TOWN OF TISBURY
P.O. BOX 602
TOWN HALL ANNEX
VINEYARD HAVEN, MASSACHUSETTS 02568
Fax (508) 696-7341
DATE: August 5, 2015
TIME: 6:05 PM
PLACE: Town Hall Annex, 66 High Point Lane
ATTENDANCE: Doble, Peak, Robinson, Seidman,
BILLS: Registry of Deeds……………………$76.00
P. Harris (mileage)…………………..$ 9.20
MINUTES: As referred in the July 15, 2015 Meeting Agenda
16 April 2015 m/s/c 4/0/0
03 June 2015 m/s/c 4/0/0
01 July 2015 m/s/c 4/0/0
15 July 2015 m/s/c 4/0/0
6:05 PM Tisbury Board of Selectmen Re: Mass DOT’s Design for Beach Road’s Improvements
Attendance: T. Israel, M. Loberg, L. Gomez, J. Grande, D. Hodsdon, H.S. Lee, ME Larsen, C. Whittaker, H. Stephenson, N. Orleans, R. Packer, D. Clark, P. LeClerc, B. Veno, A. Turner, S. Tuttle
M. Loberg moved to call the Board of Selectmen’s meeting to order at 6:05 PM. L. Gomez seconded the motion, which motion carried. 2/0/0
D. Seidman began the presentation with a brief overview of the Board of Selectmen, the Planning Board and subcommittee’s joint efforts to negotiate a number of revisions in Mass DOT’s road layout with the intent of eliminating any possibility of a land taking. After several meetings, and public sessions in which they solicited public comment, the town had to abandon the possibility of retaining the 40 ft. wide layout because Mass DOT clarified that they could not support any proposal that did not meet the minimum specifications for an arterial connector in a rural village, which stood at 41 ft.
The town revised the design to create a hybrid proposal within the 41 ft. road layout that allowed for 5 ft. wide sidewalks with a 6” curbs, 10.5 ft. wide travel lanes, and 4.5. ft. wide bike paths from Five Corners to assessor parcel 09B25, and; a 2 ft. wide buffer, a 2 ft. wide shoulder, 10.5 wide travel lanes, another 2 ft. wide shoulder and a 10- 13 ft. wide shared use path for the remainder of the road to the bridge. Copies of the schematic were handed out to the participants, as D. Seidman continued his presentation to report that the telephone poles were going to be relocated outside the 41 ft. layout. It was possible that the transformers would be as well, but it was a topic they had to initiate with the state, when they inquire about having the utilities installed underground.
D. Seidman noted that there were difficult transition points in the 41 ft. wide road layout that would require the voluntary grant of 1 ft. easements from some of the abutting property owners, but that the design they were presenting tonight would keep this to a minimum. Tonight’s discussion was scheduled to give the town the opportunity to comment on the hybrid proposal, specifically the 41 ft. wide road layout so that they could move on to elements in the design such as crosswalks, lighting, storm water management, speed limits, etc. He reiterated the importance in achieving a consensus on the 41 ft. wide layout.
D. Seidman wanted to open the discussions and explained the procedure. Planning Board members were asked for their comments. C. Doble believed the Planning Board and Board of Selectmen had made every effort to respond to the comments that were solicited in past meetings, especially the property owners’ concerns about potential takings. The proposed layout kept any potential taking to a minimum and provided a corridor to accommodate cars, pedestrians and cyclists safely. Although she preferred a wider layout, she was happy to see that the subcommittee was able to accomplish the same in the proposed layout that was in scale with the area. She therefore supported the proposed 41 ft. wide layout.
L. Gomez requested a clarification. He inquired if the proposal was for a bike lane and sidewalk, not a shared use path. D. Seidman referred to the aerial view of the 41’ wide hybrid option to explain the elements of the design. C. Doble interrupted the discussion and inquired if the purpose for the meeting was to discuss the 41 ft. wide road layout and not the elements of the road design. D. Seidman replied in the affirmative, and clarified that the Mass DOT wanted a response from the town regarding the width of the road layout. Once they achieved a consensus on the width of the road layout, they would then move on to the design elements.
Discussions ensued with regards to the parameters of the topic, and D. Seidman clarified for the record that the Mass DOT had been amenable to their recommendations and willing to work with the town, with the understanding that the absolute minimum they’d entertain was a 41 wide road layout with 10.5 ft. travel lanes, 4.5 ft. side bike lanes and 5.5 ft. sidewalks. They had to consider the fact that they were constrained by a road layout that was originally designed in the late 1700s that was being used as a main artery through a commercial/industrial area abutting a working harbor. The town had four potential options. They could agree with a 43 ft. wide road layout, the 41 ft. wide hybrid proposal, a 41’ ft. wide variation on the hybrid proposal or none of the above.
L. Gomez agreed with the 41 ft. wide layout but preferred the proposal for the sidewalks (as opposed to a SUP) because it addressed the safety concerns of the individuals that approached him. D. Seidman explained the differences in the design relative to the transition point, which reflected the different needs and uses for a sidewalk as opposed to the SUP.
M. Loberg noted that the subcommittee has met and discussed the topic for a very long time and agreed on the 41 ft. wide layout. They did so at the Selectmen’s request when the community expressed a dislike for the state’s 25% design. She explained that the state was requesting a clear indication about the layout from the town before they completed 25% of their design. They had to agree on the road layout before they will entertain any discussion on the details of the design. She added that the Mass DOT’s project was directly related to the MV Commission’s study that substantiated a need for bike connections through the town, off-road bike paths and SUPs. The connection from Winds Up to Edgartown-Vineyard Haven Road was the impetus for the road improvement. M. Loberg therefore supported the 41 ft. wide road
layout and some form of connection to satisfy the needs of the pedestrians, and cyclists. She commented on the existing road layout’s physical constraints, and their relation to the 41 ft. wide hybrid design.
J. Grande understood that the 41 ft. was the minimum right-of-way necessary to meet the many variations that were discussed. He would have liked a larger R-O-W in order to accomplish more pedestrian improvements. He was concerned about seeing mopeds and cyclists share the shoulder, but nonetheless supported the 41 ft. road layout.
T. Israel arrived and joined the discussions at 6:30 PM. F. Brunelle inquired if there were temporary or permanent easements. B. Robinson replied that the state always obtained the fee in the right-of-way targeted for construction. The state secured construction easements for use of land outside the right-of-way. L. Peak clarified that voluntary easements were not considered a taking by eminent domain. T. Israel did not understand how the shared use path worked in the scheme given the physical constraints they were confronting with the actual road layout. D. Seidman replied that the super sidewalk they were proposing on the south side of the road from the gas station to the bridge (1000 ft.) was 12 ft. -14 ft. wide. T. Israel did not understand the thought process in placing a shared use path in the narrower
portion of the corridor rather than a narrower sidewalk. He also thought property owners should be approached about any potential taking as a courtesy before they are asked to consider such a proposal.
D. Seidman understood and noted that the design was not finalized. They could run the 10.5 travel lanes, 4.5 ft. bike lanes and 5.5 ft. sidewalks the entire length of the road to Winds Up. He advised T. Israel that the participants at the Vision Planning work sessions on a 2:1 margin thought the safest provision was to separate the bikes from the cars, believed the major challenge to biking in town was the lack of bike paths, and thought the best opportunities for safe biking was to connect dedicated bike path and Beach Road bike lanes. The MV Commission’s survey found that there was a higher demand for off-road accommodations than on-road accommodations. They’re recommending a hybrid design that accommodated both.
B. Robinson believed they had to understand the mechanics of the road and how it was going to work. He understood the SUP in Oak Bluffs was on the south side of the road. They were extending the SUP between the bridge and boat landing on the south side so that connected to the existing SUP, which would be extended to the Tisbury Market place and branch off through the Tisbury Market Place to Lagoon Pond Road. The objective was to complete the connection and to become part of the island wide plan which was designed to provide a bike path to the downtown area. He noted that the north side of the road was very industrial from the shipyard to the fuel tanks, with the exception of the Tisbury Wharf. All of the activity was on the south side.
B. Robinson clarified that they were not increasing road layout. They were moving the fog lines in a bit and tightening up the travel lanes, so that the vehicle and bikes were going to have the same relationship that exists today. T. Israel was concerned that the more experienced cyclist will be forced to ride in a narrower corridor within the proposed layout. M. Loberg clarified that the on road cyclist was going to have 4 – 4.5 ft wide shoulders to travel in the whole length of the road on both sides. T. Israel inquired about the difference in the accommodation between the existing condition and proposal. He was advised that they currently had only 3 ft. wide shoulders.
T. Israel understood the subcommittee’s goal was to provide continuity in the accommodations from Oak Bluffs to Tisbury, but was not convinced that the accommodations were necessarily required for the actual number of cyclists currently traveling down the road. He recalled that they were initially considering bike sharrows. D. Seidman acknowledged and questioned their practicality, and advised T. Israel that they decided on a 4.5 bike lane. He reiterated that the Mass DOT was soliciting a comment from the Planning Board and Board of Selectmen on the 41 ft. wide layout.
C. Doble advised T. Israel that the proposed layout accommodated cyclists along the entire stretch with more space, and provided an alternative for people who were not comfortable on the road. The details, transition points will have to be discussed at some point in time, but they had to come to an agreement on the 41 ft. wide road layout. D. Seidman noted that it was the minimum the state would allow, and it entailed the need for easements.
There being no further comments from town officials, D. Seidman invited R. Packer to the table to explain the need for a voluntary easement on property he owned (Tisbury Wharf) that would benefit him and the town. B. Robinson explained that they had to shift the road to the north to accommodate the 4.5 ft. wide bike lane and 5.5 ft. wide sidewalk. The town valued the public nature of the Tisbury Wharf property but required an additional 5.5 ft. wide strip to preserve the public space with the hybrid proposal.
R. Packer advised the board members that he encountered resistance from DEP when he attempted to erect a wall barrier on a portion of the property in question, because it was designated a ‘barrier beach’. R. Packer agreed that Beach Road should be improved because of its use as a main thoroughfare. He noted that the island did not have any restrictions on the size of the trucks that arrived or departed. It was an important consideration, since he’s noticed that they’ve been getting larger over the years. R. Packer further noted that the town had some bargaining power with the state, because they owned Water Street, the only means of access to Beach Road.
R. Packer reiterated his support for improving Beach Road, but did not believe the town could afford to wait on changing the speed limit. He noted that the speed limit changed four times from the bridge to the gas station, and motorists heading into town were often distracted by the views, so that they were driving at 40 mph by the time they passed his tanks. It created a dangerous situation for people at the crosswalk. He felt they should reduce the speed limit to 20 mph all the way to the MV Savings Bank and add solar-powered flashing lights by the crosswalks to save lives. In his last comment to the Board, he emphasized the need for enforcement, because people had the tendency of ignoring the posted speed limits.
N. Orleans agreed with R. Packer’s last comment pertaining to enforcement. He believed it applied to both the pedestrians and cyclists in addition to the motorists. N. Orleans observed recreational cyclists riding against traffic, on crosswalks, or out into the street with children. Enforcement was an important component of the project, if not the key. T. Israel reminded everyone that the state regulated the speed limit, so that they could not assume they could easily change the speed limit.
B. Veno, senior planner at the MV Commission introduced A. Turner, the Commission’s newly hired executive director, and noted that SUPs were quite popular on the Vineyard. While T. Israel in a previous comment questioned the need for a SUP, given that he’s only observed a few cyclists as he traveled on Beach Road, he believed people would be induced to travel down the road if they were provided with a SUP that connected to town.
B. Veno reminded everyone that the MV Commission initiated the project to help connect the SUPs. The Town of Tisbury was the first community on the island to embrace the concept and to participate in the survey to study how they could develop a system in and through the town. The connection from the bridge to Five Corners and the Steamship Authority was one of the priorities. It was the reason the new bridge was designed with a SUP. He further noted that the town recently voted to construct a SUP in Veterans Park and to explore the possibility of having a SUP in the Tisbury Market Place leading to Lagoon Road. This led to an agreement; the MV Commission negotiated with the Tisbury Market Place Trustees. He also wanted to inform the town that the Joint Transportation Committee was surprised to hear that the
road improvement did not include a SUP, when they had prioritized this year’s TIP funds to the island on this specific project.
H. Stephenson wanted to encourage R. Packer to help make the accommodations for pedestrians and cyclists on the north side of the road, because they were crossing over right after the bridge to enjoy the view of the harbor along the seawall. He also thought it important to understand that while they were only discussing the road layout the details were just as significant. T. Israel concurred.
H. Lee studied the hybrid proposal, and rode his bicycle down the road to determine if the design was practical, and found that they may have to make certain adjustments to accommodate the 5.5 ft. wide sidewalk on the south side between the Tisbury Marketplace and Five Corners because of the number of curb cuts. He also questioned whether a raised sidewalk on the north side of the road from the motel to the Tisbury Wharf would adequately protect pedestrians heading towards the Tisbury Wharf. He described how motorists occasionally drove over the cobblestone because it blended with the travel lane. A double line along the edge of the road would remedy the situation.
H. Lee also had an issue with the reduced travel lanes, and the landscaping around the curb cuts. He thought they had to study if they’d have a smooth transition from the hybrid to Water Street, which may require a bicycle ride down the road. The exercise would allow them to find other potential issues that should be addressed before they approached the Mass DOT.
F. Brunelle noted that the center of the road line had to be moved further north because the SUP was wider from the Tisbury Market Place to Five Corners. It appeared to him that everything moved more towards the Shell Station and squeezed in the area, which could have been avoided with a more symmetrical road that had sidewalks and shoulders. He took issue with the 2 ft. wide shoulders in the hybrid plan because Mass DOT’s minimum requirement stood at 4 ft. He also understood that there was a new law (i.e. H703) in the works that required a minimum distance of 3 ft. between cyclists and vehicles on roads with speed limits below 30 mph, and an additional foot for every 10 mph increment.
F. Brunelle believed the town disregarded the cyclists’ safety with the suggestion of a 2 ft. wide shoulder, and harmed R. Packer’s businesses and the town’s future by recommending a SUP, which was more appropriate for tourist destinations such as Disney, as opposed to having a sidewalk on the north side of the road.
D. Seidman reiterated that the discussions were focused on the 41 ft. road layout. T. Israel thought the elements or components had to be discussed at some point. If they were not going to be discussed this evening, he wanted to know when the Board anticipated having these discussions. D. Seidman replied that it would occur when Mass DOT returned with a 25% design. T. Israel thought that would be too late, because in his opinion when the state returned with a 25% percent design, they were more than likely at the 75% design. He did not want to lose the opportunity to have an input in the final design.
F. Brunelle recommended asking the Mass DOT for two alternative plans. He thought they could easily provide a plan that included symmetrical sidewalks, shoulders and travel lanes for the entire length of the road, and a separate plan with the hybrid proposal. Town residents would then have two sets of plans to review equally, if the discussions were limited to the 41 ft. wide hybrid.
D. Seidman did not have an issue with the recommendation. B. Robinson did not have an issue with the recommendation, if helped the conversation, and if Mass DOT was willing to do the extra work. L. Gomez inquired if they could have a sidewalk on both sides of the road up to Tisbury Wharf. M. Loberg, B. Robinson and D. Seidman indicated that the suggestion was part of the hybrid proposal. The diagram of the hybrid proposal they provided did not include the amenity.
D. Clark, town resident supported the 41 ft. wide road layout, but preferred seeing sidewalks on both sides of the road. She disagreed with a comment T. Israel made earlier in the evening regarding the number of cyclists riding on Beach Road, based on her observations. She also wanted to bring to the town’s attention that they currently did not have any signs to direct cyclists to the bike route(s) or areas where they are prohibited. D. Clark added that existing state signs were confusing. Construction workers compounded the situation as they rudely redirected cyclists.
B. Robinson asked D. Clark if she would use the SUP on the south side of the road if one were provided or head to the north side of the road. She replied that she would use the SUP even though she preferred bike paths. B. Robinson explained that they were essentially moving in the fog line 1.5 ft in to give cyclists a little more room, so that the car-bike relationship was materially the same.
D. Hodsdon in his travels had notices how some towns had slightly raised their crosswalks in certain areas to slow the traffic down, and thought they should approach the state with the recommendation, along with R. Packer’s suggestion for a flashing street light.
C. Whittaker, an architect and urban designer by profession had prepared a power point presentation on an alternative proposal within a 40 ft. right-of-way that enhanced the commercial district and accommodated the cyclists. The proposal was fully compliant with the Federal Highway Administration’s rules and guidelines. Everyone was invited to the presentation, and town officials were asked to view the design before they voted on the 41 ft. wide road layout.
F. Brunelle asked the Board for an official vote on the presentation of two plans. He wanted the Board to provide them with a symmetrical layout that included sidewalks on both sides of the road and a separate plan reflecting the hybrid proposal, so that they could all discuss the merits of both proposals.
H. Stephenson supported the recommendation, but would like to see if members of the Planning Board and volunteers from the community that were professionals that could address the design issues to develop the two or more plans, instead of relying on Mass DOT. B. Robinson thought the state preferred having the town give them a definitive direction.
D. Seidman agreed to ask the Board of Selectmen and Planning Board if they would consider writing a joint letter to the Mass DOT asking them to draft another plan reflecting a symmetrical design with 5.5 ft. wide sidewalks, 4.5 ft. wide bike lanes and 10.5 ft. wide travel lanes from the bridge to Five Corners. B. Robinson advised D. Seidman that it was the town’s responsibility to discuss the details of the plan and to bring their recommendations to Mass DOT. C. Doble concurred as did M. Loberg. M. Loberg advised them that Mass DOT was only going tell them if their proposals were feasible. They had to prepare themselves for the possibility that they may reject their proposal. At present Mass DOT was waiting to hear about the hybrid and symmetrical layout. Israel reiterated that he would like to see the two plans side by
Additional discussions ensued with this regard and it was suggested that they continue the meeting. D. Seidman agreed, and announced that the discussions were being continued to allow public comment on the two proposals with the 41 ft. right-of-way. C. Doble thought the discussions required a different format. If they were to come to a decision, they had to refocus the direction of the discussions away from the anecdotal comments they’ve been soliciting over the past meetings.
C. Whittaker hoped the town would also entertain the 40 ft. right-of-way he had designed that was FHA compliant as a third alternate proposal. He planned on presenting his design later in the evening, and invited everyone to the presentation.
D. Seidman entertained a motion to continue the discussions on August 12, 2015 at 6 PM in the Town Hall Annex. B. Robinson seconded the motion, which motion carried. 4/0/0
T. Israel, Chairman of the Board of Selectmen moved to continue the Board of Selectmen’s joint session with the Planning Board on August 12, 2015 at 6PM in the Town Hall Annex. M. Loberg seconded the motion, which motion carried. 3/0/0
The discussions were concluded at 7:52 PM.
7:55 PM Geoghan Coogan and Richard Leonard re: Cape Cod Five Cents Savings Bank, AP 22A09 (BII District)
G. Coogan advised the Planning Board that his client, the Cape Cod Five Cent Savings Bank wanted to demolish the two existing structures at 412 State Road to accommodate a single one-story 1,590 sq. ft. modular building that was to serve as temporary quarters for a full service bank. He explained that the temporary accommodation was the first phase of their overall plans to construct a permanent structure.
The temporary accommodation would have a two-lane drive through, and was approved by the MV Commission and the Zoning Board of Appeals. He was referred to the Planning Board because they needed an endorsement of the parking plan. Board members were advised that the applicant was subject to the requirements of s. 07.07.03(a) for parking areas accommodating twenty or more parking spaces.
G. Coogan informed the Board that the Zoning Board of Appeals had them remove six parking spaces to reduce the amount of impervious surface (black top). B. Robinson inquired if the parking configuration supported the applicant’s future plans for expansion. G. Coogan replied that they would have to modify the plan. They were however obligated to return to the MV Commission for the second phase.
B. Robinson inquired about their plans for the second phase. R. Leonard replied that their plans were to continue operating from the modular structure as they constructed the permanent structure on the property. They’d have to reconfigure the parking area, since they would be building the structure closer to State Road. They were gaining open space and parking with the removal of the two structures, and more than likely revising the landscape. R. Leonard mentioned that they were not changing the egress or access into the property.
C. Doble inquired if they were paving additional areas. G. Coogan replied in the negative. C. Doble inquired if they had sufficient area to relocate the permanent building in the corner. R. Leonard replied in the affirmative, noting that they would also be in compliance with the 30 ft. setback requirements.
T. Peak inquired about the significance of the sickle shaped component drawn on the Site Lighting Plan (Plan No. SP .02). R. Leonard indicated that it was a sidewalk. T. Peak inquired if they were going to have a crosswalk on State Road leading to the sidewalk. R. Leonard replied in the affirmative. T. Peak inquired about their plans for storm water management. R. Leonard indicated referred to the site plan to illustrate the trench along the parking area that would channel the run-off into the grassy area.
There being no further comment from the Board, D. Seidman entertained a motion on the parking plan. C. Doble moved to accept the parking plan as presented. B. Robinson seconded the motion, which motion carried. 4/0/0
8:15 PM Paul Adler re: Amelia’s Crossing, AP 24A24
Board members were advised that P. Adler at the board secretary’s recommendation decided to cancel his appointment given that the Board would not be able to sign the Definitive Plan without discussing town counsel’s opinion regarding their questions about the reserve area, and the developer’s ability to maintain rights and easements over the subdivision once the fee to the way was transferred to the property owners.
Board members were advised that the plan did not meet the requirements of the subdivision control law because the reserve area exceeded the intent or spirit of the agreement for six lots. He recommended having the applicant clarify his intent for the reserve area, and re-opening the hearing to designate it for open space, or absorbed by the abutting lots (Lots 3 &4). He had to include language that would require him to convey the open space to the homeowner’s association.
D. Seidman also understood that the applicant/developer could not reserve the right grant easements on the subdivision road, because their local rules and regulations required the developer to convey the road to the homeowners’ association. If the applicant or the Board chose a particular course of action, they would have to open the public hearing process to amend their decision.
D. Seidman also noted that town counsel recommended the use of the Morse Lane documents as a reference for future applications.
C. Doble inquired how they should proceed. The board secretary indicated that town counsel recommended having P. Adler’s attorney contact him for additional questions. D. Seidman moved to grant town counsel to communicate with P. Adler’s attorney provided they were cc’d on all communications. B. Robinson so moved. C. Doble seconded the motion, and the motion carried. 4/0/0
It was also suggested that they should contact P. Adler to schedule an appointment with him at their next meeting to discuss town counsel’s recommendation.
9:15 PM Craig Whittaker re Presentation on Beach Road Renovation
Attendance: Dana Hodsdon, H. Lee, S. Tuttle, L. Gomez
C. Whittaker understood the town’s concerns with the Mass DOT’s design requirements for Beach Road, noting that the issue stemmed from road’s designation as a rural arterial. The designation automatically required a minimum of 11 ft. wide travel lanes. The solution was to have the classification changed. The State of Virginia employed the strategy to preserve the rural character of one of their routes (Rte. 50) that travelled through their towns, and it was the same strategy that allowed them to reduce the road standards for the national parks.
C. Whittaker thought it was important to understand the difference between the ADA minimum requirements for a sidewalk (5 ft.). It allowed two people to walk comfortably side by side. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) affirmed the 5 ft. minimum, but went on to say that it was not sufficient to accommodate amenities such as street furniture, trees, etc. The federal regulations further require a minimum of 8ft. wide sidewalks within a commercial zone. Boston’s Department of Transportation required the 8 ft minimum to provide the 5 ft. walk for pedestrians and additional space for bike racks, street lights, trees, etc.
C. Whittaker referred to the illustrations in the power point presentation during the discussion. He wanted to demonstrate that the 5 ft sidewalk was the minimum standard that could not be reduced. Any plans for amenities such as trees would require an additional 3 ft. to accommodate 3 ft. wide tree grates. He further noted that the FHWA also required lighting in a commercial zone.
He also noted that Beach Road presented another issue. He counted as many as 44 curb cuts on the road. He digressed to the material used for the curb, and thought a rough cut curb was much more in keeping with the character of the area as opposed to the required smooth saw cut top face to the curb.
C. Whittaker also wanted to explain sharrows in an effort to dispel any misunderstanding. He explained that they idea of a sharrow originated in San Francisco in 1998. They were experiencing the same issues they were attempting to address. They began to experiment with the idea of putting the bicyclist in traffic, and began a study. They study demonstrated that motorists were more compliant with the rules of the road as were the cyclists, and better spacing between the cars and cyclists. The conclusion, was that the FWHA added the use of a sharrow in their Manual of Uniform Traffic Devices in 2009. He recommended obtaining a copy of the manual.
In 2010, the FWHA studied the use of a sharrow in Seattle WA, Chapel Hill NC, and Cambridge MA, and found that it increased the distance between the motorist and the cyclist, cyclists were more compliant with the rules of the road and it slowed traffic. Seattle had 129 miles of sharrows and San Francisco had 220 miles of sharrows. He noted that he was not advocating the use, but he thought it was a better alternative to having a path as suggested along the gutter where silt and wet leaves collected from the drainage.
He explained that they would be able to stay within the 40 ft. wide layout with sharrows, and referred to the power point presentation to illustrate such a layout with 8 ft. wide sidewalks, 6 in. curbs and 10.5 ft. wide lanes (and 11 ft. wide lanes).
D. Seidman thought the 11 ft. wide travel lanes would increase speeding. C. Whittaker did not think so, which reduced speed limits. Past studies have demonstrated the exact opposite. The illustrations did not include the cyclists. C. Doble requested a clarification. C. Whittaker noted that they were in the road. L. Gomez commented that cyclists were currently riding in the road. B. Robinson and C. Doble disagreed. . C. Whittaker replied that the vehicles would pull over onto the street. D. Seidman observed that C. Whittaker proposed a 10.5 ft. wide travel lane and 4.5 ft. wide bike lane. B. Robinson noted that it did not allow a vehicle to pull over for an emergency. He asked C. Whittaker to clarify how that would occur within the 40 ft. wide layout he was suggesting. C. Whittaker replied that the cars would pull
over onto the sidewalk. B. Robinson expressed a concern because the road was a primary route to the hospital, so that an emergency could occur 4X-5X a day. L. Gomez questioned the practicality of the solution when they included a fire engine.
C. Whittaker inquired if they were asserting that the needed to full 30 ft. B. Robinson replied that it was the state’s assertion. C. Whittaker noted that the Town had the ability to negotiate with the state a more practical solution, but they had to be persistent and they had to present a good alternative design. B. Robinson also noted that cyclists tend to weave between cars when the traffic slowed down. He wanted to know how they stopped cyclists from veering off the sharrow lane to weave in and out of traffic. L. Gomez agreed. He’s observed cyclists intentionally disregarding signs.
B. Robinson noted that the state was prohibiting them from adding trees on the sidewalks close to the road, or anything that qualified as a permanent obstruction.
The remaining 12 minutes of the discussions are not available. Recorder malfunctioned.
L. Gomez departed at 9:55PM and the discussions were concluded at 10:04 PM
1. Vision Council (Candidates)
RE: L. Gomez, and T. Israel’s recommendations
D. Seidman reviewed C. Doble’s draft proposal for the Vision Council’s organizational structure and activities. He thought it was quite ambitious and hoped it would succeed.
C. Doble noted that she had sent out a letter soliciting the names of potential candidates that could serve on the leadership team from the Board of Selectmen and Planning Board. A reminder followed listing the characteristics that were most for their recommendations. It included a list of individuals that attended three or more workshops.
Since she did not hear from anyone for several weeks, C. Doble and B. Robinson decided move forward and emailed an announcement for the Vision Council’s first meeting in the hopes of sparking an interest if they initiated the process with easy and short-term projects. Based on their level of participation, individuals would be approached and asked to serve on the core group. She wanted to add workshops and discussion panels on various topics and expand the process to more complex projects.
B. Robinson thought they should just start project and allow it to build organically, to avoid creating another bureaucratic organization. He felt the organizational structure would eventually develop.
H. Lee thought it was important to keep a good record of their meetings and activities so that they could communicate to the general public about their projects, and to recruit more participants. He realized that they were going to have try out different managerial styles at the onset of the process, and improve upon it as they moved on to the more complex projects. In the latter case, he recommended holding workshops to reach out to the community to solicit support at the annual town meeting. He felt Beach Road should have been discussed within the Vision Planning process, because it provided a much more comfortable venue to express their opinions. The vision planning process could be used to provide them with sufficient information to help them participate in the upcoming public forums and at town meeting.
H. Lee felt insulted that he was not listed as a potential candidate for the core group, when he met several of the criteria, including participation. It was his impression that the candidates had to be familiar with the process and have some professional background on the topic before C. Doble of B. Robinson turned the venture over to the core group.
D. Seidman explained that it was a new concept, and their first attempt at organizing the vision council and its activities. H. Lee indicated that he wanted to serve on the vision council’s production team. He also questioned the qualifications of the proposed candidates. C. Doble understood and explained that they were no longer relying on the lists, and decided to initiate the process without a core group with the idea that participants would take on the responsibility. She advised H Lee not to focus on the list because it was no longer pertinent.
2. Christopher Dias
RE: Applicant’s offers to the MV Commission dated 07/27/15
Board members discussed the recent notification of Mary and Raymond Gosselin’s petition to superior court impacting C. Dias’ application before the MV Commission. T. Peak asked the board secretary to produce a time line reflecting the application process and determination on the property pertaining to the endorsement of the ANR plan.
T. Peak inquired if the town was aware of the notice. The board secretary replied in the affirmative, and advised the Board that the Town Administrator was issued a request for legal counsel with all of the supporting documentation.
1. Tisbury School Committee
RE: Meeting announcement – August 25, 2015 at 4:00P
2. Tisbury Board of Appeals
A. Case File #2221 – Cape Cod Five Cents Savings Bank, AP 22A09 (temp building)
B. Case File #2222 – Martin & Penny Schneider – AP 16N02 (demolition, reconstruction and expansion of a structure in the shore zone)
C. Case File #2224 – Waterside Market, AP 07C07.1 (120 seats combined for both food service establishments’)
3. Jonathan M. Silverstein, Kopelman & Paige
RE: Motion for Summary Judgment
T. Peak spoke with the Board Secretary about the possibility of having an executive session to discuss all of the applications that were being contested in court and subject to potential litigation.
B. Robinson recommended next week on August 12, 2015. D. Seidman inquired if they should meet. B. Robinson and C. Doble replied in the affirmative. Discussions about the time ensued, and D. Seidman moved to meet on August 12, 2015 at 5:30 PM in the Town Hall Annex for an Executive Session to discuss the merits of the lawsuit, pending litigation and town counsel’s recommendation on current application. The Board seconded and carried the motion. 4/0/0
4. MV Commission
A. 31 July 2015 Extended Meeting Schedule
B. 06 August 2014 Meeting Agenda
5. John Goldrosen, Kopelman & Paige
RE: Amelia’s Crossing, AP 24A24
PRO FORM Meeting opened, conducted and closed in due form at 10:04 P.M. (m/s/c 4/0/0)
Patricia V. Harris, Secretary
APPROVAL: Approved and accepted as official minutes;
Date Daniel Seidman