entry for the lot. P. Adler concurred. B. Robinson inquired if there was a possibility of linking the subdivision road to Ferro Way to have a continuous road, as opposed to a dead end. P. Adler thought it would be difficult to negotiate because it would involve several property owners. L. Peak noted that there was a walking easement between lots 22.3 and 22.8 to protect the trail the children in the area take to get to school. He thought P. Adler could continue the connection to town property so that the walking trail would be preserved
all the way to Spring Street. P. Adler did not have an issue with the recommendation.
D. Seidman thought the road would have to be relocated to the other side of the property because of its proximity to the corner. It was too close to the intersection at Pine Street and Spring Street. J. Thompson agreed. P. Adler thought he could resolve the issue once the property was surveyed.
The board secretary inquired about the lots’ acreage. P. Adler replied that it was approximately 5 – 6 acres. B. Robinson thought once the survey was completed, P. Adler could alter the design of the road to protect the trees at the entrance. P. Adler concurred.
Melinda Loberg, Selectmen arrived at 7:52 and joined the Planning Board in their discussions.
BOARD DISCUSSIONS:
1. Vision Planning
A. July 22, 2014 Board of Selectmen’s Meeting
B. Memo soliciting members for the advisory committee
C. Vision planning matrix
D. Workshops
C. Doble informed the Board that she had sent out emails to five town boards requesting their assistance with the appointment of a member on the Vision Plan Advisory Committee. She understood that three members of the Finance and Advisory Committee wanted to serve on the advisory board. ME Larsen noted that B. Lewellyn would be serving on the Committee, and that she was to support him as his backup. The board secretary informed C. Doble that they had received information about the partnership’s members. The document listed Richard Paradise, Amy Ryan, Nancy Gardella, MJ Munafo, Chris Roberts, Dawn Braasch and others.
The Board received an email from A. Ryan indicating that she would like to join the advisory committee, but asked if was permissible given that she was not a resident. L. Gomez from the Finance & Advisory Committee indicated that P Cefola also wanted to join. M. Jampel from the Harbor Management Committee did not respond to the invitation in his email to the Board. He simply noted that J. Lobdell would be unavailable for the month, and asked that all further communication be directed to him.
D. Seidman inquired about the Board of Selectmen. M. Loberg indicated that J. Snyder would be joining the committee, and she volunteered to serve as his backup. C. Doble was waiting to hear for a response from the Historic Commission, Conservation Commission and Harbor Management Committee. Nancy Gardella, the Exec. Dir. of the Chamber of Commerce expressed an interest in serving on the advisory committee, but was not a resident of the town. C. Doble inquired if the Board had any objections to having non-residents serve. This would eliminate Amy Ryan, the Dir. of the Vineyard Haven Library and N. Gardella . She asked if the Planning Board had any specific individuals in mind, if non-residents were eliminated from further consideration.
C. Doble was advised to include residents from different geographical parts of town serve as members-at-large to have a broader representation of the community. ME Larsen recommended Michael Lavendowski. Others recommended Dawn Braasch, the proprietor of Bunch of Grapes. M. Loberg suggested Noreen Baker. D. Seidman recommended Elio Silva to represent the upper State Road area and Brazilian community. C. Doble indicated that if there were others they wanted to approach, they had to contact them by end of the week in order to hold their first meeting on August 20th.
M. Loberg thought the Board of Selectmen may have an issue appointing non-residents to the advisory committee if they were going to vote on town issues. C. Doble explained that the committee was not going to be voting on town issues, but strategize on the ways to reach out to the community, structure activities, and help with the logistics. They were also going to need help from within the community to help with the tasks to get the workshops off the ground. They also had to consider how to reach out to the summer residents.
C. Doble realized that she did not bring up the subject of employing non-residents on the advisory committee at their last discussion. M. Loberg noted that individuals like Nancy Gardella and Amy Ryan had the qualifications and expertise they needed for the advisory committee, regardless of their residence.
C. Doble asked for additional recommendations for the BII District , so that they had alternates if their first choice declined the invitation. D. Seidman suggested Janique Munafo from Little House Café. Danielle from the Scottish Bakehouse was recommended as an alternate. L. Peak offered to speak with Noreen Baker. D. Seidman suggested James Hales to represent the Waterfront. L. Peak offered to speak with Dawn Braasch, the proprietor of the Bunch of Grapes. The board secretary was assigned to contact Peter Cronig if Dawn Braasch declines the invitation. Board members recommended Sherman Goldstein, and Michael Levandowski. Board members were to contact C. Doble on their progress.
C. Doble offered to contact the three town boards and organizations who have not responded to their initial email for a response. She added that they would have to solicit volunteers that can help set up the venues, greet visitors, and distribute materials. She thought they could select volunteers from the individuals who offered assistance when they filled out the survey.
C. Doble offered to send the board an email with a list of the individuals that have committed to serve on the committee. She asked that they review the list, and get back to her with additional recommendations as soon as possible.
C. Doble noted that when she raised the subject, people had different ideas about the project or questioned its value. She thought it was important to convey to the community that the process served a purpose(s), which in her view included:
1. Goals -- why are we doing this? (DRAFT)
· Encourage public participation in town planning and
· Better understand and document community values so that they can inform
planning decisions
· Look comprehensively at issues and opportunities across the town to better
understand inter relations between and among them
· Identify and explore strategies to build on opportunities and address issues
· Understand community attitudes and preferences for managing future change
· Articulate a vision statement and diagrammatic/conceptual plan that illustrates
that vision
· Set priority actions to begin implementation of the vision plan
She asked the Board if they agreed or disagreed. Board members agreed. D. Seidman thought the project was well laid out and thought out thoroughly. J. Thompson concurred.
Board members reviewed the draft Vision Planning Outline, C. Doble developed for their review, and went through the columns to explain the activities (workshops, speaker series, summary reports), and deadlines they had to meet if they were to stay on schedule. She explained that the exercises and activities were designed to solicit information about the community’s values, the identification of critical issues, potential solutions, and managing change. The information from the activities will be analyzed, and over time the linkages between different situations across the town will eventually become evident.
C. Doble noted that the community will be seeing their ‘voice’ in the analyses of their comments. The exercise will also allow them to learn more about the subjects, which may change their opinions. B. Robinson added that the information will also give the Planning Board an idea about the issues where the community achieved a consensus, remained undecided or in disagreement.
C. Doble that the activities were geared to educate the community, to get them to think about the issues, discuss them, and consider solutions. The resulting information could address the issues presented by the school, and apply to a variety of projects or decisions to be made at town meeting.
Additional discussions ensued about the matrix, C. Doble developed for the board in which she identified the steps and workload that were required to conduct the research, to reach out to the community, to conduct the workshops and to prepare the summary reports.
C. Doble advised the Board that the workload would require additional staff. She believed the board secretary would need help with some of the activities listed in the matrix, and asked if board members would lend a hand. If this was not possible, she thought they would have to hire another person for the duration of the project, or eliminate some of the activities listed in the matrix.
B. Robinson recommended focusing on the more immediate issues or top three items listed in the Matrix. D. Seidman concurred. C. Doble acknowledged, and advised the board that she was following up with the emails and phone calls.
B. Robinson inquired if the Board wanted to move forward on selecting the facilitators or assigning the task to the advisory board. C. Doble wanted a list of potential candidates to present to the advisory board on August 20th, because they had to get them ready for the first workshop in September. B. Robinson inquired about the number of individuals she wanted to have on board. C. Doble replied twelve.
C. Doble indicated that they needed to start an email database. She thought it was important to get to the summer residents and to keep them in the loop. The only way to do this was to communicate with them via email. D. Seidman inquired if they could use the $7000.00 in their budget to hire a person to help out with the vision planning process. ME Larsen and M. Loberg replied in the affirmative. The board secretary offered to contact the town accountant for a clarification. C. Doble added that they were also going to need funds for the materials, travel expenses for speakers, refreshments, etc.
L. Peak thought they should also arrange to have the workshops filmed. They would have to pay the videographer, and pay for the recorded session. M. Loberg thought they could use the recording to solicit comments from their viewers. L. Peak thought they should prepare a remark to solicit comments from the viewers.
B. Robinson offered to assist C. Doble with the materials, and activities for the advisory committee’s first meeting and workshop. She wanted help with the minutes, because they would need to have a summary of the discussions. C. Doble thought the board secretary could develop the database, send out emails for announcements. M. Loberg thought they could rely on the volunteers, pending their skills.
D. Seidman thought they could post their announcement at the club houses, if they allowed them. They could have a poster to solicit volunteers from the clubs. B. Robinson added that they could also provide them with surveys. M. Loberg recalled that they had discussed the possibility of approaching the various clubs (West Chop, Vineyard Haven Yacht Club) to ask them if they would use their email distribution list to contact members about the vision planning process.
C. Doble asked the Board if they would contact the clubs to ask them if they would email their members, allow them to display a poster and leave surveys for the members. ME Larsen offered to contact Mink Meadows, and M. Loberg was to contact the Vineyard Haven Yacht Club.
C. Doble inquired about the venues. The board secretary indicated that John Custer and John Schilling confirmed that their facilities would be available, provided it did not coincide with the fire department or school’s functions. She did not obtain a response from Joyce Stiles. She was to follow up all with all of them to see what was available the last week in September, the first week in October and the first two weeks in November.
C. Doble indicated that they had to advertise the workshops on the local news, and radio. She thought it was important to have an article on the project in the local newspapers. B. Robinson thought they should include a comment about the advisory board, and its members to generate interest. B. Robinson inquired if the Planning Board should write the article. C. Doble recommended approaching the newspapers with the article with a suggestion for an interview. D. Seidman thought they could prepare a business brief. B. Robinson thought the Board should prepare the article for the advisory committee’s first meeting on August 20, 2014 to get their feedback. C. Doble indicated that she was preparing a bullet point list outlining the process, and deadlines. L. Peak thought she could use a slightly modified
matrix for the advisory committee. C. Doble inquired if they did an OPED piece, they’d have to assign the task to a person.
Additional discussions followed, and the Board agreed to continue the discussions at their next meeting.
2. Madaline Lane, Vineyard Haven MA
L. Peak informed the Board that they may have endorsed Scott E. & Robyn Armer’s Form A plan of land in error, without first having secured documentation confirming that they had in fact legal access and frontage on the private subdivision road, known as Madaline Way.
He thought they should send the property owners a letter explaining to them that the Planning Board in their endorsement may have been granted erroneously, if they did not have legal access over Madaline Way. He thought it important to inform them that they were also going to notify the Building Inspector that unless they demonstrate that they do in fact have legal access over Madaline Way, the existence of the lot does not necessarily mean they have a buildable lot.
Board members requested a clarification, and were advised that the applicant(s) had to make arrangements with the Madaline Way homeowners association to gain access to the new lot from the private subdivision error. L. Peak further noted that their endorsement in no way grants conveys any rights that do not already exist for the property in question.
3. Douglas Hoehn, SB&H Inc.
RE: Chris Dias’ Form B Application
D. Seidman asked the Planning Board members if they would consider accommodating D. Hoehn and meet next week on 13 August 2014 at 4PM to discuss the Form B application they’ve received a few weeks ago.
4. Steven D. Gioiosa, PE
RE: Form A Applications – Michael Panagakos, AP 08N24 (2 different versions of a division of land)
L. Peak reviewed the two variations of a division of land submitted for M. Panagakos, noting that the proposal did not qualify as deep lot divisions. Both versions created two irregularly shaped lots, only one of which is allowed in a division of land.
Board members were informed that the deep lot provision was an attempt to allow town residents to develop the rearmost portion of their property, which would have otherwise remained totally unusable. It was designed to permit the development of long narrow lots with excess land area and sufficient frontage for the zoning district.
D. Seidman inquired about the limitation of irregularly shaped lots. L. Peak referred D. Seidman to section 07.03.02 of the zoning bylaws. D. Seidman noted that it pertained for Form C subdivisions. L. Peak reiterated that the applicant applied under the Deep Lot provision. It was his opinion that the two proposals did not qualify because the lot was not to the rear and it does not front on a public way. D. Seidman concurred, and suggested notifying the applicant that they did not endorse the two proposals because the lots did not front on a public way.
D. Seidman entertained a motion to notify the applicant that the Planning Board did not endorse the two proposals because they were not representative of a deep lot division and the lots did not front on a public road. L. Peak so moved. C. Doble seconded the motion, which motion carried. 3/0/0
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED:
1. Henry Stephenson, Planning Board Co-Chairman
RE: Letter of resignation
2. Robert M. McCarron
RE: Modification of a Special Permit – Dunn Family LLC
3. John Grande, Town Administrator
RE: Notice requirement for board vacancies
4. Coastal Engineering Co. Inc.
RE: Notice – Town of Tisbury, Lake Tashmoo (boat ramp improvements, piers, piles and float)
5. MV Commission
A. 07 August 2014 Meeting Agenda
B. 07 August Extended Meeting Schedule
CORRESPONDENCE SENT:
1. J. Hillary Conklin, Town Clerk
RE: Reid A. Dunn
PRO FORM Meeting opened, conducted and closed in due form at 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
| 