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: June 17, 2015
TIME: 6:00 PM
PLACE: Town Hall Annex, 66 High Point Lane
ATTENDANCE: Doble, Peak, Robinson, Seidman and Thompson (6:20P)
Peak departed at 6:50 PM
BILLS: Inquirer & Mirror………………………….$79.00
Educomp…………………………………..$52.35
MINUTES: As referred in the June 03, 2015 Meeting Agenda
16 April 2015, 29 April 2015, and 03 June 2015- Deferred
APPOINTMENT:
6:00 PM Reid Silva re: Form A – Roberta Lee Scott, AP 08P06, Causeway Road
Reid Silva submitted a Form A application with a proposal for two lots within the R10 District. Board members were advised that the applicants were creating a 10,000 sq. ft.~ lot to sell.
~In the new configuration, the property owners relinquished the shed in the southeast corner of the lot but kept the main house and existing camp.~
There being no further discussion, D. Seidman entertained a motion on the application. B. Robinson moved to endorse the Form A proposal as an ANR under the subdivision control law. L. Peak seconded the motion, which motion carried. 5/0/0
BOARD DISCUSSIONS:
1. Vision Council
A. Summary of the Vision Council Workshop (Draft)
B. Street Fair Booth (materials, presentation? survey? Etc.)
C. Doble prepared a summary of the Planning Board’s discussions on 4/29/14 with the public regarding the organization of a Vision Council. She asked the Board if they had the opportunity to review the document. She wanted to incorporate their comments, unless they believed the report in its present form was acceptable to send out to everyone at the meeting.
The Board members did not have additional comments or amendments to recommend.
She thought it important to move on the implementation of the Vision Plan, and prepare an outline of the Planning Board’s role in the implementation of the Vision Plan, the formation of the Vision Council and initiatives they could pursue during the summer.
B. Robinson noted that the Planning Board received information from the architectural firm , Epstein Joslin Architects, Inc. in regards to the Vision Plan. His comments were noted into the record. He thought it was premature, since they did not have the opportunity to engage in any discussion with the EJ Architects. C. Doble noted that the town administrator had pre-qualified certain consulting firms, so that he could contact them when the need arose. B. Robinson questioned the practice, in that it eliminated the RFP process. He did not think it was necessary. C. Doble assumed the architectural firm may have been asked for their comments since they are involved in the infrastructure assessment. She thought it was important to have a conversation with J. Grande to understand how it works, what the process is and what they were discussing.
C. Doble redirected the discussion to the Planning Board’s role in the development of the Vision Council and implementing the Vision Plan. She believed there were a few initiatives the Planning Board could begin working on, such as bylaw amendments for the Waterfront Commercial District and the Business District I. C. Doble added the development of a Master Plan and an agenda delineating what they wanted to accomplish for the upcoming year to the list of initiatives.
C. Doble believed the Planning Board should hold presentations on topics of great importance to the town followed by workshops activities that were related to the presentations. She thought they should take the lead in developing the Vision Council, and the Board agreed. C. Doble liked the idea that everyone would be a member of the Vision Council, but believed that they still needed a steering committee. D. Seidman and B. Robinson concurred, noting that the steering committee could have 5 – 7 members.
C. Doble recommended selecting members of the steering committee from the list of individuals that participated in the workshops. They had to decide on the characteristics they believed valuable to serve on the committee, then select the individuals that met the criteria. B. Robinson did not understand how the Planning Board would oversee the activities of the steering committee. D. Seidman thought a member of the Planning Board could serve in the capacity of an Ex-Officio, so that the person did not have any voting power. C. Doble thought the Board member on the steering committee could be assigned certain tasks or responsibilities. C. Doble thought they could identify the tasks the Planning Board could assist the steering committee with.
C. Doble offered the write the Vision Council’s Vision Statement, generate an email list of all of the workshop participants for potential nominees and draft a list of the characteristics for the steering committee members. M. Loberg joined the Planning Board at 6:05 PM.
B. Robinson thought they should decide on a date they’d like the steering committee to convene, start receiving projects, etc. D. Seidman thought they should have the framework ready by the end of August or the beginning of September. B. Robinson thought they could set the first two or three meeting agendas delineating the procedures, types of projects, etc. C. Doble offered to create the list of all of the participants by the middle of July 2015 along with the list of characteristics. This will give the Planning Board a couple of meetings to decide on the characteristics and nominations for the steering committee. The Board could start recruiting potential committee members afterwards.
C. Doble reminded Board members that they could begin reviewing their zoning regulations for the Waterfront Commercial District and BI District and working these topics into their agenda. They could invite the Board of Selectmen and J. Grande to participate in the discussions, because their assistance would be required. She thought it was important to initiate discussions on the development of a Master Plan and inviting a guest speaker(s) who could speak to them about the topic. Board members agreed.
Street Fair
M. Loberg suggested running a “town booth” at the Street Fair to give other town boards, committees and departments a venue to reach out to the fair goers about their services, programs, etc.~ Board members were open and supportive of the concept. M. Loberg thought the departments could also man the booth and rotate shifts.~ D. Seidman recommended an invitation to the William Street Historic Commission and the Board of Selectmen.~~~ B. Robinson suggested the Conservation Commission and the Dept. of Public Works.~ M. Loberg suggested the Finance Committee.~ C. Doble thought the VH Library should have a presence as well. B. Robinson suggested that they should consider casting “a wide net” and invite everyone.
C. Doble indicated that they could use the maps and displays that were generated for their workshops. She wanted to use the opportunity to approach people to ask if they would consider participating on the Vision Council. B. Robinson recommended setting up a laptop where people could enter their names, phone numbers and emails into a word document.~ C. Doble agreed and mentioned the use of business cards to advertise the town’s website and the Vision Planning’s webpage.~~
B. Robinson strongly recommended the display of an aerial photo of the town, and the use of a portable/reversible chalkboard, where they could use both sides for additional displays.~ D. Seidman suggested securing a reversible white board that included a cork board on one side.
C. Doble thought it important not to let the concept of the Vision Council disappear over the summer, and suggested publishing an article in the local newspapers sometime in the middle of the July. B. Robinson recommended having an article in the middle of August to announce the steering committee.
MV Commission Interns
C. Doble advised the Board that the MV Commission had acquired two interns for the summer, one of whom was assigned to work with Joann Taylor to create an inventory of sidewalks. She thought of contacting J. Taylor to see if they would inventory Tisbury’s sidewalks. B. Robinson offered to contact the MV Commission to inquire about the criteria for the survey and bring the information to the Planning Board to determine if they’d like to solicit additional information.
C. Doble asked the Board if they knew of any issues or topics that the town will be required to address (i.e. pros and cons, strategies, etc.) and will need to build support. She explained that she wanted sufficient time to secure speakers, venues etc. to address these issues in the fall and winter. She thought they should schedule two presentations in the fall and one during the winter. D. Seidman thought they should refer to the priority list that was generated at the workshops. Board members recommended the school, water quality of the ponds, sea level rise and the TWW’s office off West Spring Street.
Wastewater Advisory Committee
M. Loberg advised the Board that the Committee had planned to develop guidelines for the MV Commission’s use to address wastewater as part of the DRI review process for projects within the Town of Tisbury. They opted against it, because they felt the Planning Board and Board of Health were much more suited to the task due to their expertise and regulatory responsibility over the area.
M. Loberg asked the Planning Board if they would consider collaborating with the Board of Health. D. Seidman asked the board secretary to send the Board of Health Chairman an email to ask if their board would be gracious enough to meet with the Planning Board.
2. Paul Adler re: Amelia’s Crossing, AP 24A24
RE: Declaration of Homeowners (Amelia Crossing) and Protective Covenants
L. Peak offered to prepare the Board’s questions to town counsel regarding P. Adler’s Homeowners’ Declaration and decision, now that town hall called to confirm that their request for access to legal counsel had been approved.~ He assured the Board that they would have the opportunity to review and revise his final draft before he submitted his questions to town counsel.
C. Doble noted that the questions were primarily about the management of the reserve lot.~ L. Peak wanted to solicit information about the process in altering the configuration of a subdivision, if the applicant/developer retained the fee in the street. He was not sure if the applicant/developer had to resubmit an application to the Planning Board. He also wanted to ask counsel, if the applicant had to indicate in the original plan, his plans to develop the subdivision in phases. He was particularly concerned about the applicant’s lack of plans for the reserve lot, and insistence on retaining exclusive rights to issue easements over the road. L. Peak wanted to inquire if it was acceptable and legal.
B. Robinson noted that the applicant granted himself an easement across the two rear lots, and reserved the right to grant himself another easement(s) to widen his access to the reserve lot. He mentioned that the Board also questioned whether the reserve lot was part of the subdivision if it was not included in the Homeowner’s Declaration. Although the applicant/developer preferred to separate it from the subdivision, they could not ignore the possibility that its development would impact the subdivision.
D. Seidman expressed concern with the applicant/developer use of the~ word “minimum” in reference to the “No Cut” zone, because it gave him the latitude to exceed the restriction of the decision. B. Robinson noted that their rules and regulations were very vague about the trees. If they wanted to impose a more restrictive condition, they had to revise their regulations to make them sufficiently clear. D. Seidman reiterated that it was important to ask the applicant to define what he meant by “minimum”. It was to avoid any misunderstandings. He asked L. Peak to inquire whether the Board could ask this of the applicant.
C. Doble referred the Board to Condition #? of the decision, which clearly stated that the applicant/developer had to contact the Planning Board to walk the road layout with a board member or representative prior to and after the construction of the road. P. Adler did not comply with the condition.
B. Robinson noted that the applicant/developer alluded that he wanted to protect trees, but the decision did not include any language that would obligate him to save a particular tree or trees within the road layout. D. Seidman understood, and clarified that the applicant/ developer never contacted the Planning Board office prior to clearing the road layout, so that they could flag down the trees that should have been saved.
C. Doble understood the applicant that he wanted to cut in parking areas along the road for head-in parking. L. Peak and D. Seidman noted that the improvement was not part of the plan.
B. Robinson noted that in section 5.11 (Preparation of a Roadway) clearly stated that the developer was obligated to protect the existing vegetation whenever feasible. It was therefore within their scope of address. D. Seidman thought it was an issue they could re-address in the decision. B. Robinson walked the road layout and took photos where the applicant had taken down trees that were ¼ in the road lot and ¾ in the house within the “No Cut” Zone. Board members asked L. Peak to bring this to town counsel’s attention. L. Peak noted that he would include the issue in his letter to town counsel.
C. Doble advised the Board that the applicant had cleared cut everything very close to the northern edge of the subdivision road, so that the applicant had to plant the small sliver of land separating the road from the abutter to provide the latter some screening (low hedge). She believed the applicant had to provide the board about his landscaping plans to make the plantings were appropriate for the location and easy to maintain. The information should have been part of the plans, which have not been filed. She wanted the applicant to come prepared with the Definitive Plan and Overlay plan to make sure it included the information they requested and landscaping design. She thought it was important to demonstrate that the applicant by his own volition offered to cooperate with the Board to save as many trees as possible. She recommended going back through all of the pertinent minutes and highlight the language where the applicant agreed and assured them about the trees.
B. Robinson thought it was important to note that P. Adler volunteered to save trees, walk the road before construction, and impose a “No Cut” Zone, all of which have not been adhered to. D. Seidman added that they also had an issue with the applicant’s Declaration and Covenants, in which he needed to define “Driveway access “ and the removal of dead trees.
There being no further discussion, L. Peak departed at 6:45 PM.
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED:
1. Douglas Reece
RE: Letter of Resignation
2. Jay Grande, Town Administrator
RE: Town of Tisbury Vision Plan – Initial Comments
3. MV Commission
A. 18 June 2015 Meeting Agenda
B. Joint Transportation Committee (Agenda, UPWP/2016, TIP (2016-2019)
CORRESPONDENCE SENT:
1. Site Plan Review Board
RE: Appointments 2015/2016
PRO FORM Meeting opened, conducted and closed in due form at 8:00 P.M. (m/s/c 4/0/0)
Respectfully submitted;
____________________________________________
Patricia V. Harris, Secretary
APPROVAL: Approved and accepted as official minutes;
______________ _________________________
Date Daniel Seidman
Chairman