TOWN OF TISBURY
P.O. BOX 602
TOWN HALL ANNEX
VINEYARD HAVEN, MASSACHUSETTS 02568
Fax (508) 696-7341
DATE: May 6, 2015
TIME: 6:08 PM
PLACE: Town Hall Annex, 66 High Point Lane
ATTENDANCE: Peak, Robinson, Thompson
MINUTES: As referred in the 29 April 2015 Meeting Agenda
25 March 2015 Deferred
01 April 2015 Deferred
08 April 2015 Deferred
16 April 2015 Deferred
29 April 2015 Deferred
6:08 PM Thomas Pachico – Form A for property on High Point Lane, AP 22A13.11
T. Pachico submitted a hand drawn schematic of a proposal to revise a previously endorsed Form A plan that created four lots with a 20 ft. wide shared access easement in the BII District. The proposed revisions were to accommodate two prospective buyers. T. Pachico was proposing to revise the points of access.
B. Robinson informed T. Peak that the discussions were continued because the board members were uncertain if there were any issues that would prohibit the multiple points of access T. Pachico was requesting. He was curious about the one shared access in the 2012 plan of land.
T. Pachico explained that the one of the buyers wanted to use the deeded 20 ft. R-O-W on State Road to access Lot 4, so that the shared 20 ft. wide access easement on High Point Lane was no longer necessary. The approved access easement was challenging due to the topography. It made much more sense to have the 20 ft. wide access easement run along the easterly property line of Lots 2 & 3. It preserved the latter’s access from High Point Lane, and improved its potential for development. T. Pachico further added that he was no longer asking for the additional curb cut on Lot 1 because the potential buyer decided not to purchase the property.
B. Robinson asked T. Peak to explain the purpose for requiring the one shared access easement for all four lots. T. Peak replied that the shared access was designed to give access to the two rear lots (Lots 3 & 4). B. Robinson inquired if they had any purview over a curb cut. T. Peak replied in the negative, and explained that T. Pachico would have to secure a permit from the Department of Public Works.
T. Peak did not think it was necessary to extend the 20 ft. wide access easement across Lot 3 if they were going to remain under the same ownership. It was his opinion that T. Pachico only needed an access easement on Lot 2 alone, if Lots 2 & 3 were to be owned by one person.
B. Robinson questioned the need to have the existing 20 ft. wide access easement, if Lot 4 was going to use the 20 ft. R-O-W from State Road and Lot 3 was going to have a separate means of access off High Point Lane. T. Pachico advised the Board that he wanted to keep at least 10 ft. of the existing shared easement on Lots 3 & 4 to install utilities. T. Pachico did not see the need to keep the remaining 70 ft. if it was no longer serving as an access road.
B. Robinson questioned the need to run the 20 ft. wide easement all along the easterly boundary on Lot 3. T. Peak agreed. T. Pachico acknowledged.
There being no further comment, the Board indicated that they did not have any issues with the proposal, and would endorse the revised plan with the revisions they had discussed.
6:15 PM Paul Adler RE: 14 Pine Street Homeowners’ Association & Protective Covenants
P. Adler met with the Board to solicit their comments on the revisions he had incorporated into the Protective Covenants.
T. Peak indicated that he had reviewed and compared the document with other examples for potential suggestions. He did not understand the use of the term “a shared roadway” in reference to the subdivision road. He explained that the town viewed the subdivision road as a lot, and recommended revising the language to state “road lot” on page 1. He noted that the use of the word “receives” in the first paragraph on the second page was out of context. He believed P. Adler intended to use the work “reserves”. P. Adler agreed.
P. Adler indicated that he wanted to discuss the intent for reserving the right to grant easements up until he sold the last lot. He explained that he wanted to maintain control over the road to facilitate the installation of the utilities, without having to secure the consent of the property owners. It complicated and prolonged the construction process. T. Peak understood that he retained the control until he sold four lots. He would not be able to convey lots until the road was constructed and the utilities were installed. B. Robinson requested a clarification. P. Adler suggested that it would present a problem if a satellite company wanted to lay down wire or cable for a new product. It was an issue when Comcast approached him fifteen years ago when they changed their service over to fiber optics.
B. Robinson inquired if they should consider eliminating the term “over” if they required underground installations. T. Peak did not think it pertained to the installation of utilities, as it did to the grant of an access easement. B. Robinson inquired if there was a utility easement in the road lot. T. Peak explained that it was part of the applicant’s proposal to the Planning Board, and the installation of the utilities underground was a requirement of their regulations. It was also a condition of the Form O Release. B. Robinson inquired if the utility company required an easement on the road lot. T. Peak assumed it was required.
P. Adler noted that they had a choice. They could choose between NStar or a private system. NStar would still have to provide the connection. Although they were much more expensive, they were responsible for any and all problems. P. Adler informed the Board that NStar was dropping the primary connection down from the pole, and asking him to upgrade the pole. He inquired if this would require the Board’s consent, if the pole was going to be relocated on the Corbo’s property.
B. Robinson inquired if the current language overrode his control once he sold four lots. P. Adler replied that he wanted to retain control over the road lot area for future utility installations. T. Peak could not envision what they would be, once the utilities were installed and the road was constructed. B. Robinson thought it could apply for internet service. P. Adler indicated that it was a protection, but not crucial. T. Peak wanted to think about it further.
T. Peak referred P. Adler to the tenth entry on page four of the Protective Covenants, pertaining to the designations of the open space and reserve areas. It was noted that the open space and reserve area overlapped.
B. Robinson requested a clarification about the 9th entry pertaining to “a temporary non-exclusive easement to the reserve area….”. P. Adler indicated that he was still discussing the land with the town, so that there was a possibility that they would be purchasing the reserve area. If he had an exclusive easement to the reserve area, it would preclude the town from using the land. B. Robinson noted that it would not be the case if he obtained an agreement from the rest of the property owners. He further noted that the language required a 2/3 vote to terminate the temporary easement. P. Adler concurred. B. Robinson did not understand why he used the term “temporary, non-exclusive” if he had to secure a 2/3rd vote to change the status of the property. P. Adler
recalled that the town administrator had asked him to incorporate the language into the Protective Covenants , so that the town could access the reserve area from the abutting town property. He offered to remove the language. B. Robinson recommended revising the language to state “shall have an easement to use the reserve area..”. T. Peak questioned how P. Adler could retain any ownership interest in the rest of the subdivision, unless it was a separate lot that was not part of the subdivision. P. Adler replied that he did not. T. Peak observed that the declarant retained title to the reserve area in the document. P. Adler added that the document included language that stated that it would require a 2/3rd vote of approval.
B. Robinson noted that P. Adler was going to remain a member of the subdivision because he was holding the title to the reserve area. P. Adler explained that the homeowners did not want the title, because they did not want to pay the taxes. B. Robinson thought it functioned as a common area to the subdivision, which would ordinarily transfer to the homeowners as did the road lot, and any other common land. T. Peak concurred. P. Adler noted that the Planning Board in their decision allowed him to determine the final use of the reserve area. If that was the intent, T. Peak thought P. Adler would have to pursue an ANR plan to separate the lot from the subdivision. T. Peak wanted to look into the subject further because he did not understand how the applicant could own the lot separately
from the subdivision. He never encountered the situation. B. Robinson inquired about P. Adler’s purpose for retaining the title. P. Adler replied that the town and private housing groups have approached him about the use of the property. He was reserving his options in the future. B. Robinson did not think he was going to have much of an ability to develop the reserve lot. T. Peak recommended continuing the discussions until their next meeting. He wanted the additional time to look into the subject before he was comfortable enough to make a comment.
In the interim, he offered P. Adler a copy of Cow Path’s and the Morse’ subdivisions’ declaration and protective covenants that could provide him information about the common areas, etc.
P. Adler inquired about T. Peak’s recommendation to separate the reserve lot from the subdivision. He did not understand how that was possible. T. Peak clarified that he had suggested the use of a Form A to separate the reserve area if he was interested in developing the lot separately from the subdivision. He wanted to clarify that ownership of the road transferred to the homeowners. The reserve area was not entitled to the same privilege for the purpose of having a share in the road lot.
P. Adler inquired if the Board would consider sharing their comments or questions about his documents prior to the meeting to give him the opportunity to address them. He found it difficult to respond to the recommended revisions at a meeting, and asked if the Board could communicate with him prior to his appointment so that he can be prepared. T. Peak explained that the Board could discuss his documents at a meeting prior to a scheduled appointment to provide him with their questions or comments. P Adler preferred being present during the discussions. It was noted that the discussions had to occur during a meeting when they were all present to discuss his proposal. T. Peak recommended meeting with P. Adler on June 3, 2015 at 6:15 PM. P. Adler was available and agreed.
T. Peak thought it important to see the description of the easement to the reserve area to make sure it was written for the use of the lot owners’ exclusive use to get to the reserve area. T. Peak wanted to review the Decision and the approved plan and asked for a copy. B. Robinson thought they should ask P. Adler for written description of the two easements so that they could review the language.
1. Planning Board
RE: Draft letter
Board members were advised that D. Seidman had discussed the draft letter with the Board of Selectmen at their meeting on May 5, 2015, and agreed to co-sign the letter with the addition of the following sentence: “work to relocate and place utilities underground all utility lines - NSTAR(Eversource), Verizon and Comcast.”
B. Robinson reviewed the draft and noted that D. Seidman had modified the fourth bullet in the letter so that it did not reflect the language they agreed to. It was confusing,
2. Vision Planning
1. MV Commission
A. 01 May 2015 Extended Schedule
B. 07 May 2015 Meeting Agenda
C. April/May 2015 Newsletter
D. Adam Turner (New Exec. Dir) resume
E. MVC Policy re Built Environment (DRI Review)
F. Cape Cod Five Plans Elevations
G. Notice of Workshops (2)
2. US Department of Homeland Security
RE: FEMA- Preliminary FIRM
3. Tisbury Street Fair
Board members agreed to reserve a booth at the Street Fair to disseminate information about the Vision Plan’s goals, objectives, etc. The information to be disseminated was to be discussed at the next meeting
4. Thomson Reuters
A. Zoning Bulletin, 10 April 2015
B. Zoning Bulletin , 25 April 2015
PRO FORM Meeting opened, conducted and closed in due form at 8:00 P.M. (m/s/c 3/0/0)
Patricia V. Harris, Secretary
APPROVAL: Approved and accepted as official minutes;
Date Cheryl Doble
Chairman Pro Tem