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 3, 2015
TIME: 6:05 PM
PLACE: Town Hall Annex, 66 High Point Lane
ATTENDANCE: Doble, Peak, Robinson, Thompson
Phone Conference: Seidman (6:05PM – 7:42PM)
BILLS: MV Times……………………………$472.00
DaRosa……………………………….$ 6.00
Verizon……………………………….$ 68.24
Realty Publishing Co…………………$150.00
MINUTES: As referred in the 06 May 2015 Meeting Agenda
25 March 2015 m/s/c 4/0/0
01 April 2015 m/s/c 4/0/0
08 April 2015 m/s/c 4/0/0
16 April 2015 Deferred
06 May 2015 m/s/c 4/0/0
APPOINTMENT:
6:00 PM Public Hearing: Renaming Dickson Way on Assessor Map 22
Attendance: None
The hearing commenced at 6:08 PM. C. Doble, Chairman Pro Tem read the public hearing notice into the minutes. She was advised that Robert Dickson had submitted a letter petitioning the Planning Board to revise the name of the road. Said letter was read into the minutes.
The board secretary notified the Board that B. Dickson called the office a few days ago to confirm the receipt of his letter and to explain that the Planning Board should assign the road a more historically significant name, since his family had no affiliations with the location. He suggested “Vicker’s Way”, if the Board or abutters did not have any suggestions. There being no objections, B. Robinson moved to rename the road presently known as Dickson Way to Vicker’s Way. L. Peak seconded the motion, and the motion carried. 5/0/0
There being no further discussion, C. Doble entertained a motion to close the public hearing. L. Peak so moved. B. Robinson seconded the motion which motion carried. 5/0/0 The Board resumed their regularly scheduled portion of the meeting at 6:12 PM
6:12 PM Paul Adler re: 14 Pine Street Realty Trust’s Homeowner Association’s Declaration and Protective Covenant
P. Adler advised the Board that the Town Clerk had signed the Decision and linen (Definitive Plan) to confirm that the no one had filed an appeal within the 21 day appeal period. He further noted that they had been given aconfiming the expiration of the 21 day appeal periodhad copy of the Form F Covenant that was recorded at the Registry of Deeds.
P. Adler indicated that he had given the Board a copy of the Declaration and protective covenants two or three months ago for their review and comment, and of which had been revised over time to accommodate the Board. He wanted to conclude the process tonight. If this was not possible, he asked the Board if they would consider allowing him to meet with a member of the board, with whom he could work out the remainder of the revisions for their final acceptance to expedite the process. The Board acknowledged the request.
L. Peak began the discussions and commented that the last paragraph on the first page of the Declaration (1. Lots 1,2,3,4,5, and 6 … equal owner of said Road Lot …) was awkward when the subdivision rules and regulations in s. 08 (03/25/87 Rev.) stated “that the document should describe the homeowners’ association as the title holders of all ways, open space lots or common land, (common facilities, common utilities)”. It raised a question about the Reserve Area’s designation as open space, if he intended to retain its ownership. If in fact that was his intent, he would have to sever the parcel from the subdivision.
P. Adler replied that the “Reserve Area’ was not open space. The state and local subdivision rules and regulations only required an applicant to designate 5% of the land area for open space. The regulation also allowed the Board to approve divisions of land with unbuildable land. The Reserve Area should therefore be acceptable. L. Peak acknowledged, noting that certain aspects of the development were part of the negotiations and decision to approve the subdivision. It had to be recognized thoroughly to prevent them from being altered, including the language allowing the “President “ to change a condition(s) contrary to the written decision. P. Adler acknowledged. He did not think there was anything in the documents that contradicted or altered the written decision.
L. Peak noted that the regulations required the homeowners association to be the owner of the road lot, and each lot owner has an equal and undivided share in the homeowners’ association and all their property. P. Adler did not have an issue with the recommendation and agreed to make the revision. L. Peak noted that the homeowners’ association was to retain the fee in the way, so that the language in the Declaration should be revised accordingly.
C. Doble noted that the documents referred to Lots 1-6, without any mention of the Reserve Area. She inquired if the parcel should be Lot 7. P. Adler did not see the necessity of including the parcel, since it was not a buildable lot, and retaining the fee in the property, until he decided what he wanted to do with the land. C. Doble understood. She further noted that by not including the lot in the Declaration or Covenants, as an owner of property within the subdivision, he was excluding himself (or future property owners) from the Homeowners’ Association and restrictions imposed by the Covenants I the lot were to be developed. L. Peak acknowledged that there were subdivision plans that allowed portions of the subdivision to be developed at a later point in time. In this case, the configuration was part and parcel of the decision. They’d have to change the decision to develop the land. It may have been an oversight not to address the lot’s development in the decision or how to address the matter at this time.
D. Seidman recalled P. Adler stated that the residents in the development were going to be able to use the Reserve Area. P. Adler agreed, but noted that the easement to the parcel of land could be terminated once he decided to develop the parcel. He met the 5% open space requirement. T. Peak referred to s. 08 (03/25/87 Rev.) and read “ No subdivision application proposal shall be approved where the proposal provides or allows the developer applicant to retain fees in the ways, open space lots, common lands/facilities/utilities…” P. Adler did not believe the “Reserve Area” was open space. D. Seidman noted that the 5% open space was part of the “Reserve Area”. L. Peak thought the subject required a legal opinion.
L. Peak advised P. Adler of a typographical error in the section numbered 11. General. The reference to the number of lots erroneously referred to “four” lots, instead of the “six” that were approved.
D. Seidman asked L. Peak to read the section pertaining to the president’s ability to revise the restrictions. P. Adler referred the Board to S. 1 of the protective covenants, which allowed the applicant developer to amend the architectural restrictions. P. Adler explained that he wanted to control the architectural standards until all of the lots were constructed.
L. Peak recalled that there was another issue he had raised about the easements, but could not locate the language. C. Doble noted that there were several locations where the President’s consent was required. It pertained to tree cutting, temporary structures, etc. D. Seidman indicated that he wanted to make sure that the applicant developer did not exceed the restriction of the decision pertaining to the “No Cut” Zone.
C. Doble inquired about the President’s term. P. Adler indicated that he could remain the president of the association until he was voted out by a 2/3rd majority. D. Seidman also noted that until he sold four lots, the applicant had the ability to arbitrarily change the restrictions. P. Adler informed the Board that the Homeowners’ Associations can change their protective covenants at any time provided they obtained the 2/3rd majority vote. D. Seidman clarified that he was concerned the applicant’s ability to change the “No Cut” zone. P. Adler acknowledged that he could not alter the restriction in the decision and offered to remove any language pertaining to the “No Cut” zone from the Protective Covenants. D. Seidman indicated that he would like the language removed. P. Adler was amenable to the omission. L. Peak inquired if he was referring to Section 7 of the protective covenants pertaining to Tree Cutting. B. Robinson noted that the language permitted landowners to remove trees in excess of 6” within the “No Cut” zone with the consent of the President. Their decision prohibited the removal of any tree.
B. Robinson also noted that he walked the road layout and noticed that it was cleared from edge to edge. P. Adler indicated that the excavator removed what he thought was necessary. B. Robinson disagreed, and believed it was in excess of what was required. There were a number of large trees that should have been saved. The preservation of the trees was a major issue during the public hearings, and an aspect of the proposal the applicant readily agreed to do. D. Seidman added that the tree survey they requested at the hearing was to flag the trees of a certain dba that should or could be protected. P. Adler misunderstood the purpose of the survey and did not realize that it was to flag the trees to be protected. He thought the survey was to locate the trees with a dba of18” At no time did he understand that he was to preserve trees that were in the middle of the road. B. Robinson was familiar with the requirements and equipment to construct a road, and did not agree that the applicant had to clear cut the entire 40 ft. wide road layout. It did not appear as if the applicant made any effort to save a tree, and his actions made it difficult for the Board to rely on him to enforce the restrictions of the decision, if he retains his presidency the first five to seven years of the homeowners’ association.
L. Peak thought they should revise the language in s.7 (Tree Cutting) to prohibit any tree cutting except for dead trees. P. Adler agreed and offered to revise the language to state “Except dead trees”. B. Robinson added that he should delete the language allowing an exception with the president’s approval, except minimal clearing for the driveway. D. Seidman inquired if they could specify the maximum width of a driveway, because of the potential of clear cutting quite a bit of the frontage to accommodate the amenity. B. Robinson thought the Homeowners’ Association would have the ability. C. Doble inquired if the restriction for the number and width of curb cuts could be placed in the protective covenants. D. Seidman thought it could. He wanted to minimize the applicant’s ability to clear cut a “No Cut” zone, in light of the extensive clearing the applicant approved for the road layout. He believed P. Adler should have abided by his word to the abutters and the Board. P. Adler believed he had to clear 35 ft. of the road.
C. Doble and B. Robinson inquired if the developer, P. Adler would consider adding a requirement within the Protective Covenants addressing the number and maximum width of curb cuts. P. Adler offered to consider the Board’s request, but did not want to commit to additional restrictions. D. Seidman recalled that the Board requested the applicant to reflect the “No Cut” zone on each lot on the Definitive Plan and the restriction as a notation. This was not seen on the current plan.
L. Peak recommended revising the s 7. to state “No Cut Zone. No trees on the Lot, which are in excess of six inches in diameter at the base, except dead trees, shall be removed within 10 feet of any lot line”. P. Adler called D. Hoehn to inquire if he could add the “No Cut” zone around the perimeters of each lot on the Definitive Plan. D. Hoehn replied in the affirmative. C. Doble inquired if he would add a note about the No Cut Zone on the plan as well. D. Hoehn suggested marking up a plan with the information the Board wanted him to include on the plan. L. Peak did not think they should clutter the plan. B. Robinson believed the notation was much more critical.
C. Doble was still concerned about preserving the “No Cut” zone and thought they should limit the width of the curb cuts. L. Peak agreed and thought they should be limited to a certain size (12 ‘ – 14’). It preserved the road scape. P. Adler inquired about the town’s parking regulations. He was not familiar with the restriction prohibiting curb side parking. L. Peak indicated that he was referring to section 07.07.
P. Adler asked the Board if they would consider assigning a board member to meet with him to discuss the Declaration and Protective Covenants. He thought it would be much more productive outside of the public meetings. C. Doble and B. Robinson thought L. Peak was the best candidate. L. Peak did not respond, and suggested conferring with town counsel to discuss the Reserve Lot and other issues he had with the fees to the way. Board members agreed. P. Adler inquired if they had an idea about the time frame and asked if he should schedule an appointment with the Board on June 17, 2015. L. Peak did not think Counsel would be able to respond by June 17. Dan Seidman recommended one month before they met again.
7:05 PM Board of Selectmen re: Beach Road Improvements, TIP, upcoming town projects and goals for 2015/16
Attendance: T. Israel, M. Loberg, L. Gomez; J. Grande, Town Administrator
T. Israel, Chairman of the Board of Selectmen moved to open the Selectmen’s meeting. M. Loberg seconded the motion, which motion carried. m/s/c 3/0/0
C. Doble advised the members of the public that the Planning Board had requested a joint meeting with the Board of Selectmen to discuss the aforementioned projects. She noted that the Board of Selectmen via the town administrator has held discussions with the MassDot and the Planning Board had sent them a letter. She did not believe the town’s received a response.
M. Loberg noted that she and a small consortium of individuals traveled to Boston to meet with Sen. Dan Wolf, Representative Timothy Madden and officials from MassDot to discuss the possible adoption of Craig Whittaker’s manual on rural roads. She wanted to advocate the use of Mr. Whittaker’s recommendations and guidelines for Beach Road and the bridge; and use the opportunity to ask for a joint meeting with these officials to look at the local sensitivities that need to be recognized. They appeared to have agreed and have contacted J. Grande to coordinate the first meet. She recommended having a representative of their respective boards and the town administrator represent the town’s sensibilities.
D. Seidman inquired if they were aware of the other jurisdictions involved, in addition to the state. M. Loberg replied that she was given a copy of a map illustrating all of the roads the state was responsible for. It listed Beach Road, which was listed as the only road on Martha’s Vineyard that had to comply with “some” national standard. She understood that the designation arrived from the road’s classification as an arterial road that connected an urban center and another town.
B. Robinson questioned if M. Loberg had the opportunity to inquire about the designation’s impact on the design. M. Loberg replied that the state representative explained to her that the state standard for the travel lane was 12 ft. He recognized that it would not work for the site, and immediately filed to have it reduced to 10.5 ft. Any and all exemptions to the standards have to be underpinned with some rationale. M. Loberg believed the meeting would be insightful. C. Doble concurred. She added that they could also help with the justifications they’ll need for other exemptions. L. Peak thought they should understand that the Vineyard has a hyper-preservation oriented designation that created the MV Commission. The development of the regional planning agency was a compromise position, without which the Vineyard would have been designated and protected as a national seashore. C. Doble thought they could request a letter of support from the MV Commission. M. Loberg noted that M. London, Exec. Dir. of the MV Commission was present at the meeting, and supportive.
B. Robinson inquired if the work group had any guidelines or timeframe. J. Grande replied that he intended to schedule a meeting either next week or the week after at 4PM because the state’s representatives wanted to meet on the Vineyard. T. Israel recommended contacting Bill Keating’s aide for assistance prior to meeting with MassDot. He recommended M. Loberg and Jay Grande to represent the Board of Selectmen, and asked for a couple of representatives from the Planning Board. M. Loberg recommended included Priscilla LeClerk, Transportation Planner from the MV Commission.
C. Doble recommended B. Robinson. L. Peak recommended D. Seidman. Both B. Robinson and D. Seidman agreed. J. Grande inquired if the Planning Board had included any justifications for their recommendations in their letter to the MassDot. He asked if they could provide them for their first meeting. B. Robinson offered to generate the information (e.g. layout, environmental constraints). T. Israel thought they should include erosion, sea water level, seawall, etc. M. Loberg thought it important to stress to the state that the road and bridge was an important link to the hospital. C. Doble inquired if anyone mentioned the possibility of bringing their engineers to the meeting. M. Loberg replied in the affirmative. She was interested in asking them to review and comment on their alternative proposals.
T. Israel asked for a clarification about the amenities they wanted the state to consider. He understood the road was very narrow at the MV Shipyard, which would require a modification from the state standard. He thought they could use a sharrow in that particular section of the road, as opposed to a SUP. He did not like the recommendation for the SUP between the Marketplace and the marina nor did he think that they had any room for an SUP. D. Seidman advised him that they were proposing an alternative proposal that divided the road into three sections with three different recommendations. T. Israel was provided with a copy of the alternative plan.
B. Robinson noted that it was difficult to see the sharrow in “stop-n-go” traffic, which may force a bike to ride around a car, if the latter was parked in the lane. If they did not get the SUP, B. Robinson thought they should advocate for a proper bike lane. He referenced the MV Commission’s recent on-line survey in which respondents wanted off-road accommodations. M. Loberg thought the SUP relied on the state’s willingness to consider reducing the size of the shoulders (2.5 ft. – 3 ft.). J. Grande thought it would be difficult to consider anything but the 10.5 ft. /4.5 ft. It was the reason for changing his tactic, and asking them to consider staying within the 40 ft. layout.
B. Robinson thought they could accommodate the pedestrians from the Marketplace to the Winds Up if they eliminated the sidewalk from Packer’s to Tisbury Wharf on the north side. They did not need a sidewalk from the Wharf, and the land area gained could be used for SUP on the south side. T. Israel inquired if they could substitute the SUP with a sidewalk. B. Robinson did not think it mattered, because it all depended on how people were going to use the amenity. The majority of the people walked to the Tisbury Marketplace, and then biked to Oak Bluffs. Pedestrians would be able to walk on the SUP as they would on a sidewalk. D. Seidman’s proposal allowed for a 4.5 separation between the road and the SUP. T. Israel did not think they had sufficient room for the SUP and thought they could use the 4.5 ft. for a wider sidewalk. He preferred having the wider sidewalk for the narrow section of the road. C. Doble indicated that they were proposing to reduce the sidewalk on the north side of the road by the shipyard to obtain more space. B. Robinson explained that they had to eliminate the sidewalk on the north side to provide the space they needed for the SUP. R. Packers has expressed an interest and willingness to work with the state to provide amenities for his customers on his property, which would provide them the room they need to accommodate the SUP from the Tisbury Marketplace to Winds Up. The issue they had to address with the engineers was that they’d have to shift the road to the north, and in doing so, the curve was going to get tighter.
Copies of Daniel Greenbaum’s road layout and B. Robinson’s proposal were reviewed and compared. It was noted that the two were very similar, except that he advocated 10.6 lanes and 3.6 shoulders. B. Robinson noted that his proposal for the 10 ft. lanes and 4 ft. shoulders met the 2006 design guidelines. L. Peak noted that M. Loberg reported the state’s officials were claiming that federal law superseded their guidelines.
J. Grande inquired about the width of the sidewalks from Five Corners to the Tisbury Marketplace. B. Robinson replied that there were 6 ft. wide sidewalks on both sides of the road for the one section because they did not have the space. D. Seidman disengaged from his conference call with the Board at 7:42 PM.
C. Doble inquired if they were pursuing a presentation on the 25% design. M. Loberg advised the state against it. C. Doble thought it was important to discuss the state’s presentation(s), and have them reconsider a change in strategy. B. Robinson wanted to raise the state’s relocation of the utility poles, because they were still operating under the assumption of a “taking”. They had to share the fact that property owners had expressed an interest in relocating the utility poles on their properties. C. Doble added that they also had to discuss the property owners’ opposition to the relocation of the transformers, because of the impact to their parking accommodations. They had to explore their options. All were in agreement, and J. Grande was to contact the Planning Board about the meeting.
TIP
C. Doble noted that the Planning Board was interested in following up on some of the recommendations (projects) that were recommended at the Fall work sessions and wanted to coordinate their efforts with the Board of Selectmen on related construction projects (TIP) which may require more joint meetings. She thought it was important to maintain communication, so that they were contributing towards the larger plan for the town.
T. Israel mentioned that they’ve not had any representation on the TIP Committee since the previous DPW Director’s retirement. J. Grande has on occasion participated in the discussions. They’d have to contact the TIP Committee to find out if there were any town projects earmarked for next year.~ J. Grande thought it was possible that without any representation, they may not have any projects for the next year.~ J. Grande suggested that they not rely on the DPW Director or the Town Administrator but to involve a member of the Planning Board and/or Board of Selectmen. The two bodies could meet periodically to identify projects.~ T. Israel thought they could appoint a subcommittee of three with representatives from the Board of Selectmen, Planning Board and DPW Director that met periodically to identify projects.~ J. Grande did not think they had to meet regularly. They could meet within the 90 day timeframe before the TIP committee prioritized their projects.
M. Loberg thought the committee could convene at the infrastructure meetings where these projects could be discussed. J. Grande concurred. M. Loberg noted that the Board of Selectmen were interested in keeping an open line of communication with the town boards and will be attending the meetings of the boards they’ve been assigned.
T. Israel informed the Board that J. Grande has been looking at town properties that could serve as a site for a new town hall. J. Grande indicated that he’s submitted an inquiry to the Catholic Church about shared parking with the town to accommodate the town hall’s employees, but was still waiting to hear from the archdiocese.
M. Loberg advised the Planning Board that they hired a consultant for a facility needs assessment. C. Doble inquired about the timeline for the study. J. Grande replied that he had a draft of the approach they were recommending. M. Loberg inquired about the time frame once they approved the approach. J. Grande replied that it would be immediate.
T. Israel wanted to clarify if he understood correctly that they all agreed to create a subcommittee to address Beach Road’s improvements with MassDOT, in which J. Grande was to participate and organize. They also agreed to meet with the Planning Board and DPW Director periodically to discuss potential projects for TIP. J. Grande replied in the affirmative, noting that they could also wait to meet until “just before the next rounds”.
T. Israel thought they should continue to meet quarterly with the Planning Board because he found the discussions to be very informative and productive. He recommended meeting again in September. J. Grande suggested that if there were any subdivisions under construction that require inspections from town departments, P. Harris should attend the infrastructure meeting, when it became relevant. It would help the departments coordinate their inspections, etc.
There being no further discussion, T. Israel moved to adjourn the Board of Selectmen’s meeting at 8:00 PM. M. Loberg seconded the motion, which motion carried. 3/0/0
8:00 PM Linda Comstock re: Home Business (Massage Therapists) at 59 Madeline Way
Attendance: Camilla Alexander and Sandra Washburn
L. Comstock indicated that she was referred to the Planning Board to address a zoning issue pertaining to the use of a residential structure for a home business. She explained that C. Alexander and S. Washburn were interested in purchasing her home provided they could operate their business (massage therapy) on the premises.
K. Barwick referred the Planning Board to section 04.02.04 of the zoning bylaw – Use of a room or rooms in a dwelling for customary home occupations and recognized professions, during normal business hours only…” to solicit the board’s impressions about “recognized professions”, and more specifically if they believed massage therapy qualified as a recognized profession that was permissible as a matter of right within a residential district.
He explained that the opinions of the Planning Board on this matter varied over the years, so much so that it prompted him to secure their opinion once again. K. Barwick recounted that the Planning Board approximately 25 years ago equated massage therapy with a massage parlor. In 1990/91 the Planning Board was asked to comment on a similar request, and believed the activity should be conducted in a business or commercial zone due to the hours of operation, parking, level of activity, etc. In 2002/03, the Planning Board reaffirmed the Planning Board’s determination in 1990/91.
K. Barwick noted that the town’s regulations recognized “customary occupations” such as a physician, dentist, attorney and accountant. The massage therapists that operated within the town were in the business districts. Only recently did L. Comstock bring to his attention that there were massage therapists who currently operating out of their residences.
L. Peak recalled that the Planning Board had been approached on the subject of recognized professions not that long ago. A couple of the questions applied. He inquired if there was training, licensing and state or local government inspections of the premises. C. Alexander replied in the affirmative. C. Doble mentioned that it was possible that the profession may not have been officially recognized at the time K. Barwick approached the board. She asked C. Alexander and S. Washburn if they knew when massage therapy required licensing. They believed it was approximately 10 years ago.
T. Peak inquired if both ladies were planning on working on the premises, because he was of the impression that the regulations limited the number of employees. C. Alexander replied in the affirmative, clarifying for the record that they would both be operating independent of each other. They were operating as business partners with separate clientele. T. Peak inquired if they would be attending to two clients at one time. S. Washburn replied in the affirmative.
T. Peak inquired about the parking accommodations on the premises. L. Comstock believed she could accommodate as many as eight vehicles on the property, and understood that C. Alexander and S. Washburn would have to accommodate four (4) vehicles at any given time during their hours of operation. L. Comstock understood that they do take a hiatus for brief periods, and go to their client’s residences. T. Peak explained that it was a concern that was addressed in the bylaw because the intent was limit the impact on neighboring properties.
C. Alexander walked the property and believed there was sufficient space for their vehicles, two additional cars and another vehicle if their appointments overlapped without parking out in the street. T. Peak inquired about the number of clients they would see a day. S. Washburn replied that it depended on the time of year. They travelled to a warmer place in the winter, and saw approximately 4-5 people each on a busy summer day. C. Alexander and S. Washburn indicted that they also did site visits.
L. Comstock knew of several acupuncturists that operated out of their homes and used two rooms. She’s seen where they work on two clients at the same time. C. Alexander and S. Washburn indicated that they’ve worked in that capacity as well.
B. Robinson did not have an issue with the profession. His one question pertained to the number of people practicing, because the regulations limited to one person. B. Robinson inquired about the location of their existing practice. S. Washburn replied that she had an office in the Pilates Center and Yoga Barn, but wanted to work out of home. C. Alexander indicated that she also worked at the Pilates Center in addition to doing house calls.
B. Robinson inquired about the residence’s ownership. S. Washburn indicated that she was purchasing the house, but that her father was co-signing. L. Comstock spoke with the Building Inspector about the requirement, and understood that he did not think it applied because C. Alexander and S. Washburn were essentially sharing employee responsibilities as associates. B. Robinson inquired if they were operating as one business. C. Alexander replied that they currently operated separately, but would consider merging their practices if it was feasible.
C. Doble referred to section 04.02.08 of the bylaw, noting that the language specifically referred to one (1) person as opposed to one (1) employee.
B. Robinson inquired about their business plan. S. Washburn thought they might have to keep an office off-site initially until they obtain a building permit to convert the garage into two studio spaces and establish themselves in their new location.
T. Peak did not think section 04.02.08 applied in this matter because it pertained to the use of the premises, not just the building for one’s trade, which implied outdoor activity. The activity they were discussing was specific to the use of interior space of a residence for professional services. C. Doble concurred. B. Robinson added that the section 04.02.08 allowed one to operate a business in the residence without living in the house, whereas in section 04.02.08 the person is using a portion of the house they are living in for business.
B. Robinson reiterated that the professional recognition of the massage therapist should not be an issue if they are licensed by the state. He did not understand why they could not have an employee on the premises if the dentists and ophthalmologists in town have receptionists. K. Barwick noted that their practices more than likely predated the adoption of the zoning regulations in May 1972. He also questioned the limitation of the number of people engaged in the occupation, when many of the home businesses i.e. dog grooming service employ more than one person.
K. Barwick brought to the Board’s attention that the reference to the parking requirement in section 04.02.04 pertaining to home occupations did not exist. He offered to work with the Planning Board on language if they were inclined to address the oversight. L. Peak thought the language implied that they were to apply the same parking requirements listed for the use within a business district.
The Planning Board asked K. Barwick to clarify the issue with the grant of a permit to allow C. Alexander and S. Washburn to operate their business within a residential district. K. Barwick replied that he did not have a “mechanism” in place that would allow him to permit the use from an enforcement standpoint. He explained that he did not have the means to regulate the use. L. Peak did not understand what K. Barwick would have to regulate differently from a dentist, attorney or optometrist. B. Robinson thought he would regulate the use in the current manner allowed by regulation for an attorney, etc. The same procedures applied.
L. Comstock noted that the Building Inspector viewed the healing arts differently from the traditional professional practices, so that they should be regulated separately.
L. Peak moved that the proposed use of interior space in a residential neighborhood conforms to both wording and intent of the bylaw. B. Robinson seconded the motion. J. Thompson concurred and asked if they could broaden the scope of the motion to include other professions that required a license. L. Peak thought they should keep it specific. B. Robinson agreed, noting that they did not want to exclude other service providers, such as painters and carpenters who did not have licenses. m/s/c 4/0/0
Height Restrictions
Board members were given a copy of the definition for the Height of a Structure in section 02.26 and the regulation describing the maximum allowance for the height of a structure in section 07.05.01 – Principle Structure.
The Building Inspector indicated that the inconsistency in the language was an issue he wanted to address with the Board. L. Peak asked K. Barwick to define “mean grade level”. The Building Inspector replied that it was the “grade plane”. The Board requested a clarification about the issue.
K. Barwick replied that section 02.26 listed the height of a structure as the vertical distance from the mean natural grade to the highest point of the roof ridge of the structure; whereas section 07.05.01 included the “ chimneys” in the determination of the height of a structure.
L. Peak thought the chimney was a marginal visual addition. C. Doble agreed. B. Robinson believed the Zoning Board of Appeals allowed the chimney to go beyond the ridge height. L. Peak thought the building inspector should apply section 07.05.01 and measure the height to the top of the chimney, even though it did not confirm with the definition in section 02.26. If he was to bring the two sections into conformance, then he would suggested to K. Barwick to eliminate the chimneys from being part of the 35 ft. from section 07.05.01, as long as the house with the chimney did not exceed 38 ft. C. Doble thought the language could be much more specific to state that the chimney could not be more than 3 ft.
L. Peak asked the building inspector for his opinion. K. Barwick replied that he would replace the definition in Section 02.26 with the language in section 07.05.01.
S. 07.06.04 - Sign Regulations
K. Barwick indicated that he wanted to eliminate the bylaw permitting self-supported signs because they have proven to be a nuisance and dangerous. They’ve been proliferating over the years and creating an enforcement issue for the building inspector. The Board of Selectmen does not support the use and have asked him to modify the bylaw to eliminate them. No one would be grandfather once they were prohibited because they were classified as a severable use.
BOARD DISCUSSIONS:
1. Thomas Pachico
RE: Form A Plan of Land
Board members reviewed the applicant’s revised plan and agreed that T. Pachico had incorporated the modifications they had discussed and agreed to at their last meeting on May 6, 2015.
L. Peak who was present for the discussions moved to endorse the revised plan of land as an ANR under the subdivision rules and regulations. B. Robinson seconded the motion, which motion carried. 4/0/0
2. Vision Plan
RE: Vision Council (Street Fair)/Core Group
3. All Island Planning Board
RE: Recap of May 20, 2015 Meeting
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED:
1. Paul Adler, 14 Pine Street Realty Trust
RE: Form F Covenant
2. Mass Dept. of Conservation & Recreation
RE: Potential Hazard Mitigation Grant Application
3. Jay Grande, Town Administrator
RE: State notification of selective tree trimming- request for comments (May 2015)
4. Tisbury Zoning Board of Appeals
A. Public Hearing Notice – Degen Harbor View 47 LLC, AP 04D10 (addition)
B. Public Hearing Notice – Ronald Somers, AP 24D14 (guesthouse)
C. Public Hearing Notice – Barbara Bodin, AP 24A43.3 (accessory apartment)
D. Public Hearing Notice – Fella’s Inc, AP 7D11 (outdoor activity)
E. Special Permit #2213 – Jon Blau, AP 7F17 (food service operation)
F. Special Permit #2214 – Tony Godfrey, AP 30A08 (mod. of height restriction)
G. Special Permit #2215 – Glenn Pachico, AP 08E25 (John’s Fish Market)
PRO FORM Meeting opened, conducted and closed in due form at 9:40 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