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: February12, 2014
TIME: 7:05 PM
PLACE: Town Hall Annex
ATTENDANCE: Aldrin, Doble, Peak, Seidman, Stephenson, Thompson
BILLS: MV Times………………………….$53.10
Verizon……………………………..$58.98
MINUTES: As referred in the, 2013 Meeting Agenda
29 January 2014 M/S/C 5/0/0
BOARD DISCUSSIONS:
1. Zoning Bylaw Amendment
RE: Registered Marijuana Dispensary
Copies of the revised text were distributed to the board. They were advised that the Board of Health Assistant Agent attempted to communicate with the health agent in the Town of Dennis for information, without success and was unable to secure the information discussed in the email.
Mr. Seidman inquired if the draft incorporated the last set of revisions that were discussed at a previous meeting. The board secretary replied in the affirmative. It was noted that the Vineyard, Nantucket, Franklin and Berkshire were the four counties, where the applicants were not given the license to operate a dispensary.
Mr. Stephenson asked the Board to review the amended document for further comment or recommendations. Mr. Seidman wanted to make sure they included language that would regulate the waste materials or byproduct(s) from cultivating their marijuana. He understood that the product had to be fed nitrogen if was cultivated hydroponically. The email recommended the use of tight tanks, but the plumbing code was regulated in town by the Board of Health. Mr. Seidman inquired if the Board of Health had adopted language to contain or dispose of the waste materials. The board secretary replied in the negative. It was uncertain if they would consider adopting such regulations.
Mr. Stephenson thought they could add language in the permitting process that would require an approval and/or permit from the Board of Health, and any other application town department. The board secretary thought they could revise the draft to require an endorsement or permit for the disposal of the waste material prior to the issuance of a special permit or as a condition of their decision. Mr. Seidman thought they should make it a requirement of their application to the Board. Mr. Stephenson expressed concern about the nitrogen disposal and inquired if the facilities would be allowed in sensitive areas that would require Conservation Commission review. The board secretary replied in the negative, noting that the language restricted these facilities to the BII District.
Mr. Stephenson recommended adding language that would require the approval by relevant town agencies such as the Board of Health. Mr. Seidman thought the Board had to address the nitrogen and THC byproducts in wastewater, and suggested language to the effect that if the nitrogen levels exceeded the general accepted limits, the applicant had to submit a remediation plan. Mr. Stephenson believed it was the Board of Health’s scope of address. Board members agreed, and Mr. Seidman modified his recommendation to state that the applicant had to address the issue of THC and nitrogen discharge into waste water with the Board Health for an advisory report to the Planning Board. This was acceptable to the Planning Board.
Board members were advised that the bylaw amendment would be posted with the Town Clerk, and advertised in the local papers once the hearing date was selected.
2. Wastewater Planning Committee
RE: Build-out Projection
The board secretary researched the Building Department’s town reports for information pertaining to the number of building permits issued for the years 2000-2013, and found that there were discrepancies in the reports with the data provided by the Board of Assessors in 2012. A review of the actual building permits uncovered that the differences were simply an error in count. The Building Department’s annual listings concurred with the Board of Assessor’s data that was utilized for the years 2000-2011.
Mr. Seidman noted that the numbers were reasonably close to the previous year’s calculations. Board members compared the information they had compiled the previous year, and reviewed the new data for the years 2012 and 2013. It was noted that the majority of the building permits for single family dwellings were issued in the R10 District (the most densely populated area in town), followed by the R20 District.
The board secretary referred the Board to a table listing the number and location of the buildable, potentially buildable and non-buildable lots, with the largest number being available in the R10 and R50 Districts. Mr. Stephenson questioned if any of the available lots could be divided to create an additional lot or allow for an accessory apartment/guesthouse. Mr. Seidman doubted people within the R50 and R3A would want to divide their properties. Mr. Stephenson noted there were incentives to create affordable units. Mr. Stephenson thought the Board should add to their calculations that approximately 10%-20% of the building lots could be divided or have sufficient land area for accessory apartments or guesthouses. And if the town voted to do so, it was possible that some of the unbuildable lots could be developed for affordable housing. Mr. Stephenson further added that if they sewered the BII district which would allow businesses to construct apartments.
Mr. Seidman compared the average number of new constructions for the years 2000- 2011 and the last two years, to note that the averages essentially remained the same. He advised the Board that he was comfortable with their initial recommendations.
3. Stop & Shop
A. Proposal for expansion
Mr. Stephenson advised the Board that the Water Street Municipal Parking Lot Design and Planning Committee met earlier in the evening to review the various elements of the parking lot they agreed upon, and to review three alternative design proposals presented by Mr. Lee, Mr. Grande and himself.
Mr. Doble mentioned that the committee raised several issues during the presentations that they had to address, such as accessibility, and the need for a survey plan of the property. Mr. Stephenson mentioned that they did not have information about the actual property lines or lease agreements. Mrs. Doble noted that she did not manage to get to all of the items in the agenda, but wanted to keep the committee moving forward so that they could approve a preliminary drawing. She felt that the nature of the changes in the parking plan design had to be clearly laid out before they progressed to the details of the materials. She hoped that by the end of the next meeting the committee will be close to agreeing on a plan that they could present to the Board of Selectmen.
Mrs. Doble assumed the town and/or applicant would hire a landscape architect and other consultants to design the landscaped areas and to determine which materials worked best for the terrain, use, etc. Mr. Seidman understood that the town was going to have a certain dollar amount to spend on the improvements. Mr. Stephenson did not think the standard for the parking lot should be compromised or based on the applicant’s monetary contribution, because it was possible that the town may want to subsidize the difference to maintain a certain quality.
Mr. Stephenson described the differences between the three proposals that spanned from a design that ignored the applicant’s needs altogether, another design that made a few adjustments to accommodate the applicant without compromising the town’s needs, and the third design, that reconfigured the parking lot to accommodate the applicant’s needs.
Mrs. Doble informed the Board that the next step in the review process was to do a comparative analysis of all of the proposals. Mr. Seidman noted that the private properties abutting were deplorable, so that the improvements to the parking lot may be overshadowed. Mrs. Doble advised Mr. Seidman that the proposals provided a screen for that area. She also thought the town could negotiate for the use of land in the back. It might inspire others to make some modest changes that could have an impact.
Mr. Stephenson also noted that he spoke with the police chief about their proposals, and the department’s needs. He learned that the police chief was concerned about parking, noting that he needed seven spaces. He also advised Mr. Stephenson that they also utilized the corridor that led to Cromwell Lane much more often than suspected because of SSA’s schedule.
Mr. Stephenson announced that the applicant, Stop-N-Shop had asked the MV Commission to continue their public hearing until the town came to some conclusion with regards to the parking lot.
B. Request for Legal Counsel re: questions regarding easements, etc.
Mr. Peak arrived at 7:52 PM just in time to advise the Board that he had asked Mr. Grande a list of concerns, and whether he had officially received a response. Mr. Grande replied in the negative.
Mrs. Doble noted that Mr. Grande appeared overwhelmed, because he had many ongoing projects. Mr. Peak thought he could approach Mr. Grande to ask him about the legal opinions and taking, and if the Planning Board could assist him in securing the information. Mr. Peak mentioned that he had a copy of the easements and memorandums of understanding, and offered to bring a set for the Board’s review.
Mr. Peak informed the Board that he had scheduled an appoint with the Police Chief tomorrow morning at 9 AM, and opened the invitation to fellow board members to ask additional questions. Mrs. Doble wanted to know about the arrangement the Police Department had with the Hall Family, because it was not clear at all. Mr. Stephenson and Mrs. Doble expressed an interest in joining Mr. Peak for his appointment with the Police Chief.
4. Tisbury Schoo1
RE: Options
Mr. Stephenson thought the elementary school was in an excellent location for the multitude of overlapping functions. Mr. Seidman believed the school committee was leaning towards relocating the school. Mr. Stephenson thought the Planning Board could hire a consultant to look at all of the real options, including the options for staying at the current location.
Mr. Seidman thought they could stay at the side and add 15,000 sq. ft. on the cafeteria side.
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED:
1. Marion Mudge, Town Clerk
RE: ATM (April 29, 2014) Warrant Articles
2. Citizen Planner Training Collaborative
RE: March 15, 2015 Annual Conference
Dan Seidman and Cheryl Doble expressed an interest in attending the conference. The board secretary was to make the necessary travel arrangements. Mr. Seidman offered to secure the town car.
3. Martha’s Vineyard Commission
A. Extended Meeting Schedule
B. Scope of DCPC Moratoria
C. District Local Technical Assistance - 2014
3. Tisbury Conservation Commission
A. Public Hearing Notice – Vineyard Open Land Foundation, AP 64A05 (rebuilding a structure, ramp, driveway and parking, retaining wall, etc.
B. Public Hearing Notice – Robert Jewett, AP 04G05.1 (pruning shrubs/trees)
4. Water Street Municipal Parking Lot Planning & Design Committee Meeting
RE: 12 February 2014 at 3:30 PM
5. West Thomson
A. Zoning Bulletin, 10 January 2014
B. Zoning Bulletin, 25 January 2014
6. American Planning Association
RE: Planning, January 2014
PRO FORM Meeting opened, conducted and closed in due form at 8:30 P.M. (m/s/c 5/0/0)
Respectfully submitted;
____________________________________________
Patricia V. Harris, Secretary
APPROVAL: Approved and accepted as official minutes;
______________ _________________________
Date Henry Stephenson
Co-Chairman