HomeMy Public PortalAboutPlanning Board -- 2020-09-23 Minutes REwS Brewster Planning Board Approved : 10/14/20
\ \\\\oou0oa k E
2198 Main Street Vote : 7 -0 -0
Brewster, MA 02631 - 1898
o _ y` ( 508) 896 =3701 x1133
brewplan@brewster-ma . govPRE
il® fE 1l� hliq 13LR
Fa R` .� BREWSTER PLANNING BOARD
MEETING MINUTES _
Wednesday, September 23 , 2020 at 6 : 30 pm �' I til i 71 i4 I =a
Brewster Town Office Building (virtual )
Chair Paul Wallace convened a remote meeting of the Planning Board at 6 : 31 pm with the following members participating
remotely : Roberta Barrett , Amanda Bebrin , Charlotte Degen , Madalyn Hillis- Dineen , Kari Hoffmann , and Elizabeth Taylor.
Also participating remotely : Ryan Bennett, Town Planner and Lynn St Cyr, Senior Department Assistant.
The Chair read the Notification : This meeting will be conducted by remote participation pursuant to Governor Baker's
March 2020 orders suspending certain Open Meeting Law provisions and imposing limits on public gatherings. No in-person
meeting attendance will be permitted. If the Town is unable to live broadcast this meeting, a record of the proceedings will
be provided on the Town website as soon as possible. The Town has established specific email addresses for each board
and committee so the public can submit comments either before or during the meeting. To submit public comment or
questions to the Planning Board, please email: planningboardmeeting(cbbrewster-ma . gov.
To view the :
• Live broadcast: Tune to Brewster Government TV Channel 18
• Livestream: Go to www. livestream. brewster-ma . gov
• Audio/video recording: Go to www. tv. brewster-ma . cLov
• Planning Board Packet: Go to: http : //records . brewster-ma . gov/weblink/0/fol/ l 18269/Rowl . aspx
Wallace announced that Site Plan Review Application #2020- 13 for 873 Harwich Road has requested a continuance to
the October 14 , 2020 Planning Board meeting .
Wallace recused himself from Site Plan review Applications #2020- 11 and #2020- 15 and left the meeting . Degen took
over as chair.
6 : 33 PM PUBLIC MEETINGS
Site Plan Review Application #2020 -11 : Applicant/Owner: Robert S . Tulloch , Trustee , J & J Revocable Trust ,
Representative : Attorney Benjamin E . Zehnder of LaTanzi , Spaulding & Landreth for property located at 32 Sara Ann
Lane and shown on Assessor' s Map 77 , Lot 54 in the Commercial High Density ( C - H ) zoning district. Pursuant to § 179 - j
64 ( D) and § 179- 11 , Table 1 , of the Brewster zoning bylaw, the Applicant proposes storage and stockpiling of earthen and f
other materials and storage of more than two commercial vehicles . The Applicant also requests waiver of certain site plan
review requirements pursuant to § 179-67 (A) of the Brewster zoning bylaw . ( CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 9 , 2020)
Documents :
• 09/02/20 Staff Review Comments , revised September 23 , 2020
• 09/ 16/20 Planning Board Application with Amended Narrative and Site Plan
• Site Plan Review Checklist
r
Degen took a roll call vote of members present and participating . Barrett- present, Bebrin - present, Hillis-Dineen -present ,
Hoffmann - present , Taylor-present , and Degen - present .
Attorney Benjamin E . Zehnder of LaTanzi , Spaulding & Landreth and John O ' Reilly of J . M . O ' Reilly & Associates , Inc .
participated remotely along with the Applicant , Robert Tulloch . I
Zehnder stated that the Applicant has amended this application to bifurcate two properties- Lots 50 and 54 , classify uses
as #40 and #41 in the use table , remove the security dwelling , and incorporate comments from the Fire Department into
the site plan including a 20 ' area around the piles of materials for emergency access .
l
Barrett asked for clarification on the use of the property and how it relates to the property to the south . Zehnder stated
that the properties will be used together but will not be merged . O ' Reilly stated that the application for the lot with the
existing building , 32 Sara Ann Lane , Lot 54 , is presented to formalize and update uses including storage of commercial
materials and equipment on the property . O' Reilly stated that the Applicant did not foresee storage of large piles of dirt on
PB Minutes 09/23/2020 Page 1 of 10
i
I
this property as this is where the Applicant pulls in his trucks . This property is paved and has gravel , The materials
stored on this property will include some sand and gravel , but mostly consists of PVC piping used for sewage system
installation , concrete products such as risers and lids , and cast iron covers and frames . The vacant lot to the south is the
lot that contains most of the soil materials such as bark mulch , gravel , clean sand , and clean fill . O ' Reilly stated that the
Applicant has filed for building permits for the sheds on the property pursuant to comments provided by the Building
Commissioner. Barrett asked if there will be processing or screening of materials on site . O ' Reilly confirmed that no
processing of materials will be done on site . Degen asked for clarification on the travel route . O ' Reilly responded that
main access to the site is off Sara Ann Lane with a small driveway connection to the south by the material bins , O ' Reilly
further stated that the material bins are loaded from Lot 54 and material scooped up from the bins via Lot 50 and brought
off site . Degen asked about the driveway between the Applicant' s property and the property to the east and O ' Reilly
responded that the properties are separate and no part of the Applicant' s property crosses over the Keyes property to the
east . O ' Reilly stated that there is an electrical handhold between the two properties for demarcation purposes .
Hoffmann stated that she noticed a paved driveway to the Keyes property with vehicles parked on it and wondered if that
was part of the Applicant' s property . O ' Reilly responded that the previous owner , CC Construction ran their business out
of the Applicant' s building and the driveway referenced by Hoffmann was used by the previous owner for access to
Underpass Road . The trucks and trailers referenced are stored on the Keyes property and are not owned by the
Applicant. Hoffmann confirmed with the Applicant that although there is a screening plant on site , the screening plant is
not used on site . Hoffmann asked about the old Cadillac being stored on the site and expressed concern about the
storage of gas and oil . Hoffmann also noted that there are bobcats , excavators , a plow axle , a compressor, and a dump
truck located on the site . Hoffmann noted that there were boats and boat trailers stored there and asked if they were
considered commercial vehicles . O ' Reilly responded that the Applicant is trying to bring the site into compliance so if he
is not permitted to have the older car or boat on site he will have to remove them and it could become an enforcement
issue through the zoning enforcement officer. Hoffmann stated that storage of these items could create landscaping
issues . Hoffmann complimented the Applicant on the landscaped island between the lots . She noted fuel and propane
storage on site which were protected by a bollard . O ' Reilly confirmed that the materials stored on site were for use by the
Applicant not for commercial sale .
Hoffmann read staff review comments dated September 2 , 2020 , revised September 23 , 2020 into the record .
Degen confirmed with the Applicant that the deed transfers referenced in the Assessor' s comments are in process and
stated that the Planning Board will include the requirement of deed transfer as a condition of any approval . Zehnder
followed up that the deeds have been drafted , circulated for signature , and will be recorded in the next several days .
Zehder suggested the Board could include the deed recording as a condition of the decision . Degen also stated that the
requirement for building permits for the sheds would also be a condition of the decision . The Board discussed a condition
on upper limits referenced in the Health Department comments . Zehnder suggested it would be best for the Applicant to
deal directly with the Health Department and that a condition of the decision should be that the Applicant will comply with
the Health Department recommendations . Barrett asked for further discussion on the Health Department 1,
recommendations . The Board decided to incorporate the Health Department recommendations into the decision as
conditions and noted that the Applicant will work in consultation with the Health Department to establish and maintain
upper limits and quantities based on typical volume for the business .
The Board reviewed their site plan review checklist . O ' Reilly stated that significant traffic was not anticipated as no retail
operation is planned . It is possible that between 6 tol5 employees will travel to the property but some go directly to the job
site . There is more truck traffic going to the southern lot than there was a year ago . O ' Reilly confirmed that no joint
driveways existed and no curb cuts are being requested . O ' Reilly reviewed the internal circulation on site stating that I
vehicles will exit the northern site through the Sara Ann Lane cul de sac to get to the southern site . Degen asked about
storage of vehicles and O ' Reilly responded that there was a segregation of vehicles so that employees park on the north
side of the office building and commercial activity occurs to the south of the building . The Board reviewed parking and j
O ' Reilly stated that there was sufficient parking on site for employees as well as storage of vehicles . Hoffmann asked
about the flagpole which appears to be stored in the middle of the area where commercial vehicles are parked and the
i
Applicant stated he plans to plant the flagpole in the landscaped area by the bins . O' Reilly stated that currently there are
a set of catch basins at the entrance throat off of Sara Ann Lane which are not shown on the plan that will be maintained {
for stormwater runoff. Hoffmann asked about parking striping . Degen suggested wheel stops could be used if none were
in place . Zehnder stated that the business has been in operation for decades and employees park all different ways and
there is also no members of the public on site . Zehnder stated that striping would be an academic exercise . Zehnder
PB Minutes 09/23/2020 Page 2 of 10
i
stated that wheel stops will get banged up with plowing and asked that no improvements to the parking area be required .
Barrett suggested designating a specific area for parking on the site plan . Bennett stated that striping may not be the best
option but the Board often requires wheel stops for delineating parking . O ' Reilly stated that the Applicant does not want to
deal with wheel stops in that area and suggests signage on fence for employee/visitor parking . The Applicant would
prefer to paint parking lines than to use wheel stops . Hoffmann asked for the site plan to be updated to reflect the
delineated parking and O ' Reilly stated the plan will be updated with parking striping in accordance with the bylaw, The
Board discussed the front yard vegetation and noted it did not meet the 25 % requirement . O ' Reilly asked if the Board
would consider waiving this requirement. Hoffmann suggested removal of items such as non -commercial vehicles may
provide additional green space . O ' Reilly suggested adding a green buffer strip to the right of the driveway . Degen noted
that the 10' buffer to adjacent uses is not shown on site plan . O ' Reilly stated that there is only 7' or 8 ' on north side . A 10 '
buffer to the eastern property line will be shown on the revised plan . Zehnder stated that the storage areas respect the
required setbacks . Hoffmann stated that when the Board previously permitted the lot to the east they did require staking
so the piles of materials could be easily acknowledged as meeting setbacks . Barrett suggested revising the site plan to
show the stock piles of materials to determine buffering . Zehnder stated that the piles move and do not stay in one place .
Zehnder further stated that the materials will be stored within setbacks and the Applicant will comply with the Fire
Department requirements provided during staff review . Barrett stated that the Board is looking for an area of delineation
on the plan to show that the materials are meeting the setbacks and those setbacks are being maintained . Zehnder
stated the revised site plan will show property setback lines with the exception of the southern setbacks between the two
properties as they are being used together. Degen asked if there was lighting on this parcel and O ' Reilly stated that there
are light sconces on the building which are downward casting and there is no proposal to change the current lights .
O ' Reilly confirmed that there is no flickering or flashing lights on the property .
St, Cyr stated that no public comments have been received during the meeting for this application .
The Board discussed conditions of approval to include : deed transfer, shed permits , comments from the Health
Department and Fire Department received during staff review, parking striping , addition of green strip to meet 25 %
vegetation requirement, materials shall comply with setbacks , and setbacks will be staked .
Motion by Barrett to Approve Site Plan Review Application #2020 -11 with Conditions and Modifications , as
discussed . Second by Taylor. Vote : Barrett-aye , Bebrin -aye , Hillis - Dineen -aye , Hoffmann -aye , Taylor-aye , and
Degen -aye . Vote : 6 -0 -0 .
7 : 40 PM PUBLIC MEETINGS CONTINUED
Site Plan Review Application #2020 - 15 : Applicant/Owner: Robert S . Tulloch , Trustee , J & J Revocable Trust.
Representative : Attorney Benjamin E . Zehnder of LaTanzi , Spaulding & Landreth for property located at 0 Sara Ann Lane
and shown on Assessor' s Map 77 , Lot 50 in the Commercial High Density ( C - H ) zoning district. Pursuant to § 179-64 ( D) 3
and § 179- 11 , Table 1 , of the Brewster zoning bylaw, the Applicant proposes storage and stockpiling of earthen and other
materials and storage of more than two commercial vehicles . The Applicant also requests waiver of certain site plan
review requirements pursuant to § 179-67 (A) of the Brewster zoning bylaw .
Documents :
• 09/02/20 Staff Review Comments , revised September 23 , 2020
• 09/ 16/20 Planning Board Application with Narrative and Site Plan
• Site Plan Review Checklist
f
Attorney Benjamin E . Zehnder of LaTanzi , Spaulding & Landreth and John O ' Reilly of J . M . O ' Reilly & Associates , Inc.
were participated remotely along with the Applicant , Robert Tulloch .
Zehnder requested that the same conditions given in the previous application for Lot 54 be applied to Lot 50 with the
exception of employee parking striping . O ' Reilly stated that this property is a vacant lot. There is a vegetated wetland to
the west of the site which the Applicant obtained approval from the Conservation Commission to reestablish the slope ,
revegetate , and create an earthen berm on the west side of the site which carries down to the south . Building setback
areas need to be added to the site plan . O ' Reilly stated that this site will have soil materials such as bark mulch , Title 5
sand , loam , and clean fill . O' Reilly stated that the fire department comments have been incorporated into the plan and
referred the Board to the operational notes . O ' Reilly stated that the berm helps to mitigate any run off from the site to the
west or the south . Degen suggested a buffer for screening purposes may be necessary in order to shield the abutter to j
the east. O ' Reilly responded that a buffer was not provided to the east as that abutter' s use is identical to the use the
Applicant is seeking be approved . O ' Reilly stated that the Applicant is not interested in putting a buffer along that property
line . Hoffmann asked the Applicant about storage of items , specifically in the woods near the storage bins as there
PB Minutes 09/23/2020 Page 3 of 10
i
i
appears to be a plow blade and plow hitch stored beyond the property line . O ' Reilly responded that the property line is
15' to 16' to the west of the orange stake Hoffmann observed . O ' Reilly confirmed that the Applicant did not intend to store
anything west of the berm . Barrett stated that she agrees there is no need for screening along the eastern property line
given the similar uses . Barrett asked about the front yard vegetation requirement and Degen stated that a waiver of the
requirement may be appropriate . Taylor asked about a future change of use application and whether the Board would be
able to review that application and reconsider screening . Bennett responded that any change of use would require a new
application for review by the Board . Taylor asked if a waiver of the front yard vegetation requirement was appropriate as
the Board has required screening for adjacent uses in the past and Bennett responded that she believed it was a
reasonable request . The Board discussed a condition that the Applicant be required to stake the setbacks .
It was noted that the staff review comments read into the record for the previous application were the same comments
received for this application and those comments will not be read again .
The Board reviewed their site plan review checklist. Degen noted requests for two waivers including the screening to the
east and the 25 % vegetated front yard requirement. Degen asked if additional trees or bushes should be added to the top
of the berm to screen the residential abutter to the south . O ' Reilly stated that the berm would be 10 ' tall so screening
should be sufficient. O' Reilly conformed that there was no lighting on the lot and there is no proposal for new lighting .
Hoffmann commented on the shared driveway and noted that there really is no delineation of the driveway with the
adjacent property . O ' Reilly responded that a paved apron exists off the cul de sac . Further, from the concrete bins to
Underpass Road , there is an open area but the Applicant does have a defined curb cut. Hoffmann asked about water
service to the lot as she observed a grate valve above ground and a hydrant that has not been painted . Hoffmann
expressed concern that a large truck could back into the water grate valve and cause flooding . O ' Reilly stated that the
Applicant will work with the Water Department to get the hydrant painted and lower the sleeve to grade level . Bennett
stated that the Board does not have the authority to waive individual site plan review requirements only waive site plan
review in its entirety . Bennett stated that the Board can make findings such as the required 25 % green space does not
apply given the use .
Barrett asked if a condition should be included in the decision that any change in ownership would require site plan
review. Bennett responded that a change of ownership would not require site plan review but a change of use would
require site plan review. Zehnder stated that the Applicant filed two separate applications for two separate lots and the
proposed uses are seeking approval on each lot. Zehnder suggested a condition that if either lot is sold or used
separately they must meet setback requirements . Barrett stated that the condition suggested may need to be expanded
as she thinks there may be a potential parking issue on the south lot with a change of use application . Zehnder stated
that any change in use would require an Applicant to come back before the Board . Bennett stated that the Board cannot
regulate ownership and that this application is difficult because although the properties are separate for zoning purposes
they are functionally merged . Bennett again stated that any change of use would require review by the Board . Barrett ;
expressed concern that a lot may end up out of compliance if there was a change in ownership but not use , particularly as
it relates to parking . Zehnder stated that each lot is compliant with zoning requirements and proposed use and will remain
separate . If either lot does not meet setbacks , it becomes an enforcement issue . Zehnder suggested a condition that any
changes to the lot will require review by the Board .
Due to technical difficulties , the Board went into recess .
a
Motion by Taylor to Recess . Second by Barrett . Vote : Hillis - Dineen -aye , Bebrin -aye , Barrett-aye , Taylor-aye , and
Hoffmann -aye . Vote : 5 -0 -0 . Recess was taken at 8 : 12 pm .
I
i
Motion by Barrett to Resume Meeting . Second by Hoffmann . Vote : Barrett-aye , Bebrin -aye , Hillis -Dineen -aye ,
Hoffmann -aye , Taylor-aye , and Degen -aye . Vote : 6-0 -0 . The meeting resumed at 8 : 19 pm . {
I
Bennett suggested a finding that the properties are functionally merged for zoning purposes and the uses are
interdependent . Zehnder did not agree with that finding and suggested that any change of use would require review by the
Board , Zehnder stated that the Board should not be regulating ownership . Barrett stated that there should be a finding or
justification that certain requirements do not apply because the two lots are functioning together. I
i
Motion by Barrett to Approve Site Plan Review Application #2020 -15 with Conditions , as discussed and including
Findings that Certain Site Plan Review Requirements Do Not Apply. Second by Hoffmann . Vote : Barrett-aye ,
Bebrin -aye , Hillis -Dineen -aye , Hoffmann -aye , Taylor-aye , and Degen -aye . Vote : 6 -0 -0 .
Wallace resumed the duties of Chair .
Page 4 of 10
PB Minutes 09/23/2020
i
1
8 : 27 PM PUBLIC MEETINGS CONTINUED
Site Plan Review Application #2020 -13 : Applicant: Elevation Financial Group , LLC . Owner: SRC Brewster RE , LLC .
Representative : Andrew L . Singer, Law Office of Singer & Singer, LLC and David V. Lawler , Law Office of David V.
Lawler, P . C . for property located at 873 Harwich Road and shown on Assessor' s Map 63 , Lot 13 , 14 , and 15 in the
Residential Low Density ( R - L) zoning district. Pursuant to Article XII of the Brewster zoning bylaw , the Applicant proposes
to redevelop and re-use an existing nursing home and assisted living facility complex for senior, Age 55 + , independent
dwelling unit use .
Documents :
• 09/ 18/20 Letter from Andrew Singer requesting continuance to October 14 , 2020
The Applicant has requested a continuance to October 14 , 2020 . Hoffmann read continuance request into the record .
Motion by Degen to Continue Site Plan Review Application #2020 -13 to October 14, 2020 . Second by Hoffmann .
Vote : Degen -aye , Hoffmann -aye , Hillis -Dineen -aye , Taylor-aye , Barrett-aye , Bebrin -aye , and Wallace -aye . Vote : 7 -
0 -0 .
8 : 29 PM PUBLIC HEARINGS
Special Permit and Site Plan Review Application #2020 - 10 : Applicant: Distributed Solar Development , LLC , Owner:
Town of Brewster. Representative : Joshua Burdett of Tetra Tech , Inc . for property located at 1000 Freemans Way
( Captains Golf Course ) and shown on Assessor' s Map 119 , Lot 1 - F in the Residential Rural ( R- R) zoning district . The
Applicant proposes to develop an approximate 1000 kW AC solar canopy facility in the northern parking lot of the
Captains Golf Course pursuant to § 179- 56D ( 1 ) (c) , § 179-64 , and § 179-75 . 5 of the Brewster zoning bylaw. ( CONTINUED
FROM SEPTEMBER 9 , 2020)
Documents :
• 09/ 10/20 Email from Thomas Delnickas
• 09/ 12/20 Email from Anne O ' Connell , Golf Commission
• 09/ 14/20 Revised plans including Site , Landscaping , and Lighting Plans
• 09/ 15/20 Email from David Harpin
• 09/ 15/20 Email from Ellen Harpin
• 09/ 18/20 Photo Renderings Submitted by Applicant (6)
• 09/21 /20 Email from Stan Tenerowicz
• 09/22/20 Email from Marsha Ide
• 09/23/20 Email from David Danish I
• 09/23/20 Email from John Kissida
• 09/23/20 Letter from Jayanne Sci
• 09/23/20 Email from Chris Powicki j
1
Barrett left the meeting as she is ineligible to vote on the application . j
3
Joshua Burdett, Daniel Mulley , and Andrew Lombard of Tetra Tech , Inc . participated remotely on behalf of the Applicant
Distributed Solar Development, LLC ( DSD) . Jenny Nicolas , Alex Norman , Timothy Magner, and Eric Lorenz of DSD also
participated remotely .
The following individuals also participated remotely : Peter Lombardi , Town Administrator , Donna Kalinick , Assistant Town
Administrator, Mark O ' Brien , Director of Operations , Captains Golf Course , Anne O ' Connell , Golf Commission , Jeff Odell ,
Golf Commission , John Kissida , Chuck Hanson , Energy Committee , Colin Odell , Energy Committee , Liz Argo , Executive I
Director, CVEC , and Lauren Mills .
Norman reviewed the revised plans submitted by the Applicant. Norman stated that the redesign breaks up the canopies
to allow for more light and precipitation to come through . Norman stated that Eric Lorenz , an electrical engineer from
DSD , was also on the call and has indicated that more lighting could be added than shown on the revised plans . Norman ;
stated the aesthetics have been revised to be less industrial . Norman reviewed the photo renderings submitted by the
Applicant. Norman directed the Board to the older trees shown to the left of the drive and noted the Applicant proposed to
leave those trees in place where previously they had suggested removal . Norman further stated that the canopies are
presented in a gray color as suggested by John Kissida . Norman directed the Board to the rendering which showed a
wooden fence which stored the battery . j
I
i
Page 5 of 10
PB Minutes 09/23/2020 j
1
3
i
Hoffmann read public comment into the record received from Marsha Ide , David Danish ( the Clerk noted that this
comment was the same as the comment provided by Marsha Ide and did not read the comment into the record in its
entirety) , Thomas Delnickas , Anne O ' Connell , Golf Commission , Ellen Harpin , David Harpin , Stan Tenerowicz , Jayanne
Sci , and Chris Powicki . The Board noted that they received comment from John Kissida which they will review and
discuss at a later point in the meeting . Bennett noted that some of the comment submitted was provided prior to the
Applicant' s redesign .
Wallace stated that there are differing design photos . Wallace further stated that he preferred the design shown in the
photo with the cones around the canopy and Norman responded that that was the design being proposed for the golf
course . Wallace referenced the Wayland High School canopies and stated that both sides of the canopies were directed
up . He asked Norman if that design was possible for the golf course . Norman responded that that type of canopy is not
being installed currently due to snow and ice issues and because the design is patented by a competitor so it is not an
option . Norman shared additional photos of canopies which included those with grass growing underneath the canopy and
surviving three years after installation . Norman also noted the photo showed a white painted canopy which is not
recommended because it is hard to maintain .
The Board discussed the redesign . Degen stated that she was excited about the new design . Degen finds it lighter, more
airy , and has more space . Degen stated that it changes the character but changes can be made positive through
landscaping and can be made special . She liked the design changes . Taylor thinks the new design is quite an
improvement and requested the Applicant provide paint color samples . Norman responded that painting is an option
available . Taylor stated that landscaping will make difference . Taylor referenced the public comments received on
moving the driving range to the golf course side of the road and locating the solar array on the current driving range site
and stated she would like to know if this was an option considered by the Town . Wallace stated that he did not believe
that was in the purview of the Board at this time . Hillis- Dineen stated that she was dismayed with the overall size being
larger than what it was before . Hillis- Dineen does like the new space that has been created . Like Taylor, Hillis- Dineen
would be interested in discussing the driving range move presented through public comment . Hillis- Dineen would prefer
the structures be painted . Hoffmann stated that the new design is much better than the previously proposed design and
appreciates that this option allows for light to shine through . Hoffmann stated she was pleased that the tall standing trees
are still intact. She stated that she does have an issue with the scale and size . Hoffmann stated that the previous
canopies were 59400 SF and have now expanded to 63187 SF . Hoffmann referenced the Brewster Vision Plan which
states that "we support growth that is appropriately scaled and sited " . Hoffmann also referenced a June 2015 document
prepared by various state agencies on ground mounted solar arrays which suggests the appropriate place for solar arrays
is in the industrial/commercial districts . Hoffmann stated that the current design looks better than last one but it is still
massive and will have an impact on the area .
Colin Odell stated that this project is not considered ground mounted by the MA SMART program regulations and
therefore there are different incentives . Hanson stated that the new SMART program discourages clearing of trees and
ground mounted arrays but encourages solar canopies on parking lots . Hoffmann referenced the application submitted
and noted that it was applied for under the zoning bylaw for large scale ground mounted solar installations . Burdett
responded that the application was submitted under the local bylaw for ground mounted installations because here is no
solar canopy bylaw. Wallace referenced Section 179-75 . 5 of the zoning bylaw under which the application was filed .
Taylor asked if the canopies had to be so high and Wallace responded there is a need for room for fire apparatuses .
Wallace stated that the higher the canopies , the more light that will come in which he would prefer.
Wallace suggested a straw poll but the Board preferred further discussion . The Board reviewed and discussed the email
from John Kissida . Wallace noted the comment regarding the increase in canopy size and Norman responded that when
canopies are broken up they string them out to optimize the structural design . Norman further stated that he would like to
double check the calculations as there was only a slight change in the system size . Burdett stated that the proposed size
of the previous design was actually 62788 SF and the new design is 63187 SF a difference of 399 SF . Hoffmann asked if
a car with a kayak or bike on top would fit under the canopy . Both Wallace and Burdett responded yes .
Wallace directed the Board to Kissida ' s comments on the electrical pad and note that in the plans on sheet A100 the pad
is shown parallel to the access road and on sheet C103 it is shown in the opposite direction . Wallace referenced
Kissida ' s comments that if the pad is as shown on C103 it would not impact sight lines . Norman responded that the pad
can be sited the way the Board would like with consideration to the parameters of the equipment.
l
Wallace noted Kissida' s comment regarding large trucks being able to maneuver around the canopies and requested
comments from the Fire Department on the new design . The Board discussed comments regarding grass growth under
the smaller canopies near Freemans Way . Degen asked about the angle of the canopy and Wallace responded that it is
PB Minutes 09/23/2020 Page 6 of 10
9
s
angled so the grass will get less sun with the higher end being towards the trees . The Board reviewed sheet A101 . 1 and
noted a support column that appeared to be in the middle of the road . Norman responded that there was not a mistake on
the plan and that the support columns are needed as located but there is at least 24 ' between the columns for a drive
aisle . Norman stated that a 36 " pier would be placed by the column for protection and striping could also be done to make
it clear.
Wallace asked the Applicant to provide an update on the proposed lighting . Norman stated that there is an existing circuit
and their electrical engineer has indicated that the circuit should be able to light all four of the lager canopies in some way .
Norman asked for direction on the lighting plan as there is currently no lighting out there at the time . Degen expressed
concern for lighting at night events . Currently , she stated there is some illumination at night because there is not a roof
over the parking lot . Degen stated that lighting the canopies on the east side makes sense . Further, Degen stated that
lights should not be on at all times and should be controlled by the golf course on an event basis . Taylor, Hillis- Dineen ,
and Wallace agreed with Degen . Wallace confirmed with the Applicant that four lights were proposed under the canopy
closest to the clubhouse , Norman noted that lights are mounted at the highest point and cast a lot of light . Wallace
stated that the lights would need to be on a switch . Hoffmann asked how the light currently on the light pole works and
O ' Brien stated that the current lighting is on a timer controlled in the cart barn which changes depending on the season .
In the summer the light is on from 7 PM - 11 PM but is not usually used in the winter.
Hoffmann read comment #7 regarding grass and irrigation from the Kissida email into the record . Wallace stated that he
would be inclined to give grass a try and if it doesn ' t take it could be replaced with stone . Degen agreed with Wallace but
had questions on the drainage . Norman responded that there are gutters on the system . The gutters capture the water to
distribute in a way that helps with grass growth . On the lower side , any water that does not make it to the soil will be
directed to the existing catch basin . Hillis- Dineen agreed that grass should be used and if it does not work out it could be
replaced with stone . Kissida noted drainage concern with water flow through the drain due to the slope . Kissida stated
that there has to be a way to slow down the rush of water so the perforated pipe design can be used appropriately .
Burdett responded that the Applicant will look into mitigation but noted that this design was made for irrigation purposes
as well . Norman proposed adding additional downspouts . Norman stated that this is a safe way to get rid of the water
and keep the islands alive . Wallace asked if the Applicant has been before the WQRC and it was noted that WQRC has
reviewed the previous design but not the current design .
Hoffmann read #8 regarding pedestrian connectors from the Kissida email into the record . Hoffmann read #9 regarding
screening from the Kissida email into record . Wallace suggested additional trees between panels CP2 and CP5 .
Hoffmann stated she liked that idea but wonders if they' ll shade the solar panels . Taylor directed the Board to C105
which states the listing is for the driving range . Burdett stated that there is a typo on the legend but the list is correct .
Taylor stated the list contained mostly shrubs and in order to provide a visual buffer more trees are needed in height and
size . Burdett stated that the intent of the proposed landscaping was to dress up the site . Additional trees can be provided
for visual buffering but that will impact line of sight. Taylor directed the Board to C103 and noted that trees on the north
side or south side should be larger trees for screening . Burdett stated he was confused by putting a buffer in the middle .
Kissida stated that shade trees do not impact sight distances . Kissida suggested a group of shrubs along the middle
island won ' t do much . Kissida stated that maintenance needs to be considered . Kissida further stated that plantings
should be done around the structure and fenced in unit with trees and minimal shrubs . Taylor asked Kissida if he was
proposing putting trees at the end of each run and Kissida responded that shade trees can be put at the end of each aisle .
He suggested smaller flowering trees closer to the structure . Wallace reviewed the proposal outlined by Kissida and
stated that at the main entrance to the club house on the islands to the right larger shade trees are proposed with smaller
flowering trees behind the shade trees which will not grow higher than canopy . Kissida stated that 6-8 ' does not work 10 ' -
12 ' trees are needed . Kissida suggested the design be bigger but simpler. Hoffmann stated that landscaping needs to be
used to soften the look of the structure . Burdett directed the Board to the areas between CP5 and CP2 and CP6 and CP3
and asked if the Board ' would like shade trees placed there . Kissida responded flowering trees would be better for that
area . Bennett suggested a revised landscaping plan needs to be provided to the Board . Burdett stated he has enough
information to provide a revised landscaping plan .
I
Hoffmann asked if it was possible to scale back the square footage and move it back to the west or to reduce the scale in
any way . Bennett suggested the Board decide whether an affirmative vote can be given , based on this design with
additional landscaping , or if additional discussion is needed on design for an affirmative vote . Wallace asked for
discussion by the Board as to whether the current design with landscaping changes would work . Degen stated she feels
the Board can move forward with this design with upgrading of landscaping and drainage as discussed . Hillis- Dineen
would like to see the landscape design before making a decision . Taylor is happier with the new design but thinks
landscaping and paint color needs to be reviewed further. Taylor said the structure is massive but with the right
landscaping the Board could move forward . Hoffmann stated that she feels like the Board has been put between a rock
PB Minutes 09/23/2020 Page 7 of 10
a
J
I
i
and a hard place and she wished there was more community input years ago . She stated that it was too bad there was
no outreach on the design prior to Planning Board involvement. Hoffmann stated redesigns could have been avoided if
public outreach had happened . Hoffmann wants to move forward in a responsible way that respects character and size
while supporting green community initiatives . Wallace stated that he feels he could vote favorably on this application
Wallace suggested that CP1 be made the same size as CP4 and moving the first panel by the main entrance back 30 ' -50 '
could soften the appearance .
Lombardi responded to Hoffmann ' s questions on scaling back the project and stated that although project finances are not
a driving factor for the Planning Board , they were part of the genesis of this project since its inception . The redesign work
done as a result of Planning Board review and comment at the same square footage will create a loss in net revenue of
$ 5 , 000 per year. Lombardi stated that the design and overall project are more expensive and net revenue to the Town is
expected to be slightly under $ 50 , 000 per year assuming approval is granted in time to apply for funding through the
SMART program . Lombardi stated , for reference , the driving range project was in Block 3 for funding but Block 3 is now
full and this project would apply under Block 4 . Lombardi stated that could mean a reduction of $ 8 , 500 separate from the
$ 5 , 000 previously mentioned and if pushed back further another reduction of $ 8 , 000 was possible . Lombardi provided
this information in response to the Board ' s discussion on scaling back the project.
Colin Odell stated this project may not be pretty but neither is climate change or sea level rise . Odell further stated that
this is the type of project you have to embrace to go carbon neutral and if the Planning Board does not recognize that than
shame on them .
Motion by Hoffmann to Continue Special Permit and Site Plan Review Application #2020 =10 to October 14 , 2020 .
Second by Degen . Vote : Hillis - Dineen -aye , Hoffmann -aye , Degen -aye , Taylor-aye, and Wallace-aye . Vote : 5 -0 -0 .
10 : 07 PM PUBLIC HEARINGS CONTINUED
Special Permit and Site Plan Review Application #2020 - 14 : Applicant: Next Grid , Inc. Owner: Michael Antinarelli and
Steve Daniels . Representative : David Bennett of Bennett Environmental Associates , LLC and Brian Yergatian of BSC
Group for property located at 0 Mid Cape Highway and shown on Assessor' s Map 119 , Lot 6 and 8 in the Industrial ( 1 )
zoning district . The Applicant proposes to develop a large-scale ground- mounted photovoltaic system pursuant to the site
plan review standards outlined in § 179 -66 of the Brewster zoning bylaw. This is an as-of- right use in the Industrial zoning
district. This property is located in the Water Quality Protection District and a special permit is required pursuant to § 179-
56D of the Brewster zoning bylaw.
Documents :
• 02/07/20 Letter from Jonathan Idman , Cape Cod Commission
• 06/20 Stormwater Report
• 08/06/20 Staff Review Comments
• 08/ 10/20 Site Plans
08/ 10/20 Operation and Maintenance Plan
• 08/ 12/20 Cost Estimate
• 08/ 12/20 Planning Board Application
I
• Site Plan Review Checklist
Hillis- Dineen recused herself from the application and left the meeting .
Dave Bennett of Bennett Environmental Associates , LLC , Brian Yergatian of BSC Group , and Daniel Serber of Next Grid ,
Inc . participated remotely on behalf of the Applicant.
Serber stated that the application proposes a 999 kW ground mounted solar array which is 3 MW DC . There are
approximately 7 , 344 solar panels with inverters and a battery with a self-contained fire suppression system . The system
will be contained in a sand and gravel pit on the Antinarelli/ Daniels lot. The lot is in the Industrial zone and within the
water protection and solar overlay districts as well . Serber stated that this was a good location for a solar array because it
is an old sand and gravel pit with elevation lower than street grade so there will be no visual impact from right of ways .
Serber stated that the nearest residential abutter is over 1 , 200 feet away . Serber stated that the solar panels are not
creating any new impervious surface and no chemicals are being used which is congruent with the water quality 1
protection district . Serber stated that the native grasses are proposed for planting underneath the panels which should
help with groundwater. Serber noted that solar panels do not create any new nitrogen and there will be no septic systems
involved . There is no parking proposed so there will be no oil drip to the site . There will be no impact on traffic or other
infrastructure . Serber noted that the project was granted a no change of use by the Cape Cod Commission and recently
received a recommendation for approval by the Brewster Water Quality Review Committee (WQRC ) . The parcel was
Page 8 of 10
PB Minutes 09/23/2020
i
used for years as a stump dump so there is an open DEP order against the property . The Applicant is in the process of
filing permits to remove stumps and left over materials and return the site to residential quality . Serber stated that the
Applicant has a variance application relating to setbacks currently pending before the Zoning Board of Appeals . Serber
stated that the project is going to be silent and invisible and will be located 200 feet from any residential neighborhood .
There will be no strain on town resources and there will be a DEP order that will be removed . Dave Bennett stated that
there is a history of non-compliance with wood waste on the lot but there is no water impairment . The Applicant is going
through an expedited permitting process with DEP to resolve the order. Bennett shared photos of the site with the Board .
Hoffmann read a memo from the WQRC dated September 18 , 2020 , staff review comments from August 6 , 2020 , and
email from Chris Powicki dated September 23 , 2020 into the record .
Wallace stated that any conditions of the Board ' s decision should include the conditions from the WQRC memo , the
application should be continued until the Applicant receives a variance from the ZBA , and any decision the Board makes
will be contingent upon the lease agreement related to grading the Applicant is currently negotiating with the Town .
Hoffmann noted that this is a massive site . She asked if the lot would be levelled and about the management of the
monitoring wells . She referred to the pictures shown by the Applicant and asked about the abutting property . Serber
responded that the property is property leased by Mr. Antinarelli but it is not on this lot. Dave Bennett further stated that
the property is owned by the Town and leased to several individuals and Mr. Antinarelli ' s leased property is the one
shown in the picture . Dave Bennett also noted the triangular shaped piece of land shown on the plan owned by the Town .
The Town is currently negotiating a lease of that property to the Applicant . The Applicant would like to use the area to
access their lot and construct the solar panels but grading work needs to be done in that area first . Dave Bennett
responded to a question posed by Hoffmann and stated that the lot will not be flat . There will be sloping along the sides of
the banking . Serber referred the Board to site plans to point out the areas where setback variances were being sought.
Dave Bennett stated that there are four monitoring wells on the site as required by the WQRC and pointed them out on
the plan . He noted that the groundwater flow is to the southeast. Bennett further stated that sampling of these wells dates
back to the 1980s , The Applicant has been providing samples on a quarterly basis . Dave Bennett also pointed out areas
on the plan where wood waste still has to be removed .
Bebrin asked how long clean up and installation is expected to take . Serber responded that removal of wood waste is
expected to take six weeks with an additional eight weeks expected to move the dirt , grade and stabilize , and twelve
weeks to install the solar array . There will be an additional one to two months of testing so five to six months for
completion is estimated , Bebrin asked if a deep freeze would impact wood waste removal and the timeline . Dave
Bennett stated that he does not believe the weather will impact removal of wood waste but may impact grading .
Yergatian stated that this is a straight forward and simplistic design . He stated that if there is a cold snap in January or
February the dirt moving operation may be suspended for a few weeks . {
Taylor asked how far above groundwater the pit was located and Dave Bennett stated he believed the bottom of the pit
was located at least 20 ' above ground level . Taylor asked how far down the wood waste was buried and Dave Bennett
responded that it was not buried below the bottom of the pit. Taylor asked if, after wood waste removal , the lot would be
levelled off with the sides sloped . Dave Bennett responded referring to a picture being shown to the Board and pointed
out that the material present will be used to slope the sides , a geo tech style mat will be used for stabilization , the bottom
will be levelled at a 2 % grade towards the stormwater catch basins , the area will be loamed and seeded , and the array will
be installed . Taylor asked if after loam and seed , the panels would be at 30' feet above groundwater and Dave Bennett
responded that there would not be much of a change to the bottom . Yergatian stated that it would be about 10' higher
than it currently is so it will be about 30 ' above groundwater. Taylor confirmed with the Applicant that the drainage
structure is in the center. Yergatian stated that the system has been designed with a stone field which has seven
interconnected dry wells in it . The system has been designed to store in excess of a 100 year design storm and there will
be no run off offsite , Dave Bennett stated that the point of discharge for the drainage system will be about 30 ' .40 ' above
groundwater.
Barrett commended the Applicant for taking on such a large project. Barrett asked about the loop road around the j
perimeter in terms of providing access to the Fire Department, Dave Bennett stated that comments from the Fire
Department during the staff review were included in the site plans . Dave Bennett noted difficult access due to sloping and
the fence line for the Mid Cape Highway and stated that the Fire Chief agreed to the roads that go into the pit for Fire
Department access purposes . There is no plan for a road around the entire perimeter.
1
Degen asked about the chain link fence around the project . Yergatian stated that the fence is a 7 ' high chain link fence
that has been designed to go around the top outside of the slope . Degen confirmed with the Applicant that the fence was
PB Minutes 09/23/2020 Page 9 of 10
I
i
1
at grade for Freemans Way and Route 6 . Degen asked about the color of the fence and suggested the Board may need
to consider other color options . Degen stated that the tree line on Freemans Way is thin and wondered if the Board
should consider adding Evergreens along fence around the perimeter. Dave Bennett stated there will be supplemental
trees provided . Degen stated that additional buffering was needed along the fence line to Route 6 . Serber stated that
there is a 90 ' wooded buffer along Freemans Way . Degen suggested the Applicant paint the chain link fence black and
also add additional trees for buffering to the highway as she could see cars on the highway when she visited the site .
Wallace suggested plantings along the entrance where it is thin . Yergatian noted the sloping that would occur and stated
that you may be able to see across to the highway but he does not believe you will be able to see to the floor of the pit
with the sloping . Degen stated she is concerned that the fence will be seen not the panels . Serber stated that the
Applicant will commit to providing a 7 ' galvanized fence painted black . Yergatian noted that there is also a fence present
that is maintained by MA DOT so visually he does not think the fence proposed for the project would be as noticeable as
the MA DOT fence .
Wallace noted that the project is located within the Industrial zoning district.
St. Cyr stated that no public comment has been received during the meeting .
Motion by Hoffmann to Continue Special Permit and Site Plan Review Application #2020 -14 to October 28 , 2020 .
Second by Barrett . Vote : Degen -aye , Hoffmann -aye , Taylor-aye , Barrett -aye , Bebrin -aye , and Wallace-aye . Vote : 6 -
0 -0 .
10 : 57 PM PLANNING DISCUSSION
Approval of Meeting Minutes : September 9 , 2020 .
The Board decided the September 9 , 2020 meeting minutes would be reviewed at the next meeting due to the late hour .
Motion by Barrett to adjourn . Second by Degen . Vote : Degen -aye , Taylor-aye , Hoffmann -aye , Barrett-aye ,
Bebrin -aye , and Wallace -aye . Vote : 6-0 -0 . Meeting adjourned at 10 : 58 pm .
Next Planning Board Meeting Date : 10/ 14/20
Respectfully submitted ,
Lynn S yr, Senior D artment Assistant, Planning
PB Minutes 09/23/2020 Page 10 of 10
i
i
1