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: April 1, 2015
TIME: 6:05 PM
PLACE: Town Hall Annex, 66 High Point Lane
ATTENDANCE: Peak, Reece, Robinson, Seidman, Thompson
ABSENT: Doble
BILLS: Vineyard Gazette……………..…….$84.00
MINUTES: As referred in the March 18, 2015 Meeting Agenda
25 February 2015 m/s/c 4/0/0
11 March 2015 m/s/c 4/0/0
APPOINTMENT:
6:00 PM Douglas Hoehn, SB&H Inc. Re: Form A Applications – 1) Nstar, AP 29C03+
2) Douglas Best, AP 14C01, Winyah Circle (Cancelled)
6:05 PM Public Hearing (Cont.) – Special Permit Application by Paul D. Adler, AP 24A24
Attendance: Refer to signature sheet
At the continuation of the public hearing D. Seidman read a statement he had prepared to address the applicant’s concerns regarding the Planning Board Chairman’s potential conflict of interest. D. Seidman disclosed past discussions with the applicant about a potential business transaction that never came to fruition. He clarified for the record that he did not engage in any business transaction or received any compensation from the applicant. For those interested, a copy of his statement was on file with the Town Clerk.
At the Chairman’s prompting. D. Hoehn, the applicant’s agent and surveyor submitted a new site plan and overlay plan reflecting a six (6) lot division. D. Hoehn explained that he had removed lots 4 and 5 on the west side of the property to create a reserve area. The boundary lines for the open space were deleted, so that the land area was now part of the reserve area. The two walking easements in the westerly (rear) portion of the property remained, except that the latter was extended so that it ran all the way from the hammerhead to the westerly property line.
D. Hoehn ‘shortened’ the hammerhead so that it stopped just before the grade changed dramatically to a 12% slope, and pointed out that the reserve area was intentionally designed without frontage. He mentioned that the dimensions of the lots were slightly modified with the revisions, but that the trees, building envelopes, approximate house sites and watersheds were still on the revised Overlay Plan.
P. Adler met with the town administrator to learn that the Board of Selectmen was no longer interested in purchasing the lots and/or house. He understood that they removed the article to purchase the property from the warrant, so that it was no longer a consideration. P. Alder indicated that he had written the Board of Selectmen a letter approximately one week ago giving them three years to consider purchasing the two rear lots, and received a response from J. Grande, town administrator stating that he did not have “a proposal from the Selectmen on the two lots for u to consider”. L. Peak noted that the information was not shared with the Planning Board. D. Seidman secured a copy of the email.
P. Adler indicated that he was simply reserving the area. He did not have a specific use in mind, but has been approached by a potential homeowner who was interested in using the land for a horse barn, and a non-profit who expressed an interest in constructing affordable housing. The applicant decided for the present to leave the land vacant. He added that the homeowners will be able to use the land for recreational purposes until he figures out its final disposition. D. Seidman inquired if P. Adler owned the reserved area. P. Adler replied in the affirmative, noting that he reserved the rights to sell the property to the town or interested party. D Hoehn clarified that the reserved area was 38,000 sq. ft. with the 7,000 sq. ft. of land designated for open space.
D. Seidman opened the floor to the public, and H. Lee inquired if the new property owners of the house lot were comfortable sharing their access with the development. D. Seidman noted for the record that the J. Corbo was not going to share the same access, because he was going to use the existing 10 ft. wide driveway on Pine Street. H. Lee asked the applicant if could preserve the reserved area for open space to offset the number of trees that would have to be removed for the individual lots. He believed the applicant would have to denude the lots to accommodate the size of the buildings he wanted to build and leaching fields. He asked the applicant, if he would consider reducing the size of the structures to 2-3 bedroom dwellings to protect the trees. The applicant assured H. Lee that he intended to minimize the number of trees that had to be removed as best as possible, understanding that some will have to be removed to construct the house and to accommodate the leaching field. L. Peak explained the size increase in septic systems was designed to mitigate the nitrogen impact. The tradeoff was that the area was temporarily going to look differently. It was true of every lot that’s been developed, including the properties that were developed by the abutters. It was part of the evolutionary process seen in the growth of a town.
D. Seidman advised the applicant of George Heufelder’s work at the Alternative Septic Test Center in Barnstable County. He urged him to contact G. Heufelder of a system he has been testing for the past eighteen months that reduced 80% - 90% of nitrogen using woodchips. It did not increase the cost, but he thought it would be a great opportunity for the town if he tested the system on one of the lots. P. Adler was open to the suggestion.
B. Yauney inquired if a study had been conducted on the development’s impact on Lake Tashmoo. D. Seidman replied in the affirmative. He referred B. Yauney to the plans depicting the MV Commission’s and Wright-Pierce’s boundaries for the Tashmoo Watershed.
S. Jones shared H. Lee’s concern about the trees and the impact their loss would have on the ecology. She recently read in the MV Times that it took 6-9 caterpillars to feed one small bird nest of chickadees. Oak trees have value to the ecology as well, so that when they are removed it will take another 20 to 40 years for a new tree to grow.
There being no further discussion, D. Seidman entertained a motion to close the hearing and to open deliberations. L. Peak so moved. B. Robinson seconded the motion, and the motion carried. 4/0/0 The hearing was duly closed at 6:37PM
.
6:37 PM~~~~~~~~~~ Deliberations – Special Permit Application for P. Adler, AP 24A24
Attendance: H. Lee, D. Hodsdon, ME Larsen
The deliberation of the previously closed hearing was opened at 6:37PM. D. Seidman, Planning Board Chairman asked the applicant if the 10 ft. side buffers were still on the table. P. Adler replied in the affirmative.~ D. Seidman asked about the percentage of homeowners required to change the bylaws. P. Adler replied that it required a 2/3rd vote. It was a standard he employed for all of his developments. D. Seidman explained that he did not want the homeowners’ association to modify the bylaws to permit guesthouses. He thought~ the applicant could resolve the issue if he placed the restriction on the deeds.
P. Adler offered to place the restriction on the deed and plan of land, but wanted to clarify for the record that he could not prevent the individual property owners from applying for the accessory use. D. Reece affirmed that a deed restriction could not be amended.~ D. Hoehn thought the Planning Board could also prohibit guesthouses as a condition of the decision.
D. Seidman noted for the record that the Planning Board was deliberating on a six lot subdivision with a reserved area, a 10 ft. buffer around each lot and around the perimeter. D. Reece thought they should clarify for the record that they meant a “no cut zone”. D. Seidman concurred.
B. Robinson commended the applicant for working with the Planning Board, and protecting open space with the reduction in the number of lots and the addition of a reserve area. He noticed that the applicant had designed a 5 ft and a 10 ft. walking easement from the hammer head to the reserve area.~ The applicant replied that the 10 ft. wide easement was to accommodate a car. He also noted that there was a 10 ft. and 20 ft. buffer on the back lots.~ D. Hoehn noted that it was one of the revisions he missed, but agreed to correct the error to illustrate the 20 ft setback requirement on Lot 3. B. Robinson also noticed a few trees were close to the road. He understood the applicant was going to work around the trees as best as he could when he laid down the travel way. He wanted to walk the road layout with the applicant before the road was constructed.~ D. Seidman recalled that the applicant offered the Planning Board the opportunity to walk the road with him.~ The applicant concurred.
L. Peak inquired about the location of the nearest fire hydrant. D. Seidman thought it would benefit the town if they worked with the Water Works Department to include a hydrant within the subdivision.~ L. Peak suggested talking to the department to see if they would be interested working with him to connect the end of road with the abutting development to “create a loop”.
J. Thompson did not have an issue with the proposal.
D. Reece commended the applicant for addressing the board concerns in the revised plans.
D. Seidman entertained a motion to approve the applicant’s plan (dated 04/01/15) as amended for six lots with conditions and restrictions. L. Peak so moved. J. Thompson seconded the motion. There being no discussion on the motion, D. Seidman requested a vote. 4/0/0
D. Seidman wanted the restriction prohibiting guesthouses on each deed and on the mylar. He inquired if the buffers were to be included on the plan. D. Hoehn indicated that they were on the revised Overlay Plan. L. Peak thought it could be the second plan. D. Hoehn explained that the overlay plan was not recorded, and the information is not entered on the survey plan. L. Peak noted that they are recorded by reference in their decision.
B. Robinson recommended reviewing the language of the association’s covenants. P. Adler indicated that he had a copy of the document for the Board’s review and recommendations. L. Peak accepted the document, noting that the applicant had time to submit the homeowners’ agreement, covenants and Form F during the appeal period. It would not impact the review process or the approval of the written decision. L. Peak recommended continuing the deliberations to review the draft decision. L. Peak asked the applicant if the architectural guidelines were in the homeowners’ agreement. P. Adler replied that they were in the protective covenants, which was a separate document from the Homeowner’s Association’s Declaration.
D. Seidman entertained a motion to continue the deliberations on April 16, 2015 at 6PM in the Town Hall Annex. L. Peak so moved. B. Robinson seconded the motion, and the motion carried. 4/0/0
6:51 PM Deliberations: James Goff - The Wolf’s Den Pizzeria
Attendance: James Goff, Chairman, ME Larsen
D. Seidman referred the Board to the draft document for the purposing of reviewing the decision for errors and potential omissions. L. Peak opened the discussions noting that they had added a finding (No. 9) to recognize the MV Commission’s tenure requirement. D. Seidman noted that the applicant had assumed the lease.
B. Robinson inquired about Condition No. 5 which required the removal of the picnic tables/benches from the premises between 11/30 – 04/01, noting that the previous applicant testified during the public hearing that he never complied. L. Peak recalled the discussions for incorporating the condition, explaining that it addressed the Board of Health’s concerns about food service and the Planning Board’s concerns about litter, and the aesthetics. D. Reece mentioned that L. Larsen and others removed their picnic tables and benches. B. Robinson inquired if the applicant had an issue with the requirement. J. Goff replied that he did not have an issue with the requirement.
D. Seidman inquired if he planned to offer delivery service. J. Goff replied in the negative.
There being no further comment, D. Seidman entertained a motion to approve the draft decision for J. Goff – Wolf’s Den Pizzeria as written. L. Peak so moved. B. Robinson seconded the motion. The motion carried 4/0/0
D. Seidman entertained a motion to close the deliberations. L. Peak so moved. B. Robinson seconded the motion, and the motion carried. 4/0/0 The Planning Board resumed their regularly scheduled session at 6:56 PM.
7:15 PM Hearing (Cont.): ZBL Amendment
Attendance: Lee Hyung, Dana Hodsdon, ME Larsen
D. Seidman, Planning Board Chairman opened the continuation of the public hearing at 7:17 PM and asked the Board for any comments on the revised draft bylaw amendment.
B. Robinson referred the Board to the highlighted language, and explained that town counsel had questioned the reference in section six, because the text as originally used made reference to “pedestrian access to the waterfront”. When he initially incorporated the language in the amendment, he did not qualify the reference. He corrected the oversight by adding “within and through the district” in section 04.04.
H. Lee inquired if a property owner e.g. Stop & Shop could build on the three lots they owned in the BI District. L. Peak replied that an applicant could not build across property lines. The person would have to merge the lots and submit a perimeter plan.
H. Lee thought a large lot with a small building can have a larger impact on the business district, even if the increase is less than 3000 sq. ft. because of its impact on open space. He inquired if the Board would consider subjecting projects to their review process, if they decreased open space. B. Robinson thought it was worth looking at a regulation or criteria that protected the public nature of the BI District in the coming year. H. Lee mentioned that there was a possibility that the few pocket public spaces that existed could disappear to deprive the public of open spaces. L. Peak added that there were limitations to the restrictions they could impose on private property. They had to agree that there wasn’t much space between the buildings, or much open space in the district. He thought it was much more prudent to create more civic spaces.
H. Lee thought they could develop architectural guidelines that applicants could be asked to consider for their projects to preserve the charm and character of the business district. He thought applicants could be given a pdf to explain how the enhancements could improve their businesses. It would also prevent disasters like Café Moxie.
D. Seidman entertained a motion to approve the bylaw amendment as amended. B. Robinson so moved. L. Peak seconded the motion, which motion carried. 4/0/0
D. Seidman entertained a second motion to close the hearing. Said motion was moved, seconded and carried. 4/0/0 The Planning Board resumed their regular session at 7:37 PM.
L. Peak thought the Planning Board should meet prior to the Special and Annual Town Meetings to discuss the presentation of their articles. He felt the complexity of their proposals would require scripted presentations. B. Robinson agreed and thought about developing a document that prefaced the regulation and answered anticipated questions from the public.
7:30 PM Reid Silva, VLS re Form A –Robert L. Snider, AP 23A09
R. Silva understood the Planning Board had questions to the applicants’ rights over the 40 ft. private right-of-way, known as Heath Hen Lane, and located deed descriptions dating back to 1926 that referenced the private way.
He submitted a Form A plan, the Planning Board approved in 1987 for the property owners (family) reflecting the current configuration. The proposal before the board reflected the development of a third lot. L. Peak noted that Lot 2 in the proposed division of land would no longer have access off West Spring Street. R. Silva agreed, noting that it’s frontage and access would be off Heath Hen Lane.
D. Reece inquired if the property was within the Tashmoo Watershed. R. Silva replied in the affirmative. D. Reece inquired if there were any limitations on the number of bedrooms from the Board of Health. R. Silva noted that the Tashmoo Watershed was the MV Commission’s designation, not the local Board of Health. The area was not within a DCPC, so that there would not be any limitations to the number of bedrooms.
L. Peak noted the shared driveways, and advised R. Silva that the zoning regulations did not permit shared driveways. R. Silva understood and believed the intent was for each lot to have its separate access, with Lot 2 having access via its frontage on Heath Hen Lane. Lots 1 & 3 could have separate curb cuts on West Spring Street, a shared curb cut on West Spring, and or Lot 3 could have a curb cut on Heath Hen Lane. His clients’ did not convey their plans.
L. Peak moved to endorse the plan of land, dated February 9, 2015 (Job No. 32-1) as an ANR under the subdivision control law. B. Robinson seconded the motion, and the motion carried. 4/0/0
BOARD DISCUSSIONS:
SITEC Inc.
RE: Form A application for Prospect Street Trust, AP 8N24 (R10)
L. Peak advised the Board that he had the opportunity to discuss the plan with town counsel, at which time he noticed that the plan was not identical to the previous proposal. As he discussed the plan with town counsel he noticed that the applicant was proposing a division of land to create one non-buildable lot.
While the configuration appeared to be similar, the proposal did not need consideration under the deep lot provision, because the net number of building lots remained the same. He explained that applicants created such lots usually for the purposing of conveying the property to an abutter. Board members were advised that a property owner could create as many non-buildable parcels he/she wanted to convey out to abutters, as long as it was noted that they were not buildable lots. D. Seidman noted that Parcel A was identified as “remaining land”.
L. Peak noted that there was terminology the surveyors uses on a plan listing the non-buildable lots. L. Peak recommended an addendum to the plan, stating that Parcel A was not a buildable lot.
There being no further discussion, D. Seidman entertained a motion. L. Peak moved to endorse the plan of land illustrating two parcels, one of which was not a building lot (Parcel A) with frontage on Rogers Farm Road. He also wanted to add a note on the plan stating that Parcel A was not a buildable lot. B. Robinson seconded the motion.
B. Robinson inquired if frontage had to be contiguous, because Parcel A also had 50 ft. of frontage on Old Country Lane. L. Peak noted that the frontage had to be on the same street, not on two sides of the property. He also questioned whether the applicant had rights on Old Country Lane.
D. Seidman asked the Board for a vote. The Board voted in favor of the motion. 4/0/0
L. Peak wanted to make sure that the letter to the applicant explained that their endorsement required a notation on the plan clearly stating the status of Parcel A as a non-buildable lot. He also wanted to send the building inspector a note with a copy of the plan explaining that their endorsement was for one building lot and one (1) non-buildable lot. He wanted the letter to clarify that the proposal was not submitted to the Planning Board as a Deep Lot division, and that their endorsement was based on the fact that the frontage and access was limited to Rogers Farm Road.
2. Tisbury Water Works Meeting on 3/24/15
RE: D. Seidman’s report
D. Seidman met with the Commissioners and Superintendent to solicit their impressions about using an alternate town-owned parcel of land off Holmes Hole Road for the relocation of their operations. The Commissioners did not oppose the recommendation, but noted that they did not have funds in their budget to purchase land. It was further noted that the land in question may not be available for any development if it was in the designated water re-charge zone. D. Seidman confirmed the information with the Town Treasurer and learned that the Vicker’s property presented other issues.
L. Peak inquired about the location of the property, and noticed that it was not part of the Vicker’s property. The property in question was town owned land, of which the Manter Trust was the beneficiary. B. Robinson and L. Peak located the property on the assessor maps for the Board, which consisted of assessor parcel 41A02 in the Town of Tisbury and assessor parcel 24-4 in the Town of Oak Bluffs.
L. Peak advised D. Seidman that there was a difference between a “designated water re-charge zone” and aquifer conservation. He offered to meet with the town treasurer to eliminate the confusion, and to secure information on the correct parcel of land e.g. assessor parcel 41A02.
L. Peak did not understand the Water Work Department’s concern about the property’s designation, when they were proposing to relocate on a “designated water re-charge zone” at 275 West Spring Street. L. Peak noted that they could access the property on Holmes Hole Road within the Town of Tisbury and build as close to the edge as possible.
Vision Planning
H. Lee thought it was important for the Planning Board to include the topic of Vision Planning on their agendas to prompt them to discuss on-going projects, even if the discussions were limited 15 minutes. He thought the Library’s warrant article to buy land for parking was a topic that should be discussed. It concerned him that members of the advisory board included library personnel, which would present a conflict on projects pertaining to the library.
B. Robinson and D. Seidman explained that they wanted to discuss the next step in the Vision Planning process, and decided to meet next week to discuss what that entailed.
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED:
1. MV Commission
A. 27 March 2015 Extended Schedule
B. 02 April 2015 Meeting Agenda
2. Jay Grande, Town Administrator
RE: RFP for On-Call Engineering Services
3. Tisbury Zoning Board of Appeals
A. Public Hearing – 09April 2015 at 6:20P for Joan Golderg, AP6F7 (exp. of pre-existing, non-conforming house)
B. Public Hearing – 09 April 2015 at 6:00P for Stephen Brown, AP 7C7.1(food service operation)
C. Public Hearing - 09 April 2015 at 6:10P for Seth Williams, AP 36A21(accessory apartment)
4. Tisbury School Committee
RE: 11 February 2014 Meeting Minutes
5. Thomson Reuters
RE: Zoning Bulletin – 25 February 2015 Issue 4
PRO FORM Meeting opened, conducted and closed in due form at 8:35 P.M. (m/s/c 4/0/0)
Respectfully submitted;
____________________________________________
Patricia V. Harris, Secretary
APPROVAL: Approved and accepted as official minutes;
______________ _________________________
Date Cheryl Doble
Chairman Pro Tem