TOWN OF TISBURY
P.O. BOX 602
TOWN HALL ANNEX
VINEYARD HAVEN, MASSACHUSETTS 02568
Fax (508) 696-7341
DATE: August 13, 2014
TIME: 4:00 PM
PLACE: Town Hall Annex
ATTENDANCE: Doble, Peak, Seidman, Thompson and Robinson
BILLS: MV Times………………………………$ 228.00
Lancaster Typewriter……………………$ 95.00
MINUTES: As referred in the August 6, 2014 Meeting Agenda
23 July 2014 Deferred
06 August 2014 Deferred
4:00 PM Douglas Hoehn, SB& H Inc. re: Form B Application for Chris Dias. AP 20A01 (Vineyard Haven) and AP 24-21(Oak Bluffs)
Attendance: David Drew
Board members were reminded that they had discussed the property’s potential for subdivision consideration approximately eight months ago, and suggested that D. Hoehn return with a Form B application with additional details to review the merits of the proposal.
They were given a GIS aerial of the property (outlined in red) to view the location of the property from State Road. The aerial photograph illustrated the paved section of Holmes Hole Road (ends at Breakdown Lane), and the path leading to the applicant’s land. D. Hoehn noted that C. Dias was considering two options for his access. He could construct his own road within his property or utilize an approved subdivision road identified as Upland Drive.
D. Hoehn summarized the details of the review process for the Upland Drive Subdivision in the Town of Oak Bluffs, and the separate review process for the extension, in which both the towns of Oak Bluffs and Vineyard Haven were required to endorse the amendment. It was noted B. Robinson, Associate Planning Board member benefited from the application to expand Upland Drive.
D. Hoehn mentioned that he has advised C. Dias that he would contact and secure the consent of the six (6) property owners on Upland Dr. to use the road, and consider the possibility that the Board may have to upgrade the road to meet Tisbury’s minimum standards. D. Hoehn was aware that his client had approached the homeowners informally, but was not aware if his client had a more formal arrangement.
D. Seidman inquired about the zoning district. D. Hoehn replied that the portion of the property in the Town of Tisbury was in the R20 District The smaller portion of parcel of land was in the Town of Oak Bluffs’ R3 District, with a minimum requirement of 60,000 sq. ft. of land area and 50 ft. setbacks.
Unlike the initial application and subsequent expansion of Upland Drive, the property in question was divided into both towns by the town line. As a result, D. Hoehn reviewed the proposal with the Planning Board in the Town of Oak Bluffs to solicit their impressions, and reported that they did not express any issues with the layout or use of the existing road. They were interested in the Tisbury Planning Board’s decision, and requested an update on the negotiated agreement with the homeowner’s association, and this board’s decision.
D. Seidman inquired about the dimensional requirements for the lots and buildings’ setback requirements for both towns, specifically Lots 1, 2 and 3. D. Hoehn explained the first lot had to meet the R3 District’s zoning regulations because it was within Oak Bluff’s jurisdiction. The other five lots were designed with sufficient land area to meet the Town of Tisbury’s R20 dimensional requirements. The last lot (Lot 6) was intentionally designed to be large enough to give the town land to serve as a buffer around the burying ground. It was a subject he has discussed with his client, in whom he believed would eventually come to agree upon.
Board members were given copies of photographs taken by G. Hoehn illustrating the condition of the road down Holmes Hole Road to the property, and down Upland Drive. J. Thompson commented that there was a fire hydrant within the cul-de-sac. B. Robinson added that they had allowed the town to connect a water main from the subdivision to Cloverhill Dr. to circulate the water.
B. Robinson confirmed that the applicant met with the Upland Dr. Road Association to present his proposal. The road association basically had an informal discussion.
C. Doble thought it was desirable to have the applicant use the existing road, as opposed to adding a curb cut within close proximity to Upland Dr. She thought it would help the Planning Board understand the differences in the configuration, if they incorporated the building envelopes on the plan, given that the project was subject to two (2) different sets of regulations. She noted that the existing dwellings on Upland Drive were consistent in their layout, and thought the applicant should be consistent in his layout. D. Hoehn noted that the lots were in the Town of Oak Bluffs and significantly larger. B. Robinson agreed that it was an important consideration.
D. Hoehn thought they could move the properties line to mirror the lots across the road, but that he had to make sure that he did not lose the frontage for the sixth lot. C. Doble did not understand why the house on the second lot was confined to the small triangular section. D. Hoehn explained that the lot did not have sufficient land area to qualify as a building lot in the Town of Tisbury. Because it was split in the configuration on the plan, they had to confine the house on the smaller section, which met the dimensional requirements of the Town of Tisbury. C. Doble noted that it did not conform to the layout of the existing subdivision or proposed lots. D. Hoehn concurred, adding that the house would not impact the dwellings on the proposed lots or the property in the rear, which was owned by the MV
Hospital. The abutting wooded parcel of land has not been or more than likely never be developed because the problems with the land title. C. Doble inquired if he could construct a dwelling in the Oak Bluffs portion of Lot 2. D. Hoehn could not respond to C. Doble’s question, because the Town of Oak Bluffs did not have a building inspector. They were in the process of soliciting candidates for the position.
D. Hoehn resumed his presentation to inquire if the Board wanted the applicant to close off the access from Sailor’s Burying Ground Road to Holmes Hole Road that presently existed on his client’s property. He noted that it was required of the previous developer when he extended Upland Drive.
D. Hoehn assumed the Planning Board would prefer that he pursue the proposal as a Form C subdivision, even if his client utilized Upland Drive, given that the application presented unusual circumstances to warrant a more thorough review. He added that he had prepared his client for the possibility. L. Peak appreciated the photographs D. Hoehn had taken earlier in the afternoon, but felt he should drive down the roads to be able to make a determination of the suitability of the traveled way for the anticipated use. It was possible that they may require the applicant to bring Upland Dr. to the same standard that was applied to Holmes Hole Road. D. Hoehn believed they could widen the subdivision road enough for two cars or add turnouts.
L. Peak did not want the applicant to have a connector road from Holmes Hole Road to the Sailors Burying Ground, and hoped the applicant would consider offering the MV Land Bank property to buffer the cemetery and the ancient way. D. Hoehn has spoken to his client about it and agreed to continue the discussions. Other than the two items he had raised earlier in the discussions, L. Peak commented that he encouraged developers to combine proposals and to utilize the existing facilities. It benefited the developer, the abutters and the town.
D. Hoehn inquired if the Planning Board would like to go on a site visit prior to or during the public hearing. Board members D. Seidman and L. Peak replied that they would like to visit the site prior to the hearing. D. Seidman asked D. Hoehn to stake the corners of the lots. L. Peak thought it was important to discuss the proposal with the Fire Department or Police Department in both towns to clarify which town was going to be responsible for responding to emergency calls.
L. Peak recalled that there was one historical survey marker in the Upland Drive subdivision. D. Hoehn recalled it was a town line marker somewhere down in the middle of one of the lots. L. Peak asked D. Hoehn to document them in the plan, if he should happen to find them. He did not want to see them disturbed.
J. Thompson did not have any issues with the proposal other than a concern about the subdivision road.
D. Hoehn offered to mark out the properties roughly, so that the Board has a general idea of the location and size. D. Seidman thought that was fine. L. Peak did not think it was necessary for D. Hoehn to meet with them, unless the board disagreed. There being no response, L. Peak confirmed that they would do the site inspection individually.
D. Hoehn inquired if they would object to presenting the application to the Oak Bluff’s Planning Board before he applied in the Town of Tisbury. The Board replied in the negative. L. Peak inquired if the Board could have a copy of the homeowner’s association’s agreement. D. Hoehn offered to provide the Board a copy.
D. Seidman inquired if they were required to have a road association because the lot was a separate parcel. D. Hoehn replied in the affirmative. C. Doble inquired if there was a difference in the towns’ requirements. D. Hoehn replied that the towns had similar regulations until March of 1987, when the Tisbury Planning Board added restrictive requirements. L. Peak agreed, noting that the regulations required all subdivision roads to connect to public ways.
B. Robinson thought Holmes Hole Road was a public way. He was advised that the designation was limited to the paved section. D. Seidman inquired about the road’s ownership. L. Peak replied that it was owned and maintained by the Town of Tisbury, because it lead to the town well.
L. Peak informed the Board that town counsel had advised him that nothing precluded them from endorsing the plan, provided there was some provision to maintain the road all the way to Holmes Hole Road. D. Seidman questioned whether they could obligate private property owners to maintain town owned land. L Peak did not see why they could not be asked to contribute towards its maintenance.
L. Peak inquired about access to utilities. B. Robinson replied that they were hooked up to an 8 in water main, and had primary power down the road. L. Peak inquired about a fire hydrant. B. Robinson replied that they added a hydrant at the “T”, and on Sailor’s Burying Ground Road. D. Hoehn thought the Water Department or Fire Department required a fire hydrant every 200 ft.
There being nothing further to add to the discussion, D. Hoehn thanked the Board and departed at 4:47 PM.
1. Vision Planning
C. Doble informed the Board that she had ten individuals to recommend to the Board of Selectmen for the advisory board, which were appointed last evening. Board members were advised that the members included Noreen Baker, Harold Chapedelaine, Nancy Gardella, Bruce Lewellyn, Mary Ellen Larsen (back up to Lewellyn), Caroline Little (ConCom), Melinda Loberg, Amy Ryan, and Elio Silva.
John Custer did not get back to her in time to be officially appointed on the committee, but replied that he would represent the school. C. Doble indicated that the Harbor Management Committee’s chairman would not be available until September, but based on responses did not express an interest on serving.
C. Doble spoke with Peter Cronig, and was willing to participate, but noted that he would only be available to meet on Tuesday s and Thursday s. He would have represented the Main Street business district. L. Peak offered to approach Dawn Braasch. C. Doble thought they could always add another person from Main Street.
L. Peak thought it was important to add someone representative of the local economy as opposed to the hospitality industry. D. Seidman thought Michael Lavendowski was a good choice. L. Peak agreed.
C. Doble informed the Board that she had met with B. Robinson to develop an agenda and handout for the committee’s first meeting. She offered to email the final drafts to the board secretary so that they could be emailed to the committee members. She wanted to go over the drafts with B. Robinson before they were sent off to the committee members. P. Harris was securing information on venues, and to inform committee members that they had to get sworn in before the first meeting on August 20, 2014.
D. Seidman considered approaching more individuals, but C. Doble believed they should cap it to one more members. She offered to speak with Dawn Braasch and report on her progress at their next meeting. The Board agreed on capping the committee to twelve members.
PRO FORM Meeting opened, conducted and closed in due form at 5:00 P.M. (m/s/c 4/0/0)
Patricia V. Harris, Secretary
APPROVAL: Approved and accepted as official minutes;
Date Daniel Seidman