The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal AboutPlanning Board Packet 09/23/20 supplemental secondSITE PLAN REVIEWAPPLICATION #2020-15 APPLICANT: ROBERT TULLOCH PROPERTY: 0 SARA ANN LANE APPLICANT MAP/LOT: PROPERTY: ADDRESS: Brewster Planning Department 2198 Main Street Brewster, MA 02631-1898 (508) 896-3701 x1133 brewplan@brewster-ma.gov Comments Received for Staff Review on 09/02/20, UPDATED 09-23-20 Application No. 20-08 Received from: Robert Tulloch Map 77, Lot 50 and 54 32 Sara Ann Lane Assessor's Dept. Comments received from James Gallagher, Deputy Assessor • The ANR plan recorded in Bk 673 Pg 42 included in the packet for the Planning Board Application has not had deeds recorded to complete the land swap between lots 14 & 15 as shown on the plan. This discrepancy has been raised since 2018 and because there were no deeds the Assessors Maps have not been adjusted to show the new configuration. • Is the end result of this application going to further combine Tulloch's lots (77-54 & 77-50) into one lot or will they remain separate? Conservation Com. Comments received from Noelle Aguiar, Conservation Administrator • For Map 77, Lot 54, this property appears to be outside the jurisdiction of the Conservation Commission, so we have no comments to add. • For Map 77, Lot 50, this property has applied for and received a permit for the earthen berm along the buffer zone. Building Department Comments received from Victor Staley, Building Commissioner • Are these 2 properties being merged? No permits of record for sheds indicated on site plan. Security dwelling -please refer to definition. Security dwelling appears to violate setbacks -Table 2. • The application does not indicate the proposed use(s) relative to Table 1 of the zoning _._.._......... Fire Department Comments received from Chief Moran • No information on proposed location or plans for residential structure provided. • Annual permit required for mulch storage more than 300 cubic yards. • Construction of residential structure shall meet al MA Building and Fire Codes. If mixed use (commercial/residential) a fire suppression (sprinkler) system shall be installed per building code. * Adequate information on proposed residential structure not provided with application. • Storage of any wood chips, hogged material, or wood by-products shall meet Chapter 31 Section 31.3.6 (Outside Storage of Wood Chips and Hogg Material). See attached. • Interior access road to piles shall be no less than 20' in width. • Interior access road to piles shall be level and be constructed of material capable of supporting fire apparatus. • Any fencing shall have a 20' wide manual opening to allow for FD emergency access, Health Dept. Comments received from Amy von Hone, Health Director • Site is located outside Zone II. • Storage or stockpiling of toxic hazardous materials (i.e. fertilizer, plant or food pesticides) should be stored in containers or bags or pallets until sold or relocated offsite. • Safety Data Sheets (SDS) for each toxic or hazardous materials must be maintained and readily available. Application# #20-08 www.brewster-ma.gov Page 1 of 2 9/23/2020 • Based on typical volume for business, upper limits or quantities should be established and maintained. • The proposed single family dwelling unit must be serviced by an adequately sized, fully compliant Title 5 septic sstem. Police Dept. Comments received from Lt. George Bausch • The Brewster Police have no issues with this application. Application# #20-08 www.brewster-ma.gov Page 2 of 2 9/23/2020 SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION #2020-13 APPLICANT: ELEVATION FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC PROPERTY: 873 HARWICH ROAD Law Office of Singer & Singer, LLC 26 Upper County Road P. O. Box 67 Dennisport, Massachusetts 02639 Andrew L, Singer Marian S. Rose Myer R. Singer (1938-2020) September 18, 2020 Via E -Mail Brewster Planning Board 2198 Main Street Brewster, MA 02631 Re: 873 Harwich Road, Brewster Dear Members of the Board, 5CF 1 7_uzu t Tel: (508) 398-2221 (508) 398-1568 www.singer-law.com I am writing to respectfully request that the hearing scheduled on the above property for September 23, 2020, be continued to the Board's October 14, 2020, hearing so that the Applicant can complete review with the Brewster Board of Appeals. Thank you for your consideration of the Applicants' proposal. Very truly yours, Andrew L. Singer Andrew L. Singer ALS/A SPECIAL PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION #2020-10 APPLICANT: DISTRIBUTED SOLAR DEVELOPMENT, LLC PROPERTY: 1000 FREEMANS WAY in St. From: Stan Tenerowicz <stantee@hotmail,Com> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2020 9:44 PM To. brewplan Subject: Solar Projects At The Captain's Golf Course Dear members of the Brewster Planning Board, I have been a member of The Captain's Golf Course since its construction in the rnid- 1980s. As an Environmental Scientist, I was interested to see the post from the Town of Brewster becoming a green community. After viewing the recently approved Solar Array for the driving range, and the proposed Solar Project for the Starboard Course parking lot, I am a bit concerned. Although these are green projects, the scale of these specific projects appear industrial and totally out of character for the Town of Brewster/ The Captain's Golf Course. A galvanized structure 19 feet tall and 120 feet wide, by over 500 feet in length as proposed, in my opinion, is not an appropriate fit for these settings. No amount of landscaping will be able to screen or soften the structure(s). It is apparent to me that the developer and their engineer/ representative, clearly do not understand Brewster or the importance of aesthetics. I was pleased to see that the planning board has sent the developer back to the drawing board and I applaud them for their understanding and efforts. I have worked on several solar projects and know there are much better approaches and design solutions. I truly hope the Town does not settle for an inappropriate design. Furthermore, I have faith that you can and will guide and encourage this developer to better solutions and /or alternatives through the permitting process. Best Regards, Stan Tenerowicz 24 Cedar Hill Road Brewster, MA 02631 1 I St. From: Sent: To: Subject: Marsha Ide <m1de1277@comcast.net> Tuesday, September 22, 2020 5:50 PM brewplan Fwd: [EXTERNAL] Golf Course > Dear members of the Planning Board, > The following people were interested to see the recent town post of Brewster becoming a green community. Viewing the proposed Solar Project for the Starboard Course parking lot and also the range We feel these projects are very I ndustrial and would detract from Captains and our town. > The scale of these projects appear massive and totally out of character for Town of Brewster and our Golf Course. A galvanized structure that is almost an acre and a half at the golf course and 181/2 ft talk, does not fit. It is my understanding that the developer and engineers are returning on the 23rd to make a scaled back proposal. Based on what has been previously presented for Captains and approved for golf range, We do not believe the engineers understand aesthetics and the community of Brewster. No amount of landscaping will be able help these structures blend with our community. These structures are totally out of character and do not fit. > We are in agreement with the planning board on their current stance on this project and hopefully the planning board doesn't settle for a poor design for a small financial gain by the town and a step towards being a green community. > We will have to live with this decision for the next twenty years so it is extremely important that we get it right. > Respectfully yours, David M Danish 1277 Long Pond Rd Whitney Danish 1277 Long Pond Rd Marsha Ide 1277 Long Pond Rd Janet Fulcher 30 Freeman's Way Rodney Futcher 30 Freeman's Way Jane Lange 58 Cathedral Rd Adam Lange 58 Cathedral Rd Barry O'Neil 116 North Pond Dr Anne O'Neil 116 North Pond Dr Bruce Brown 44 Sandpiper Ln Dion Dugan 1543 Main St St. From: Ryan Bennett Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 10:53 AM To: David M. Danish Cc: Lynn St. Cyr Subject: RE: Solar Project at Captain's Golf Course Hello Mr. Danish, Thank you for your comments and interest in this project. The developer has submitted re -designed plans for tonight's continued Planning Board meeting on this project (please see link below). If you wish to provide additional comments to the Board on these revised plans, please do so prior to 2PM today (if possible) and we will share them, as well. Or, you may provide comments in real time during tonight's meeting by sending an email to: plan ningboardmeeting@brewster- ma.g ov Captain's Golf Course Solar PV Carport Re -Design (submitted 9/18/20): http://records.brewster-ma.gov/weblinl</0/doc/136514/Pagel.aspx Thank you, Ryan Ryan Bennett � Town Planner Town of Brewster 2198 Main Street Brewster, MA 02631 T: 508.896.3701 Effective July 7, 2020, until further notice; Based on current state guidance and public health data, Brewster Town Offices are open to the public on Tuesdays and Thursdays during regular business hours. Residents and visitors are urged to continue to access town services remotely if possible. Phone messages and email communications will continue to be answered promptly. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. For the latest updates on Town services, please visit www.brewster-ma.gov. From: David M. Danish [mailto:ddanish@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 9:55 AM To: brewplan <brewplan@brewster-ma.gov> Subject: Solar Project at Captain's Golf Course Dear members of the Planning Board, We were interested to see the recent town post of Brewster becoming a green community. Viewing the proposed Solar Project for the Starboard Course parking lot and also the range we feel these projects are very industrial and would detract from Captains and our town. The scale of these projects appear massive and totally out of character for Town of Brewster and our Golf Course. A galvanized structure that is almost an acre and a half at the golf course and 181/2 ft talk, does not fit. It is my understanding that the developer and engineers are returning on the 23rd to make a scaled back proposal. Based on what has been previously presented for Captains and approved for golf range, I do not believe the engineers understand aesthetics and the community of Brewster. No amount of landscaping will be able to help these structures blend with our community. These structures are totally out of character and do not fit. Weare in agreement with the planning board on their current stance on this project and hopefully r board doesn't settle for a poor design for a small financial gain by the town and a step towards being a green community. We will have to live with this decision for the next twenty years so it is extremely important that we get it right. David M. Danish 1277 Long Pond Road Whitney Danish 1277 Long Pond Road Marsha Ide 1277 Long Pond Road Joe Monger 35 Nancys Way Corinne Monger 35 Nancys Way Adam Lange 58 Cathedral Road Jane Lange 58 Cathedral Road Max Lange 58 Cathedral Road Coby Lange 58 Cathedral Road Mary Ann Brosnan 275 Quasons Path Karen Schrader 25 Bog Pond Road Dick Schrader 25 Bog Pond Road Helga Dyer 41 Cahoon Road Robert Mumford 35 Cranes Lane Barbara Munch 60 Slough Road David Munch 60 Slough Road Bruce Brown 44 Sandpiper Lane Dion Dugan 1543 Main Street Ivy Kinscherf 8 Cranes Lane Robert Kinscherf 8 Cranes Lane Jay Ann Sci Randy Raymond Members at Captain's but residents of Orleans Jean Raymond Members at Captain's but residents of Orleans z St. From: John Kissida <kissidaje@gmaH,com> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 11:58 AM To: brewplan Cc: Ryan Bennett Subject: Comments/Concerns on Captains Golf Course Solar Array Project Dear members of the Planning Board, As you are aware, I was requested by the board at an earlier meeting to provide some technical assistance on the current proposed solar project at Captains. I am supportive of the town's green community designation, and that should be applauded. The potential of the town and Captains receiving revenues for leasing air rights over existing parking lots should be a win win. The majority of this parking lot is not utilized most of the time and has only recently seen more use with increases in play, due to current pandemic. It is a much preferred approach, then clearing woodland to install solar. This email is a follow up on the previous email sent to you by Ryan Bennett, which I provided input on. The following are my comments and concerns on review of most recent plans for "Brewster Golf Course Photovoltaic System", as detailed in plans dated 9/14/20. The comments below include new issues as well as previously raised items which have not been addressed by the engineer. 1. First, as requested by the board at last meeting, the engineer has broken up the two previously proposed large structures, with a footprint of approximately 59,400 sf and is now proposing six smaller structures in an attempt to reduce the visual scale of the project. It should be noted, however, that the new proposal has a proposed footprint of 63,187 sf, which would be an increase of 3,787 sf or about 6.4% more coverage then the previous proposal. The structures will still have a minimum clearance of 13 ft 6 in and an overall height of between approximately 14 feet to a little over 19 feet. When the height of a standard car or SUV is 5-6 feet, these will still be significant structures, not your standard carport. The design is partially driven since structural supports are larger and much of structure is cantilevered. This is likely a more costly approach. Although the scale of the individual structures is significantly less, which is an improvement, by spreading out the structures over a larger area, the structures may visually actually appear larger in scale. The benefit of the separation of the structures is that there will be light between the structures and they may appear less of a mass, with less shadows. 2. The proposed electrical pad and wood fence enclosure, as shown on A-100, is not shown on the enlarged plans. It's location on the previous plan was preferred, and it is recommended that the current enclosure should be rotated 90 degrees and moved 540 feet East, to improve sight distances along driveway. It would also be desirable to confirm that the 7 foot fence will screen all elements within the enclosure. The purpose of the three new utility poles proposed along the driveway should be requested, and if they will include any equipment, should be determined. 3. Engineers need to confirm that the structure overhangs as proposed, which will overhang drive aisles, will not impede turning movements of large trucks, such as trash and dump trucks, which service area as well as emergency vehicles. 4. The overhang proposed on the north (Freeman's Way) side of the northern structures, will hang beyond the paved surface, and cover approximately 10 feet of turf area. Based on structure location, north exposure, and sloped roof, the turf areas are unlikely to get needed sunlight to promote normal turf growth, and rainfall will be diverted away from these turf areas. Time will tell if this is an issue. 5. At the western end of the proposed structures, where they extend over a drive aisle, there are two support posts that have been placed in the open pavement. These could create problems with large vehicles trying to make turning movements or turn around. At a minimum, they should be protected with raised footings and islands. I 6. Proposed lighting appears to only include 4 fixtures, and only in the southeast structure. The need and extent of night lighting needs to be discussed further to give engineer direction on needed lighting based on potential night use. The narrower structures with 13 ft 6 in min clearance or higher, will provide for some natural light during daytime conditions. If lighting is provided, the engineer should provide minimum standards for self park parking as well as pedestrian use. Current proposed levels appear inadequate. 7. The developer is proposing to retain turf in the islands under the canopies and is proposing an irrigation trench to convey water to these areas. The current condition of turf is island is already questionable and that is with sunlight. It is doubtful grass will grown in the under cover, low light conditions, and the trench as designed could actually move water away from the island turf strips. The irrigation trenches as proposed contain sloping perforated pipes. In the upper/eastern lot, the pipe will slope over 8 feet, in the length of the structure, and likely create a large ponding area at the lower end of the pipes at the cross drive. The pipes in lower/western lot, slope over 5 feet, and will end up discharging to the paved area below. The proposed gutter and pipe system, as designed, could circumvent the existing drainage system, and the existing grass strips for storm water infiltration would be worthless. This drainage system might work on a flat site, but not with the sloping parking lots that exist. If the engineer and developer feel the turf will survive, one approach might be to install a stone trench with clay breaks to distribute water and allow turf to remain and evaluate after a year. If the turf has not survived as determined by owner, the developer would replace with stone at that time at no additional cost to owner. 8. The existing turf islands serve as pedestrian connectors from parking spaces to clubhouse, requiring people to typically cross the islands and between cars as they navigate to sidewalks heading to the clubhouse. The turf, without sunlight or water, and with pedestrian traffic, will not likely survive. The islands would be more functional covered with a 4-6 inch layer of native stone and no pipe. This would accept the roof runoff and promote infiltration. 9. The plantings as being proposed will have minimal impact on screening, or reducing the visual scale of the large tall structures. 18 trees are now proposed to be removed to accommodate the new structures. These trees were planted at the time of construction 20 years ago. The town zoning requires parking lot trees to be 3 inches in caliper. Trees currently being proposed as replacements, are small multistem flowering trees 6-8 feet in height, which will be more shrublike then tree like, especially in front of structures that have a height of up to 19 feet. To create more visual relief/screening of the large tall structures, trees proposed along entrance drive, should be at least 1042 feet tall, and in many locations 3 inch caliber 14-16 ft shade trees. These locations could include islands without trees to the south of the proposed structures, and also more trees in empty islands, along the entrance drive toward the clubhouse. 10. Shrub plantings, if utilized, should be limited and if used, pushed closer to structures, to maintain sight distances along Golf Course main access drive and interior islands. The areas in front of the proposed tree/shrub plantings in the islands at main driveway, should be turf or possibly low perennial planting beds. More flowering and evergreen trees will have more impact than a larger bed of small deciduous shrubs, as currently proposed, and should be considered for central islands as well, not shrubs as currently proposed. Any shrubs and other plantings should be contained in continuous mulched planting beds, to simplify maintenance. 11. The proposed planting along the western entrance drive will have limited, if any, value, and the proposed flowering trees closest to Freemen's Way will create issues with sight distance exiting the driveway. 12. Several of the other plants as proposed are natives, but are recommended for wet areas. In the hot, dry, unirrigated islands of the parking lot, they are unlikely to thrive or survive. The golf course already has problems with maintenance of shrub plantings along the main access drive and around the clubhouse, and the proposed plantings will add more maintenance, and as proposed are not be grouped in continuous mulched bed requiring more mowing and trimming. 13. The developer or his contractor should be required to maintain and guarantee all plantings for a minimum of a full year, as well as replacements, if plants do not survive for an additional growing season. Aiso any pruning or removal of plants, which impact solar array production, should be the responsibility of developer to address, but under review and approval of town. Currently note #5, on Landscape plan, indicates "Landscape maintenance will ensure plantings will not 2 inhibit Array production". This note could require town to remove or severely prune existing or new trees as directed by developer. 14. There are also other items in Ryan's previous email that should also be addressed. All pavement being removed should have saw cut edges and repairs should match existing. The developer should be responsible for pavement maintenance, since settlement and needed repair is likely, especially where foundations and trenching occurs. Structure and bollard painting, signage and fence maintenance and replacement are also concerns and should be included. 15. Structure color has been discussed and currently the developer appears to be proposing a galvanized finish. The color selection for structures of this size is extremely important, and can increase visibility and visual impact, and also set tone of structure's use and aesthetic. My recommendation would be a neutral color that will become background rather then a feature. The best option, a light warm grey (grey beige) color. It is interesting that engineer utilized this color in most recent simulations. Flat/Matte finish, over glossy or shiny is preferred. That is problem with the engineer's proposal to utilize galvanized finish, at least in the itiL years of the project. The initial structure, if galvanized, will be bright and shiny and "erector set like". It will dull over several years, but initially will be industrial looking. The problem with painting, is that ultimately it will need to be repainted, and this could be unsightly before repainting, and a significant maintenance item. There is no easy answer. Overall I believe the proposed redesign with multiple structures is an improvement over the previous design and there can be an opportunity to make this work. I hope these comments assist you in project approval and setting conditions. will make myself available at Wednesday's meeting to answer questions but do not intend to be actively involved in discussions or presentations. Sincerely, John Kissida Registered Landscape Architect, Brewster Resident and member of Captains for over 30 years 3 �y O I`n .s In n -.r. � ..'r`(+, .4.1 r,•. .�. .. :.I cyan e ®J, Ci { loG Tracey Lane, Brewster, MA 026vix f SEP 2 3 202 � E 9/23/2020 Dear Planning Board, It is my understanding that the Planning Board has continued the discussion on the Solar Panel installation at the Captains Golf Course. I appreciate the careful time and attention you are taking to ensure that this huge structure meets with the characteristics of Brewster. In addition to an aesthetic issue, given that the site location choice is a golf course, and brings revenue to Brewster, there is also a very important business decision to be considered. Locating the solar farm where the current driving range is located and moving the driving range to the parking lot adjacent to the golf course, would result in more revenue for Brewster and also mitigate the importance titits location off site of the course, This project lbe here for Oyears d should be In the bestinterest of the Town and the Golf Course. Pleaseaddress comments at your meeting. Does this structure fit with the character of Brewster and is it really suitable for the site adjacent and in visual site of the Golf course? The Planning Board has already approved a smaller array at the off site driving range parking lot. Why can't this solar plan array be installed at the driving range and move the driving range back to its former it will get more use and bring in more revenue? location on site at the Captains where a, The parking lot at the Captains course could be transformed back to the driving range it once was and this would enable all the solar panels to be all in one location. b. There are thousands of golfers entering the golf course every year and a huge solar panel farm does not fit with the principal attraction of a golf course. c. Also, if the driving range was moved over, to take over a portion of the parking lot, it would d course so much more sense than having people have to go across the street to a driving range. A golf o should have easy access to the driving range and having golfers check-in and then find out that they have to get back in their cars to go to the range is frustrating for the golfers and is losing revenue for the course (because many of these people will not get back in their car). d. Moving the driving range to the parking lot and the solar panels to the open space at the existing driving range just maKes sense. If this has been discussed then please let the Brewster residents know why it can't happen. Please confirm where the money, approximately $100,000, from the lease is going? To the golf course or to the Town's general fund? I understand that Brewster wants to be part of the Green Community and I support that but this is a 20 year investment and should be situated at the right location and that all options are given careful consideration. Moving the driving range adjacent to the course, and locating the solar farm off site where the current range is located, this issue becomes a win win for Brewster. Thank you for addressing my comments/questions at your review. Regards, Jayanne Sci SPECIAL PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION #2020-14 APPLICANT: NEXT GRID, INC. PROPERTY: 0 MID CAPE HIGHWAY 0660 w8 TOWN OF BREWSTER 0'` 2198 MAIN STREET •� . s BREWSTRIZ, MA 02631 .0 PHONE: (508) 896-3701 EXT 120 FAX: (508) 8964538 DATE: September 18, 2020 TO: Planning Board FROM: WQRC RE: 989 Freemans Way Map 119 Parcels 6 and 8 Next Grid Solar Panel Array WATER QUALITY REVIEW COMMITTEE SSP 2 1 /V? The Water Quality Review Committee held a meeting on September 18, 2020 to review and comment on the proposed Solar Panel Array at 989 Freemans Way, the Daniels/Antinarelli Property. The WQRC, after review of the submitted project documents and consultant commentary, voted to recommend the project contingent on the following items: 1. Appropriate protective barriers be required around the transformers and the battery terminals to prevent/minimize accidental damage. 2. Regular inspections of the facility to be conducted for maintenance and repair. Frequency of inspections to be industry specific and as determined to be appropriate for the type and size of the proposed project. 3. Inclusion of the submitted Operation and Maintenance Plan into the Planning Board decision for the preventative maintenance and monitoring of the solar array equipment and the storm water drainage structures. 4. Monitoring of the equipment to include response to alerts from the array automated alert system for system malfunction and other emergency events such as oil/coolant leaks. Amy L. von Hone, Vice Chair Brewster Water Quality Review Committee W W W.TOWN.BREWSTER.MA.US