Planning Board Minutes
PLANNING BOARD
TOWN OF TISBURY
P.O. BOX 602
TOWN HALL ANNEX
VINEYARD HAVEN, MASSACHUSETTS 02568
(508) 696-4270
Fax (508) 696-7341
www.tisburyma.gov
MEETING MINUTES
DATE: March 5, 2014
TIME: 7:05 PM
PLACE: Town Hall Annex
ATTENDANCE: Aldrin, Doble, Peak, Stephenson, and Thompson
ABSENT: Seidman
BILLS: EBS Scantracker …………………………$333.47
UPS Store…………………………………$ 9.75
MINUTES: As referred in the February 19, 2014 Meeting Agenda
19 February 2014 m/s/c 4/0/0
BOARD DISCUSSIONS:
1. Stop & Shop
A. Proposal for expansion (Nantucket’s – The Inquire and Mirror Articles)
B. Municipal Parking Lot
C. Request for Legal Counsel re: questions regarding easements, etc.
C. Doble informed the Board that the Water Street Municipal Parking Lot Planning & Design Committee had made great progress at the meeting earlier in the day by achieving consensus on a conceptual plan that was to be recommended to the Board of Selectmen.
And whereas the committee had yet to reach a consensus on a recommendation for the comfort station, there appeared to be support for having the amenity remain in its current location, renovating the structure for a more attractive appearance, re-orienting the entrance into the bathroom so that it faced Main Street, and requesting the applicant contribute towards the facility’s renovation and maintenance.
T. Peak inquired if the contribution was to be similar to the current arrangement. C. Doble replied that the financial contribution would rely on the actual costs, and more than likely increase. C. Doble further noted that the committee did not support any recommendation for relocating the generator, primarily because of the cost (especially when the DPW Dir. corresponded to the Board of Selectmen against any such proposal, and the Police Department spoke against the recommendation). A. Bresnick and J. Grande were the only two members of the committee that supported the idea because they felt they should take advantage of the opportunity to have the applicant pay or contribute towards the improvement.
C. Doble understood the reduction in the comfort station’s footprint was considered because it would accommodate the multi-use path and SUP. They did not want the level of service diminished as a result. She thought it interesting that there appeared to be a sense of distrust for the developer. Despite the arguments, the discussions bought the two opposing factions together.
H. Stephenson observed that the applicant’s representatives resisted the notion of having to expand the floor area they had to dedicate to the public restrooms, and appeared much more willing to contribute to the comfort station’s renovations.
C. Doble informed the Board that the committee was scheduled for another meeting on Tuesday, 11 March 2014 at 2PM to finalize their recommendation to the Board of Selectmen. She wanted the committee to agree on both the conceptual design for the parking lot and the comfort station, despite M. London’s recommendation. C. Doble did not feel comfortable with the recommendation or the thought of scheduling additional meetings for a consensus on the latter. She understood that the MV Commission were waiting to hear about the parking lot, but in fairness to the Board of Selectmen and the committee, she opted against it.
H. Stephenson resisted M. London’s recommendations to reduce the comfort station’s footprint, because he’s tried to design a smaller accommodation, and found the exercise very difficult. If they wanted to make the amenity much more attractive and accommodating, they needed the space. M. Larsen noted that the building was extremely unattractive. H. Stephenson agreed, but felt that they could create a visually attractive space by renovating the building, removing the tract-trailers on Norton Lane, removing the SSA’s shed, etc. It was more a matter of visually sequencing spaces.
C. Doble reported that she wanted the committee to agree on a formal recommendation to present to the Board of Selectmen. M. Larsen and H. Stephenson agreed.
C. Doble noted that there were quite a few similarities between all three proposals. H. Lee’s proposal contained interesting elements, such as having all access to the store from Water Street, altering the traffic flow to one-way, etc. The one issue H. Lee would not alter, despite constant requests was the accommodations for the receiving dock. M. Larsen found H. Lee’s proposal was an attractive plan, but did not see how they could justify the cost in reversing the parking.
H. Stephenson recalled the Planning Board made a similar recommendation at one time but abandoned it because of the number of people that expressed an objection (i.e. SSA). He still liked the idea, but realized that it would never be supported. C. Doble noted that it was a similar configuration Vineyard Haven’s sister store in Nantucket preferred and used.
C. Doble noted that the committee members were all in agreement with the sidewalk on the south side. Some however believed it should be constructed by the applicant on their own property. M. London submitted a plan proposing a wider public area on the south end with plantings to meet the MV Commission’s landscaping requirements. She did not believe that the foundation plantings were appropriate for the site. H. Stephenson concurred, and thought they should just have a sidewalk with shade trees. He raised Main Street as an example to demonstrate that the applicant would do better to stage their products outside (i.e. carts with fruits and flowers).
C. Doble noted that the applicant’s representatives were very supportive of the renovations, because it was much more expensive to relocate the restrooms and generation, approximately half a million dollars. At present they were contributing ten thousand dollars. C. Doble thought the applicant would have to contribute their fair share. H. Stephenson inquired about the costs to operate and maintain the public restrooms. M. Larsen noted that Tim McLean, the town treasurer had prepared the operational budget for the Board of Selectmen. In FY 2013 it cost the town approximately thirty-three thousand dollars to operate and maintain the restrooms. The amount did not include the soft costs, such as personnel salaries, benefits, etc. In the expense projections, Mr. McLean prepared for the years 2012-2014, the total cost (including soft costs) to operate the comfort station was $40,071.00, $46315.00, and $49041.00, respectively.
L. Peak noted that the soft costs accounted for approximately twenty-five percent of the total cost, and thought the town should use the embarkation fees to operate and maintain the public restrooms. M. Larsen concurred.
C. Doble thought they could renovate the building to be environmentally sound and efficient, and favored H. Lee’s suggestion for motion sensor lights. M. Larsen agreed and believed they improvements would transform the area.
2. Tisbury School Committee - Deferred
T. Peak noted that the Planning Board’s received a copy of the school committee’s minutes for their last two sessions and a meeting agenda for March 11, 2014 at 8:30 AM.
3. Board Secretary
RE: Vacation
The board secretary noted that she was taking a couple days of vacation in the month of March to minimize any interruption(s) in the daily operations of the Planning Board’s office. T. Peak asked that the board secretary to post the revised office hours, and to direct the general public to contact him for information in the secretary’s absence.
4. Town Report (D. Seidman) – Deferred
Board members were informed that Mr. Seidman will have a draft report prepared for their review at their next meeting on 19 March 2014.
5. JoAnn Taylor, MVC
RE: Planning Board’s recommendations for the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan Update 2014
Board members were advised that JoAnn Taylor had prepared a document entitled “Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan – Update 2014/Draft Mitigation Actions for a presentation on February 12, 2014. Staff members present reviewed the short and long term goals within the plan for their recommendations. They were asked to solicit their respective board and committee members’ comments and recommendations to complete the update.
T. Peak noted that the Fire Department and ambulance facility’s space needs were resolved with the construction of their new building on Spring Street. The board secretary confirmed that Mr. Cini and Mr. Schilling brought this to Ms. Taylor’s attention at the meeting so that it would be deleted in the updated document.
C. Doble noted that each entry was followed with a comment indicating whether it was short term, long term or completed. H. Stephenson asked about the use of the terms within the context of the mitigation plan. J. Thompson directed the board to a specific page in the document, which described the criteria for the timeframe and prioritization of the goals. “Immediate” or “short-term” meant that they could go forward with little or no cost. Immediate projects should go forward within one year whereas the short-term projects should be completed within 2-3 years.
T. Peak noted that the Tisbury Elementary School had acquired the generator, so that it should be listed as being completed. T. Peak recommended revising the entry for the construction of a new elementary school as a “long term project”. He felt the Fire Department should comment on the water vessel and chemical fire foam trailer. J. Thompson noted that they already had a foam trailer.
T. Peak recommended that the entry for “hardened utilities (electric lines) on Main St., Union Street and Water Street be revised to state “not completed”.
C. Doble inquired about the entry for beach nourishment. M. Larsen replied that the town had just re-nourished the area around Grove and Owen Little Way.
H. Stephenson inquired if they considered the police department a critical facility, because its relocation had been an on-going topic for the Planning Board. He thought they should be considered as an emergency service, and list their relocation as a long term goal. C. Doble thought they could add “such as the police department” in the entry referring to critical facilities (Flood-proof or relocate any critical facility (Police Department) sited in the floodplain (other…uses).
T. Peak had questions about a few of the short and long term goals. He did not understand what they were trying to accomplish with the entries, and wanted to discuss them with Ms. Taylor. He asked the board secretary to clarify what Ms. Taylor was expecting from the board.
The board secretary explained that the MV Commission was in the process of updating the plan, which consisted of short and long term goals each community recommended “to reduce the loss of or damage to life, property, infrastructure, and natural, cultural and economic resources from natural disasters”, and was asking each town to review their recommendations.
T. Peak offered to contact J. Taylor with the Board’s recommendations, and to acquire additional information for some of the entries (e.g. armament and defensible spaces, hardened utilities) which were not clear. H. Stephenson recommended improving the glossary, and assigning the appropriate boards responsible for achieving each goal. C. Doble inquired if J. Taylor explained the entries during her presentation. The board secretary noted the discussions were kept minimal, given that the emergency personnel were responding to the vast number of recommendations.
C. Doble inquired if they had an emergency route on the island that would direct people to the passable roads in case of serious floods, etc. H. Stephenson and J. Thompson replied in the affirmative.
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED:
1. Tisbury Board of Appeals
A. Special Permit #2148 – Michael Nichols, AP 32A1.1 (construction of a garage/shore zone)
B. Special Permit #2173 – Comcast, AP 19A23 (FM broadcast antenna)
C. Special Permit #2172 – Orland & Kim Donald, AP 07L06 (increase height)
2. MV Commission
A. Proposed MV Lawn Fertilizer Control District (entire island)
B. 28 February 2014 Extended Schedule
C. 6 March 2014
D. Rural Roads Next Steps (Draft) by Craig Whittaker (02/24/2014)
3. PlannersWeb
RE: Walmart Stores Go Small and Urban
PRO FORM Meeting opened, conducted and closed in due form at 8:20 P.M. (m/s/c 5/0/0)
Respectfully submitted;
____________________________________________
Patricia V. Harris, Secretary
APPROVAL: Approved and accepted as official minutes;
______________ _________________________
Date L. Anthony Peak
Co-Chairman