TOWN OF TISBURY
P.O. BOX 602
TOWN HALL ANNEX
VINEYARD HAVEN, MASSACHUSETTS 02568
Fax (508) 696-7341
DATE: September 9, 2015
TIME: 6:00 PM
PLACE: Town Hall Annex, 66 High Point Lane
ATTENDANCE: Doble, Seidman, Robinson and Thompson
BILLS: UPS Store………………………$ 4.00
P. Harris (cake/ice cream)……...$39.00
MINUTES: As referred in the August 19, 2015 Meeting Agenda
16 April 2015, 03 June 2015, 01 July 2015 and 19 August 2015 - Deferred
6:49 PM Paul Adler, Amelia’s Crossing, AP 24A24 – Revised Covenants, road construction, etc.
P. Adler reports that he has been actively constructing the subdivision road, and anticipates the road will be completed within the next two to three weeks. He noted that he met with B. Robinson at the construction site last week, and revised the Definitive Plan to eliminate the reserve area, when town counsel concurred with his recommendation.
P. Adler submitted a Sketch Plan prepared for 14 Pine Street Realty Trust, dated 4/1/15 and revised on 9/8/15 by Schofield, Barbini & Hoehn, Inc. (Plan No. MV 10759)in which the Reserve Area was eliminated from the plan and the land area comprising the Reserve Area was incorporated into Lots 3 & 4. Board members noted that the modification was limited to Lots 3 & 4, which included the 7,700 sq. ft. that was designated for open space.
P. Adler indicated that he had sent the Planning Board a written description of the screened buffer line, and a revised copy of the Homeowner’s Declaration and Protective Covenants, eliminating all references to the Reserve Area as suggested by town counsel. D. Seidman read town counsel’s response and planned to recommend to the Board that they also send town counsel a copy of the documents, as he had suggested to make sure the revised documents incorporated all of the recommendations that addressed their concerns (red line version). P. Adler understood. D. Seidman entertained a motion. B. Robinson moved to forward the applicant’s Homeowner’s Declaration and Protective Covenants for Amelia’s Crossing to town counsel for a thorough review. C. Doble seconded the motion, which motion carried. 4/0/0
B. Robinson requested a clarification regarding P. Adler’s emailed proposal about the tree-lined buffer. P. Adler indicated that their regulation required trees with a 2” caliper every 50 ft., but he intended to quadruple the number of trees, and promised to follow through on his proposal. B. Robinson mentioned that the Overlay Plan he submitted with his application included a tree lined screen between the road and the abutters on AP 24A23, so he was somewhat confused about the email. P. Adler noted that the email pertained to the 230 ft buffer at the entrance on both sides of the road. B. Robinson noted that he’d only have to plant five trees. P. Adler reiterated that he planned on quadrupling the number. B. Robinson noted that the regulation pertained to a streetscape, not the screening of a buffer.
D. Seidman asked if the applicant intended to submit a revised plan delineating the tree line, buffers, and revised lots. The board secretary informed the Board that the applicant could not eliminate the Reserve Area at this time. The Board had to endorse the plan submitted with the application, provided the applicant annotated the plan with note stating that he was to return to the Planning Board with a Form A Plan eliminating the Reserve Area by a specified time. P. Adler acknowledged, and informed the Board that he intended to submit the ANR plan at the time he submitted the Definitive Plan.
C. Doble was concerned about the proposal for monoculture planting. The 6’-8’ cypress trees the applicant proposed to plant every 10 ft would create a tunnel effect. B. Robinson thought it would also present a problem in the winter. The shade would prevent the ice from melting on the road. P. Adler indicated that the trees were being planted on the abutter’s property, and did not have any say. C. Doble thought it was a conversation he could have with J. Corbo. She believed he could have a much more interesting landscape design that would accomplish what they needed without creating a contained corridor. P. Adler selected the Leland cypress trees because they were the hardiest on the Vineyard. B. Robinson thought they could be staggered. C. Doble did not think they all had to be trees. The shrubs
could provide screening as well. D. Seidman recommended keeping the trees at least 25 ft. from the road away from the catch basins. B. Robinson asked if P. Adler would be able to maintain good site lines at 25 ft. P. Adler replied in the affirmative. Discussions ensued with regards to the species of trees and the distances between the trees at time of planting. H. Lee recommended a random planting scheme that included shrubs and signature trees for a more natural appearance. P. Adler noted that he had very little room to work in along the northerly property line (4 ft. -6 ft. of space). As it was they were going to have to trim the branches as they impeded on the road.
C. Doble offered to provide P. Adler with landscape options with the types of plantings that would work well for the confined space within the next couple of weeks.
H. Lee inquired if the Board could ask the applicant to restrict the property owners on Lots 1 & 6 from erecting a fence on the eastern property line to encourage them to provide a vegetative screen behind the historical house. D. Seidman replied that the request went beyond the Planning Board’s scope of authority. H. Lee hoped the Board would ask he applicant to consider the restriction. C. Doble noted that the plantings were an important aspect of a development, because of its contribution to the character of the area, and impact on existing vegetation. B. Robinson moved to develop a few screening options (along the road) to the applicant within the next two weeks. D. Seidman seconded the motion, which motion carried. 4/0/0 C.
D. Seidman inquired about B. Robinson’s email pertaining to the sidewalks. He did not understand. B. Robinson indicated that P. Adler spoke with P. Wohler, DPW Director about the use of concrete at the interface with the road. P. Adler indicated that P. Wohler preferred the use of asphalt at the interface of road to another road. He thought a continuous concrete sidewalk across a road presented a safety hazard. C Doble understood, but thought there had to be some sort of marking at the interface. She also felt that the requirement did not apply to the subdivision road, where they anticipated a low volume of traffic. It did not even connect to another connector road. D. Seidman offered to speak with P. Wohler on P. Adler’s behalf, if he was amenable to the suggestion. P. Adler replied in the
affirmative, but asked that it be done as soon as possible. B. Robinson and D. Seidman understood.
P. Adler was advised that he would be informed about town counsel’s revisions as soon as the Board received the revised documents, at which time the board secretary would schedule an appointment for the applicant with the Board.
B. Robinson entered a motion directing D. Seidman to approach P. Wohler about allowing the continuous use of concrete at the subdivision road’s interface with Pine Street to have a continuous sidewalk across the entrance. C. Doble seconded the motion. And the motion carried. 4/0/0
In a related subject, P. Adler asked B. Robinson to contact him so that he could schedule an appointment with him to inspect the subdivision road’s subgrade. B. Robinson agreed.
7:30 PM Daniel Vignolo, re: Rogers Farm Road (adequacy for Form A purposes)
D. Vignolo met with the Board a couple of months ago to inquire about ANR requirements for a division of land, and specifically for his property on the corner of Cook and Rogers Farm Roads in the R10 District. He was advised about the requirement for vital access, frontage and the adequacy of a road for ANR purposes.
D Vignolo returned to inform the Board that an abutter had carved out a traveled way within the Cook Road layout to his property. The abutter had to pass D. Vignolo’s property to reach his land. D. Vignolo indicated that he now had frontage and vital access to the buildable portion of his land for ANR purposes. He wanted to know if the road was sufficient for ANR purposes, so that he could submit a Form A plan to divide his property into two lots.
Board members were not clear about the state’s prerequisites for ANR endorsements and somewhat uncertain about the minimum requirements to designate a road adequate for ANR purposes. C. Doble thought they should inspect the condition of the road and review the regulations before they responded. Board members agreed, and D. Seidman advised D. Vignolo that the Board planned on performing a site inspection of the road. He wanted to give the board members the opportunity to review their regulations, before they replied to his request. D. Seidman offered to send the board members a pdf of a manual explaining ANRs. The Board advised D. Vignolo that they would contact him as soon as they were prepared to respond to his questions.
1. L. Anthony Peak
RE: Letter of Resignation
Board members, M. Loberg, ME Larsen and two members of the general public met with L. Anthony Peak in celebration at 6PM. L. Anthony Peak’s years of service and contribution to the Planning Board as a member was duly noted. Everyone presented was invited to share the cake and ice cream that was provided by the Planning Board.
2. MV Commission
RE: Chris Dias/Joseph DeBettencourt’s Proposal, AP 23A11.13
C. Doble thought the Planning Board should make arrangements to attend the meetings to hear Joseph DeBettenCourt’s proposal. She thought it was important to have someone present to provide input from the Town and to share the opinions of the Planning Board as they are being reviewed. B. Robinson agreed. He thought they should explore how the lots could be developed. B. Robinson believed they should be proactive rather than reactive.
C. Doble reiterated the importance of having discussions on proposals before the MV Commission and having a person commit to attending the meeting to share the Planning Board’s perspective. D. Seidman agreed.
3. Citizen Planner Training Collaborative
RE: Oct. 2, 2015 Workshop in Randolph, MA (7:30A-2:30P)
4. Vision Council Meeting
RE: September 10, 2015, Vineyard Haven Library
C. Doble thought it was important to schedule the Vision Council’s first meeting and decided on September 10, 2015. She wanted to open the discussions with an overview of the council’s scope of address and goals.
She invited Paul Doherty to discuss the Owen Park renovation, and fund raising imitative. She wanted to inform the public that there were additional funds via CPC’s funds in an effort to generate interest among the participants and additional help to move the project forward.
She wanted to present the idea of having projects, educational sessions and more workshops. C. Doble wanted to explain how they were going to communicate to the community broadly and prioritize some of the topics and/or projects that will be raised at the meeting.
C. Doble indicated that participants in the workshops expressed an interest on improving pedestrian and bike routes. She thought it was an appropriate project for the Planning Board to lead. She thought they could get volunteers to do street inventories, and help from the MV Commission for mapping. B. Robinson thought they could get Northeastern students down to help with studies during the spring break. C. Doble offered to contact the university to follow up on the availability of their students, etc.
H. Lee thought the process had to incorporate a system that followed a project from its inception to its completion. He did not want to see a one-design project. C. Doble understood, and explained her vision for the Vision Council. She wanted to model it after Christopher Alexander’s “Oregon Experiment”, where anyone within the community would be allowed to bring forward a project, provided that it related to specific goals.
She also understood H Lee’s issue with transparency, and thought they could address it by having a very active web page, links to other social media, and a periodic news article. She understood that it had to be public, and kept “public”, so that everyone knew what was happening at every phase of every project.
D. Seidman thought they should include the school building as a topic for discussion. B. Robinson thought it would provide a great forum for controversial discussions outside of the political arena. C. Doble clarified that the process was intended to provide people with support to pursue their projects and to serve as a venue to educate people.
ME Larsen recommended adding the topic of biking and walking to the first meeting, in addition to Owen Park. D. Seidman thought they should add the playground at the end of Lake Street as a potential project to pursue, especially since the town approved the funding. B. Robinson thought they had to make the meetings an event people will enjoy coming to. ME Larsen noted that there was a bit of money available for projects that were never completed. She thought it would help if the Vision Council could discuss these projects to give the DPW some support and direction. D. Seidman asked ME Larsen if she could provide the Planning Board with a list of the projects. ME Larsen replied in the affirmative.
5. Beach Road
Board members were provided with a copy of a hybrid-hybrid that incorporated a sidewalk on the north side of the road. D. Seidman explained the revised incorporated approximately 420 ft. of sidewalk on the north side of the road (Shell Station to Tisbury wharf) in response to T. Israel and L. Gomez’s request. He noted that the plan included a crosswalk at the apex and within the vicinity of Packer’s dock. He recommended supporting the plan, even if they did not agree with the amendment because of its significance to the state. He believed they should avoid any disagreement, because it appeared to be the best plan that could be developed.
B. Robinson thought they should explain the proposal so that the community understood that the plan involved a significant taking at the gas station to accommodate the sidewalk. D. Seidman noted that it was part of the plan. B. Robinson agreed, but noted that it was not as wide a taking. D. Seidman agreed. B. Robinson explained that the shift in the road was going to have quite an impact on Packer’s property. D. Seidman agreed, and did not know if R. Packer was aware of the taking. B. Robinson further noted that they were going to have a narrower SUP and buffer to accommodate a sidewalk. It precluded any thoughts for plantings when they reduced the section 1.5. ft.
C. Doble did not understand why T. Israel and L. Gomez refused to make a compromise. B. Robinson reiterated the significance in explaining to T. Israel and L. Gomez what the hybrid was going to cost the town in terms of the taking, the narrowing of the SUP, and the loss of the buffering. He thought they should ask them if they were all worth the additional sidewalk.
D. Seidman questioned whether they would be able to answer the question. B. Robinson thought it important to discuss their views on the hybrid-hybrid, and their positions.
D. Seidman thought they had to support the new plan. He did not think they could accomplish much if they took a hard line. B. Robinson disagreed. C. Doble concurred with B. Robinson. She thought they should write a letter expressing their impressions and reservations about the plan, if the Board of Selectmen were not willing to compromise or consider the alternative.
D. Seidman understood that the Board of Selectmen did not have an issue with the hybrid-hybrid, and would be willing to support the plan. They were no longer pursing the addition of a sidewalk along the entire north edge of the road. ME Larsen thought the hybrid-hybrid was reasonable. C. Doble agreed.
6. Jonathan Silverstein - Kopelman & Paige, PC
RE: Jane Askew v Tisbury Planning Board
Board members received an email from town counsel confirming that Land Court had issued a Decision and Judgment in favor the Planning Board.
1. Tisbury Board of Appeals
A. Public Hearing Notice – Penny Parrot (enclosure of a deck)
B. Public Hearing Notice – Rosemary Gambino (accessory apartment)
C. Public Hearing Notice – Otoniel Santos (accessory apartment)
2. Tisbury School Committee
RE: Meeting Notice – September 15, 2015 at school (8:30AM)
3. MV Commission
A. 04 September 2015 Extended Schedule
B. 10 September 2015 Meeting Agenda
4. Tisbury Board of Appeals
A. Special Permit # 2225 – Glenn A. Palmer, AP 16N08 & 16N23.9
B. Special Permit #2226 – Tony Godfrey & Virginia Litle, AP 30A08
C. Special Permit # #2227 – Randi Hadley, AP 26D06
D. Special Permit #2228 – Thomas Milo & Katie A. Campbell, AP 36A08
5. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
RE: Notice of a Waterways Application by Mink Meadows Association, 20 Water Wagon Road (maintenance dredging of mosquito trenches) – Vineyard South Sound
6. Federal Emergency Management Agency
RE: Notice of upcoming advertisements in the Gazette publicizing hearings re appeal process
PRO FORM Meeting opened, conducted and closed in due form at 8:37 P.M. (m/s/c 4/0/0)
Patricia V. Harris, Secretary
APPROVAL: Approved and accepted as official minutes;
Date Daniel Seidman