Planning Board Minutes

DATE: January 22, 2003

TIME: 5:37 P.M.

PLACE: Town Hall Annex

BILLS: Patricia Harris...............$713.20
AT&T..........................$ 1.03

MEETING MINUTES: As referred in the January 22, 2003 Meeting Agenda
8 January 2003 m/s/c 4/0/0 As Amended
15 January 2003 Deferred

APPOINTMENTS:

5:30 P.M. DONALD AMARAL RE: REVENUE ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE

Mr. Amaral advised the Board that he was in the process of structuring the Revenue Enhancement Committee at the Finance & Advisory Committee’s request for the purpose of finding ways to increase the town’s revenue base.

He noted that he had asked Hugh Schwarz, a fellow Finance & Advisory Committee Member to join him on the Committee for his assistance, and has met with the Board of Selectmen for their recommendations. Based on his discussions with the Board of Selectmen, it was decided that the Revenue Enhancement Committee's mission statement should be:

To review the Town of Tisbury’s economic revenues and find ways to maximize their use to develop a plan to increase the revenue base, to assist in the overall planning coordination in the use of these revenues.

Mr. Amaral indicated that the Committee would operate under the Board of Selectmen’s auspices, and include one representative from the following town boards and community: Board of Selectmen, Finance & Advisory Committee, Department of Public Works, Planning Board, a member from the waterfront community, a retired member and a resident at large.

To that end, Mr. Amaral asked the Planning Board to make their appointment to the Committee within the next 2-3 weeks, and to advise Mr. Luttrell of their decision, so that he could schedule the Committee’s first meeting with the Board of Selectmen.

Mr. Amaral noted that he wanted to reduce the tax rate to keep the community’s youth in town, and to develop a boarding fee/landing fee to tap into the tourist dollars. He believed the financial crisis the state and local towns were experiencing could work in their favor if they acted promptly.

Mr. Orleans thought Mr. Amaral should include a member of the Harbor Management Committee if they planned to address harbor revenues. Mr. Amaral indicated that he had discussed the matter with the Board of Selectmen, all agreed that it would be much more appropriate to invite the Harbor Management Committee to their meetings for their impressions when the need arose.

Mr. Orleans inquired if the Revenue Enhancement Committee was given a budget to cover supportive services. Mr. Amaral replied in the negative, but did note that the Board of Selectmen had promised to provide them with funds from their own budget, if needed.

There being no further comment, Mr. Amaral thanked the Board for their time, and asked them to notify Mr. Luttrell of their appointment.

5:45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING (CONT.): GIBSON & BEHMAN, AP 9B24, BEACH ROAD
ATTENDANCE: NONE

The continuation of the public hearing was duly opened at 6:10 PM. Planning Board Chairman read the public hearing notice into the minutes, and noted that the applicant and/or the applicant’s agent were not in attendance.

Mr. Peak took the opportunity to inform the Board that Mr. Thompson had accompanied him on the site inspection on January 10, 2003 at 1 PM. He advised the Board that the commercial structure was being used for residential purposes, retail, rentals (cars and bikes) and a home office (fencing company). He mentioned that the applicant, Mr. Murphy was present during the site visit, and asked to submit: 1) a detailed site plan reflecting the property’s existing and proposed parking arrangements, and 2) a scaled floor plan of the entire building (including proposed office space).

Mr. Peak observed that the space in question was a totally unfinished and gutted first floor room. Contrary to the applicant’s testimony, Gibson & Behman was not converting an existing office space to a similar use; they were renovating an unfinished area into office space. It was a discrepancy, he believed could have an impact on the application.

Mr. Thompson noted that he had an issue with the applicant’s proposal for two parking spaces. He explained that on the day of the visit, he had to park across the street in a vacant lot, because the site did not have any parking spaces available for his use. Mr. Peak concurred noting that he had to park next door.

Given that the applicant was absent during the discussions, Mr. Peak asked the Board if they wanted to continue the public hearing to clarify these issues, or to close the hearing.

Mr. Lopez did not think they should extend any courtesies at this juncture. The applicant had been asked on several occasions for additional information without any success.

Mr. Orleans moved to continue the public hearing on February 5th, during which the Administrative Secretary should notify the applicant of the Board’s action, and of their disappointment with his performance. It was his recommendation that if the applicant failed to appear for the public hearing or to supply the information they had requested, they would close the public hearing and deny his application without prejudice. Mr. Thompson seconded the motion.

Mr. Peak suggested continuing the hearing at 5:15 PM due their schedule. Board members agreed, and Mr. Orleans revised his motion to continue the hearing on February 5th at 5:15 PM.

Mr. Peak recommended meeting on 5 February 2003 at 5:15 PM to hold Gibson & Behman’s public hearing. Mr. Orleans moved Mr. Peak’s recommendation, and Mr. Thompson seconded the motion, which motion carried. 3/1/0

Mr. Lopez voted against the motion, and explained his position on the matter. It was his impression that the Planning Board was under no obligation to continue extending any courtesies whatsoever to non-complying applicants. He believed they should develop a policy informing applicants that they were required to submit complete applications to the Planning Board for due consideration. Incomplete applications risked a denial, if not addressed within a reasonable amount of time.

The Planning Board resumed their regularly scheduled meeting at 6:25 PM to continue their house business.

6:32 P.M. KENNETH PARKS AND FLOYD THAYER AP 5C3, NORTH WILLIAM/FAIRFIELD

Mr. Hoehn submitted a division of land proposing two building lots and one non-buildable lot from one house lot. The non-buildable lot was being sold to an abutting property owner on AP 05C04.

Board members noted that the existing single family dwelling, garage and shed met the zoning district’s setback requirements.

There being no further comment, Mr. Orleans moved to endorse the Plan of Land for Kenneth Parks and Floyd Thayer as an ANR. Mr. Thompson seconded the motion, which motion carried. 4/0/0

6:43 P.M. DELIBERATIONS: COW PATH NOMINEE TRUST, AP 14A2 & 14A9

Form C Subdivision

The deliberations for Cow Path Nominee Trust’s two applications was duly opened at 6:40 PM. Mr. Peak, Planning Board Chairman deferred to the Board members and asked them if they had any comments or issues with the proposal that should be addressed.

There being no comment from the Board, Mr. Peak inquired about the road’s paved width. Mr. Hoehn replied 16 ft wide. Section 516 on pg. 20 of the Board’s local regulation confirmed that this was acceptable for a two way lane, and Section 422 on pg. 15 required an additional 18 ft for the layout. Mr. Hoehn exceeds the 36-ft wide layout requirement with his proposal.

Mr. Peak requested a clarification with regards to the paved surface requirement. As far as he understood the proposal, the applicant was proposing to pave 3/4th of the road except for the cul-de-sac around the meadow. Mr. Hoehn replied in the affirmative, indicating that he was willing to pave the entire road, if the Board did not want to consider the waiver.

Mr. Peak entertained a motion granting the applicant a waiver from Sections 02 (25 March 1987 Revision) and 515 of the Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land in the Town of Tisbury for the cul-de-sac, starting at station 4.0 (RAP). Mr. Orleans moved to waive the paving requirement for the cul-de-sac. Mr. Lopez seconded the motion, which motion carried. 4/0/0

Mr. Lopez noted that all four building lots were large enough to accommodate guesthouses. He inquired if any of the lots could accommodate guesthouses, if the applicant pursued a five lot or and six lot subdivision. Mr. Hoehn confirmed that a six-lot subdivision of land would not allow for any guesthouses. In a five-lot subdivision of land, three of the lots had enough land area to erect guesthouses.

Mr. Hoehn indicated that he did not want to see three buildings on any of the lots. He just wanted to reserve the right to have a guesthouse (i.e. apartment) above a garage.

Mr. Lopez wanted to condition the decision so that the access road off Edgartown Road is forever ‘legally’ closed. He did not want to see the property owner decide to keep it open as a second means of egress. Mr. Peak thought they could structure their decision accordingly (i.e. access would never be permitted to Edgartown Road for vehicular traffic). Mr. Orleans concurred, and noted that they could include a statement stating that the road would be closed in perpetuity.

Mr. Peak recommended adding a condition to the effect that the applicant must produce evidence of a trail easement with the MV Land Bank. Mr. Orleans recalled that the applicant offered to survey the area to provide the Town of Tisbury with a drainage solution, and suggested addressing the offer as a condition.

Mr. Peak asked the applicant if he was willing to modify the restrictive covenant restricting homeowners to two substantive structures per lot (i.e. single family dwelling and a garage or garage/guesthouse or guesthouse), excluding non-habitable accessory structures such as sheds.

Mr. Peak noted that the applicant offered to have planting at the egress of the roadway onto Winyah Circle to partially mask the road, but not interfere with the site line. He thought they should add a finding to the decision noting that the egress onto Winyah Circle is positioned to try to mitigate the speed of traffic entering and exiting the subdivision road. He also noted that the road was designed to prevent any runoff from the property in question from contributing to water entering Winyah Circle (negative pitch).

Mr. Lopez noted that the applicant mitigated an abutter’s contribution to the runoff on Winyah Circle by offering an alternate access on the subdivision road and offering to close off the existing driveway at his own expense. Mr. Peak thought they could comment on the offer as a ‘Finding’, and add the following language “The developer has offered to attempt to mitigate the water collection on Winyah Circle by eliminating a contributory driveway and allowing access from that same property over his subdivision road”.

Mr. Peak they should make the following observation in the decision, “The plan includes a shared driveway for two lots, even though there is no specific provision for the amenity. The Planning Board has no objection to that, because it fulfills the desire to reduce the development of the area”.

Mr. Hoehn asked the Planning Board if they would like to have him amend the plan to include a note prohibiting all vehicular access across the 30-ft wide lane to Edgartown-Vineyard Haven Road. The Board replied in the affirmative, and suggested including the notation in both the decision and plan.

Mr. Lopez indicated that he was prepared to move on the application. Mr. Orleans agreed and moved to approve the applicant’s subdivision proposal for four lots and one 40 wide road with conditions and restriction, to be fully developed for the Board’s review on February 12, 2003. Mr. Lopez seconded the motion which motion carried. 4/0/0

Special Permit – Rate of Development

Mr. Peak directed the Board to the applicant’s special permit application for an accelerated Rate of Development schedule, pursuant to section 04.07.05 of the Tisbury Zoning Bylaw. Mr. Hoehn, the applicant advised the Board that his proposal was listed in the 24 December 2002 handout he had submitted to the Planning Board.

According to the handout, the applicant requested an increase in the Rate of Development from 1 lot to 2 lots per year, and listed the following arguments in favor of an endorsement:

a) reduction in density – the applicant demonstrated that he had the potential of developing a six and five lot subdivision plan of land, but preferred to propose four lots to reduce density,
b) provision for housing for low income or elderly persons - the applicant has offered a monetary contribution of $500.00 per lot to the Tisbury Resident Homesite Committee,
c) health and safety provisions, minimization of traffic congestion – by inference the reduced number of dwellings will have a lesser impact, the modification to the previously endorsed two lot subdivision plan removed a dangerous intersection on the Edgartown Road by relocating it on Winyah Circle
d) Arrangements that would tend to reduce or minimize town service costs – the applicant, as part of this application proposed to work with the Tisbury Department of Public Works to supply them, at his cost with surveying and engineering support to resolve the drainage issue on Winyah Circle. The applicant, in addition offered to remove the neighbor’s driveway that drains into Winyah Circle and to give them access off the subdivision road to remove one of the contributors to the drainage problem, and
e) Protection of natural resources – the applicant submitted a restrictive Homeowner’s Association covenant that controlled the way the land could be developed, including location of building envelopes, and driveways, and is negotiating a walking trail easement with the MV Land Bank.

Mr. Lopez indicated he was inclined to give the applicant his special permit for the following reasons:
a. the applicant had the potential of creating six lots, and opted to reduce density by proposing four (4) lots,
b. the applicant eliminated the traffic hazard by relocating the subdivision’s egress from Edgartown Road to Winyah Circle, and
c. The applicant presented a carefully thought out plan with due consideration to the topography of the land, and its overall development.

Mr. Orleans did not think that the request made that much of a difference to a development this small. It was his impression that the four units could be easily absorbed by the Winyah Lane Development. Mr. Lopez did not see any benefit in prolonging the construction activity to the immediate neighbor hood.

Mr. Orleans concurred, and moved to approve the applicant’s request for an accelerated Rate of Development, that would allow him to develop two building lots per calendar year. Mr. Lopez seconded the motion, which motion carried. 4/0/0

There being no further discussion, the Planning Board resumed their meeting to discuss house business at 7:40 PM.

BOARD DISCUSSION:
1. ZBL Amendment
A. Section 04.07.05 (Draft Revision) and Section 07.04 (Deep Lot Provision)
B. EO 418 (Scope of Work) - Comments and Recommendations
C. Town Report – Mr. Lopez’ Draft

a. Board members were asked to postpone the discussions until next week, because the proposed revisions were not completed.
b.
c. Board members reviewed Mr. Lopez’ draft town report and recommended the following revisions:

1. to correct the number of houses constructed within the calendar year from 38 to “35 houses per year” in the 4th line of the second paragraph,
2. to change lines 5-7 in paragraph 3 to state “…weekend Town Planning Conference, and public hearings to define the town goals…”
3. to revise line 3 in paragraph 2 to state “whose input… helped to bring…”
4. to amend line 3 in paragraph 2 to state “…local Subdivision Rules and Regulations…”
5. to modify line 9 in paragraph 3 to read “…these knowing the concrete…, and with the…”
6. to revise line 2 in paragraph 4 by deleting the word ‘and’, and beginning the new Sentence with “These maps … offices”,
7. to replace 2nd sentence in paragraph 4 with the following statement “The state is also supplying a $30,000.00 grant under Executive Order 418 to create a Community Development Plans, which the Planning Board hopes to integrate to its Master Planning process”,
8. to delete the 3rd sentence in paragraph 4, and
9. to add the following sentence to paragraph 3, “Presently we are working diligently to complete the Master Plan in 2004”.

There being no further amendments, the Board approved the revised draft.

CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED:

1. Douglas R. Hoehn, SB&H Inc.
RE: Request for Release of Lot 2, Freeman Path

Mr. Peak noted that Mr. Hoehn submitted a letter to the Planning Board attesting that the road, turnaround and drainage had been constructed according to the specifications of the revised sketch.

Mr. Orleans moved to release Lot 2 of the Freeman Path Subdivision Plan, based on the surveyor’s letter to the Planning Board. Mr. Lopez seconded the motion, which motion carried. 4/0/0

2. Edward Hewett
RE: Request for comments on the Neighborhood Review Study Committee’s proposal (Attachment)

3. Philippe Jordi, Exec. Dir. – Dukes County Regional Housing Authority
RE: EO 418 Affordable Housing Plan – Scope of Work

4. Martha’s Vineyard Commission
A. Land Use Planning Committee’s 27 January 2003 Meeting Agenda
B. 17 January 2003 Extended Meeting Schedule Update
C. 23 January 2003 MVCs Special Meeting Agenda
D. Public Hearing on 2/6/03 for Tapestry Holdings, LLC

Mr. Peak noted that the application was intensifying the pre-existing, non-conforming use of the property. It appeared to him that the intention of the law was to have pre-existing nonconforming uses revert back to their conforming uses, but the proposal made that impossible.

He felt the situation warranted some kind of educational campaign that would help the Zoning Board of Appeals to understand the intent of the law. If the Zoning Board of Appeals voted in favor of the application, he believed they should condition their endorsement to make the apartments affordable in perpetuity.

Mr. Lopez disagreed and thought they should allow the special permit granting authority as much discretion as possible to make their determinations on a case by case basis. He did not think it would benefit the town to be too rigid, at this juncture, without having a Master Plan.

5. Quinlan Publishing Group
A. Zoning Bulletin, 10 January 2003
B. Zoning Bulletin, 25 January 2003

CORRESPONDENCE SENT:
1. Fred LaPiana, DPW Dir.

RE: Light Fixture

PRO FORM Meeting opened, conducted and closed in due form 8:02 P.M.
(m/s/c 4/0/0)
Respectfully submitted;
Patricia V. Harris, Secretary

APPROVAL: Approved and accepted as official minutes;
L. Anthony Peak, Chairman