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 18, 2015
TIME: 6:07 PM
PLACE: Town Hall Annex, 66 High Point Lane
ATTENDANCE: Doble, Peak, Robinson, Seidman, Thompson,
BILLS: Staples…………………………..$24.99
DaRosa’s………………………..$35.95
MINUTES: As referred in the March 11, 2015 Meeting Agenda
February 25, 2015 m/s/c 5/0/0
APPOINTMENT:
6:00PM Public Hearing – Proposed 2015 Street List
Attendance: ME Larsen, FinCom Representative
Hearing commenced in due form at 6:07 PM. Planning Board Chairman, D. Seidman read the public hearing notice into the minutes, and inquired if there were revisions to the street list. L. Peak noted that list was amended to include Mirkwood Lane.
There being no further discussion, D. Seidman entertained a motion to adopt the revised street list for 2015 as presented. L. Peak so moved. B. Robinson seconded the motion.
ME Larsen inquired if the list was limited to the streets the town plowed. L. Peak noted that the list included all public and private roads. D. Seidman understood that the town had to plow the public roads before the private roads. They were not obligated to plow any road that could potentially damage town vehicles.
D. Seidman asked the Board if they had additional questions. There being none, the Board voted in favor of the motion. 5/0/0 C. Doble moved to close the public hearing. J. Thompson seconded the motion, and the motion carried. 5/0/0 The hearing was losed at 6:10 PM.
6:15 PM Public Hearing – Special Permit Application by James Goff to operate The Wolf’s Den Pizzeria at 45 Beach Road, Vineyard Haven
Attendance: Refer to signature sheet
D. Seidman opened the hearing at 6:15PM and read the public hearing notice into the minutes. He advised the Board that the applicant was proposing to purchase the existing food service establishment, with the intent of operating “a take-out pizza and sandwich business that was identical in all material respects, such as hours of operation, parking, internal layout, wastewater flow, number of employees, picnic tables on the front lawn, etc.”
D. Seidman noted that the applicant submitted a picture of the building and parking area (10 designated parking spaces), a hand sketched plan of the parking plan for 7 parking spaces & 1 handicap parking space, and a floor plan for the pizzeria. It was further noted that the application included a letter from the property owner, Tisbury Marina LLC confirming that he was aware of the applicant’s intent to secure a special permit from the Planning Board, and a written confirmation from P. Foley, DRI Coordinator at the MV Commission that the proposal did not qualify as a DRI.
J. Goff identified informed the Board that he had recently operated Bob’s Pizza on Main Street with great success, but was unable to renegotiate a lease with the property owner. J. Goff indicated that had 30 years of experience in the food industry in various capacities prior to managing Bob’s Pizza. J. Goff mentioned that he did not want to alter any aspect of the pizza parlor’s operations, other than to change the name of the business. He added that the picnic tables were also part of the application.
J. Goff added that he could not close on the transfer or sign the lease until he secured the special permit. He wanted to open for business the first week of April 2015, so time was an issue for him.
D. Seidman referred the applicant and the board members to the current business establishment owner’s special permit dated 06 October 2010, and reviewed the document’s Findings and Conditions & Restrictions. It was noted that Finding Nos. 1-4 applied. Finding No. 5 pertained to the Board of Health’s written response. In absence of such letter, D. Seidman asked the applicant if he had met with the Board of Health. The applicant replied in the affirmative.
D. Seidman did not think Finding No.7 and Finding No. 8 did not pertain. P. Foley had written the Planning Board an email stating that a referral was not required as long as the food service operation was essentially the same.
D. Seidman asked the applicant if he had a ten year lease. J. Goff replied that he had negotiated a 5 year lease with a 5 year option. D. Seidman read through the remaining Findings, and asked the Board if they had any questions. L. Peak inquired if they included language about removing the picnic tables in case of storm. Will Craffey commented that he had never removed the tables since they’ve been placed. J. Thompson thought the umbrellas had to be removed. W. Craffey mentioned that he never had a problem with the tables or the umbrellas.
L. Peak thought they should modify the reference to the MV Commission’s decision to demonstrate that the applicant’s lease complies with the tenure. D. Seidman tough they should also include the MV Commission’s comment regarding their referral.
H. Lee inquired if the picnic tables were open to the public. D. Seidman confirmed. H. Lee indicated that he had patronized the pizzeria during the summer and noticed on those occasions when it got busy, patrons and their children had to wait outside on a very narrow porch. It concerned him that the situation lent itself to a potential safety hazard for the unattended children, who could fall off the step or handrail. During the long waits, H. Lee noticed that the cars at the pizzeria kicked up a bit of dust and pebbles. He wanted to bring this to the new owner’s attention and to suggest the use of a vegetative screen that would protect his patrons while they waited for their pizza. D. Seidman thought the applicant address the situation by hosing down the area when it was dry outside.
There being no further discussion, D. Seidman entertained a motion to approved James Goff Chairman of Wolfgang Inc. d/b/a Wolf’s Den Pizzeria with conditions and restrictions. L. Peak so moved. J. Thompson seconded the motion, which motion carried. 5/0/0
D. Seidman entertained a motion to close the public hearing and to enter into the deliberation of the application. L. Peak so moved. ??? seconded the motion, which motion carried. 5/0/0
6:32 PM Deliberations: Special Permit Application by James Goff to operate The Wolf’s Den Pizzeria
D. Seidman opened the deliberation at 6:32 PM noting that the applicant was essentially proposing to operate an identical food service establishment to W. Craffey’s pizzeria, who was issued a special permit on 06 October 2010.
L. Peak noted that the Planning Board had also issued W. Craffey a second permit for the use of the picnic tables, and thought it was important to incorporate any pertinent information from the document into the new decision. D. Seidman concurred. L. Peak reminded D. Seidman that they were going to add to the Findings that the MV Commission did not believed the application had to be referred. B. Robinson recommended adding a Finding in the decision confirming that the property owner supported the applicant’s application for a special permit.
There being no further comment. L. Peak moved the written decision with the modification that was previously recommended. C. Doble seconded the motion, and the motion carried. 5/0/0.
L. Peak recommended continuing the deliberations to review the draft decision for their approval. He moved to continue the deliberations until April 1, 2015 at 6:15 PM. B. Robinson seconded the motion, which motion carried. 5/0/0 The Board resumed their regularly scheduled session at 6:37 PM
7:00 PM Public Hearing – ZBL Amendment (BI District)
Attendance: Refer to signature sheet
Hearing commenced in due form at 7:00 PM. D. Seidman, Planning Board Chairman read the public hearing notice into the minutes of the record, and advised the board members that Town Counsel had emailed his recommendation yesterday evening. Board members and members of the public were given a copy of D. Doneski’s email.
C. Doble asked B. Robinson if he understood town counsel’s comment regard section 04.04. B. Robinson replied that he had removed the phrase “to the waterfront” from the language to make it pertinent to the Business District. Town Counsel believed the language referred to a focus point such as “the waterfront”, which did not exist in the business district. B. Robinson disagreed, and thought it could apply to the pedestrian and bike links through and within the town to Norton Lane, Union Street and the area around the parking lot as well as other pedestrian access points.
Town Counsel inquired about section 05.13.13, because it was not part of his original recommendation to the Board. He noted that the language “did not follow logically from the preceding section”. B. Robinson could not recall if it was part of the revisions he made to town counsel’s original proposal.
Counsel advised the Board that the “types of conditions identified in subsection 05.13.05 would not necessarily apply to the modification of a pre-existing, non-conforming use or structure”. L. Peak explained that pre-existing, non-conforming uses and structures were afforded certain protections by state statute, so that it may limit the special permitting process.
D. Seidman inquired if the square footage should remain at 3000. B. Robinson inquired if the Planning Board could still amend the language on the warrant even though the Board of Selectmen voted to close the warrant on March 17. ME Larsen believed the only option available to the Board was to amend the language at town meeting.
D. Seidman inquired if they wanted to reduce the square footage in the proposed amendment. He thought 2500 sq. ft. covered approximately 61% of the existing structures in the BI District. B. Robinson noted that the Board of Assessor’s list was not 100% accurate. The list contained minor discrepancies.
H. Lee reviewed the list A Cywinski sent the board secretary and noticed that it contained a total of 80 properties. He checked the list of properties against Google Maps and noticed that the list included a couple of properties that belonged in other districts, and omitted a couple that were within the BI District.
In response to D. Seidman’ s question to the Board, H. Lee indicated that if they reduced the 3000 sq. ft. threshold to 2500 sq. ft., they would be able to review an additional 4-5 properties.~ If they reduced the threshold to 2000 sq. ft., the Board would be able to review 60 out of the 80 properties listed.~ The number did not include the properties with the smaller structures and larger tracts of land that had the most potential for growth, such as the Beetle Bung Café on Cromwell Lane.
B. Robinson asked T. Israel if the Board of Selectmen had approved the version of the bylaw reflecting town counsel’s revisions.~ T. Israel could not answer, and felt that once the language was approved by the Board of Selectmen, the Board had no option but to submit any revisions on the floor at town meeting. D. Seidman advised the Board that town counsel did not send his recommendations until the night before at 7:00PM.
T. Israel indicated that he was initially going to persuade the Board to consider a higher threshold than 3000 sq. ft. for political reasons. However, after speaking with several members of the Planning Board he had reconsidered. He thought they could explain to the town voters that the amendment provided the business community a local review process that eliminated the town’s reliance on the MV Commission’s regional oversight. While is served its purpose, the MV Commission on occasion failed to consider the town’s sensibilities. T. Israel thought it was important for their constituents to understand that without any permitting authority, the town has to rely on the MV Commission to regulate large scaled projects, such as Stop & Shop to protect their interest. On the occasions where the MV Commission and the town differed in opinion on issues, and their mitigation, etc. the end result did not always favor the town. It was his impression that the town should interact directly with the applicant whenever they were going to be impacted significantly by a private development.
T. Israel indicated that he had to leave, but wanted the Board to know that he did not have a preference for a specific threshold. It was a decision for the Planning Board to make. It was his opinion that the regulation benefited the businesses in town.~~
L. Peak questioned whether the regulation actually addressed the precise desire for the achieved goal. T. Israel explained that his initial thought was to generate a regulation that would allow them some oversight on large-scaled proposals such as Stop & Shop’s. He wanted “a stop gap, a quick thing to get into place that could be refined later”, so that they have a stronger bargaining position at the MV Commission.
Need info here…….
D. Seidman recommended continuing the public hearing on April 1, 2015 at 7:15 PM.
XX so moved. XX seconded the motion, which motion carried X/0/0
7:30PM Mark London, Exec. Dir. – Martha’s Vineyard Commission, Clarence Barnes and Harold Chapdelain, Tisbury’s representatives on the MV Commission
M. London submitted several reports that the MV Commission had developed on behalf of the town, or at the town’s request on subjects ranging from a regional transportation study to studies on matters specific to the town. He thought it was important for the Planning Board to know about the studies now that they completed the Vision Planning process, and the wealth of information they should be taking advantage of.
He encouraged the Board to review the reports and to contacting the planning staff at the MV Commission for any assistance.
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED:
1. J. Hillary Conklin, Town Clerk
RE: Warrant Articles for ATM/STM
L. Peak directed the board secretary to contact the DPW to request of set of their plans for the gazebo. D. Seidman did not think they had developed a set. ME Larsen confirmed that they did not. It was the reason FinCom did not support their request.
2. Gregory Carroll
RE: Proposal for Dry Cleaners in Pine Village (units used by video store)
3. MV Commission
A. 13 March 2015 Extended Schedule
B. 19 March 2015 Meeting Agenda
C. 18 March 2015 Joint Transportation Committee Meeting Agenda
D. 17 December 2014 Joint Transportation Committee Meeting Minutes
4. Tisbury Water Works
D. Seidman informed the Board that B. Robinson located town owned land in the Town of Oaks off Holmes Hole Road that suited the TWW Department’s needs. B. Robinson noted that the property was in close proximity to the town’s wells, accessible to the public and of sufficient land area.
B. Robinson understood that the Tisbury Water Works Department had structured criteria to rank potential sites. He learned that they had considered property around the Manter Well, but did not know the exact location or why it was no longer considered.
D. Seidman asked B. Robinson to read the checklist. B. Robinson read that the checklist as follows:
1. land ownership
2. parcel size had to be greater than 2 acres or greater
3. public access (located on paved public road or near main corridor, located away from main corridor , located on unpaved or unimproved road)
4. buildablily ,
5. utilities (water, electric, phone)
6. site screening to abutters (minimum 75 ft. buffer)
7. site conditions for development (flat grade, suitable soils, construction on site)
C. Doble inquired if there was an article for the garage on the warrant and if D. Seidman planned to share the information with the Water Works Commissioners before the Annual Town Meeting. D. Seidman replied in the affirmative. B. Robinson referred the Board to Article 30 (To fund the garage facility for the Tisbury Water Works Dept at 275 Spring Street…). D. Seidman thought the land on Holmes Hole Road was much more suited to the TWW Department’s needs.
D. Seidman would have preferred relocating the TWW Department on High Point Lane, but thought the Holmes Hole Road location offered them more land area. B. Robinson thought the High Point Lane was somewhat tight, and difficult to support if the DPW Department requested additional land.
L. Peak thought they could argue that the Holmes Hole property would be in close proximity to the DPW compound once the connector road was constructed.
D. Hodsdon inquired if the Town would have to pay taxes on the property if they developed the land. J. Thompson noted that the Town of Oak Bluffs owned land in Tisbury, and thought they reciprocated some sort of tax break.
PRO FORM Meeting opened, conducted and closed in due form at 8:24 P.M. (m/s/c 5/0/0)
Respectfully submitted;
____________________________________________
Patricia V. Harris, Secretary
APPROVAL: Approved and accepted as official minutes;
______________ _________________________
Date Daniel Seidman
Chairman