HomeMy Public PortalAboutPlanning Board -- 2020-09-09 Minutes \\\p\p 0 SEWS Brewster Planning Board Approved : 10/14/20
\\\\\\1\UI l l ji///
2198 Main Street Vote : 7 -0 -0
Brewster, MA 02631 - 1898
o y\ ( 508) 896 -3701 x1133
-=Efo * , brewplan@brewster-ma . gov Bt� EIt, FE Tii ;; i LE :i
� oR° ° \\\\�°N BREWSTER PLANNING BOARD
�i Nc
MEETING MINUTES ' !(� �j[, L1
Wednesday, September 9 , 2020 at 6 : 30 pm
14791
Brewster Town Office Building (virtual )
Chair Paul Wallace convened a remote meeting of the Planning Board at 6 : 30 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(0)brewster-ma . goy.
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. gov
. Planning Board Packet: Go to: https//records. brewster-ma . pov/weblink/browse. aspx ?dbid=0
6 : 32 PM PUBLIC MEETING
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-
64 ( D ) and § 179- 11 , Table 1 , of the Brewster zoning bylaw , the Applicant proposes storage and stockpiling of earthen and
other materials , storage of excavating equipment , and installation of a single family security dwelling . The Applicant also
requests waiver of certain site plan review requirements pursuant to § 179-67 (A) of the Brewster zoning bylaw.
Documents .
06/29/20 Site Plan
• 07/29/20 Planning Board Application with attachments
• 09/02/20 Comments from Staff Review
Site Plan Review Check list
Wallace recused himself from this application and left the meeting . Degen took over as Chair.
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 .
Zehnder reviewed the proposed project with the Board and stated that no zoning relief is required and the Applicant is
presenting for site plan review. Zehnder stated that the proposed use is Commercial #40 in the Table of Use Regulations ,
storage of materials and equipment for a business . Zehnder stated that the property consists of two lots- northerly lot 54
and southerly lot 50 . Zehnder noted that the Applicant went through the staff review process and comments generated
during that process indicated that a separate application for each lot is necessary and the Applicant is willing to file
separate applications . Zehnder noted that a single family security dwelling was proposed for the northerly lot but after
proceeding through staff review, it was determined that a variance would be needed for the dwelling and also that the
proposed mobile home does not meet the definition of a security dwelling . The Applicant has decided to withdraw the
request for a single family security dwelling . Zehnder stated that the proposal is very similar to other material storage
proposals in the area approved by the Planning Board , The Applicant will not store materials within the property line
setbacks . Zehnder stated that the Fire Department asked that there be sufficient maneuvering area between the piles of
materials of at least 20 ' which the Applicant believes is an acceptable condition as well as the sites being hardened so
that emergency vehicles can access the area .
PB Minutes 09/09/2020 Page 1 of 6
1
Degen asked Bennett for clarification on process related to the Applicant' s request to withdraw the part of the proposal
related to the security dwelling unit . Bennett responded that during staff review it was determined that each lot needs to
be permitted separately since they are not being merged therefore necessitating two separate applications . In addition ,
Bennett stated that the mobile home does not qualify as a security dwelling and needs to be removed from this
application , Bennett stated that the Board could proceed to review one use on one lot or ask the Applicant to return with
revised materials .
Degen stated that the application , as presented , could lead to confusion and a paper shuffle for the Board where there are
two separate lots and uses and one application . Degen asked the Applicant how they wished to proceed and Zehnder
responded that there are not two separate uses proposed for this application . There are two separate lots owned by the
Applicant and the Applicant does not want to give up his right to uses on each lot . Zehnder stated that he does not agree
that two separation applications are required . He asked the Board to look at the lots as one proposal as the Applicant
does not intend to use one lot without the other. Zehnder stated that he would like to move forward with the application
withdrawing the request for the security dwelling .
Hoffmann referenced a question that arose during staff review regarding whether or not the properties would be merged .
Hoffmann stated that she is confused with two properties being presented but the Applicant asking for a use consideration
on one lot. Barrett commented that as presented the application is confusing and suggested two separate applications be
filed . Zehnder responded that the same use was being requested on both lots and the Applicant is seeking site plan
review for use #40 on both properties which he owns . Zehnder further stated that the question of whether the properties
were being merged is not relevant to the Board ' s review of the application . Hoffmann referred the Applicant to the
application filed and noted that only one lot is referred to in the application . Zehnder referred the Board to the plan which
identifies two lots . Bennett referred the Board to the materials provided and noted that one of the lots is before the Board
in response to an enforcement action by the Zoning Agent of which the other lot is not subject. Therefore , Bennett stated
that there are two separate lots under two uses that need to be permitted with two separate applications to the Board .
Zehnder requested that the Board proceed with the application and allow the Applicant to provide amended materials .
Degen asked Bennett for direction on how to proceed and Bennett responded that the Applicant could proceed with
review of one lot tonight and then submit a separate application for the other lot for review. O' Reilly responded that the
Applicant would like to proceed with review of Lot 50 , the southerly lot which is vacant. Taylor responded that the Board
has to deal with the application before them and that is for Lot 54 . Bennett responded that the plan and record do show
that the proposal relates to both lots . There was further discussion by the Board on how to proceed and it was decided
that the Applicant should revise the current application and submit a separate application for the other lot with both
applications to be reviewed at the same meeting .
Motion by Hoffmann to Continue Site Plan Review Application #2020 - 11 to September 23 , 2020 . Second by Hillis -
Dineen . 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.
7 : 00 PM PUBLIC HEARING
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 August 19 , 2020 . )
Documents :
• 07/30/20 Email from John Kissida
• 08/27/20 Site Plan
• 08/27/20 Lighting Plan
• 08/27/20 Landscaping Plan
• 09/03/20 Planning Staff Memo
• 09/04/20 Letter from Josh Burdett
• 09/04/20 Operation & Maintenance Plan
• 09/04/20 Response to painting canopy at Brewster Golf Course
• 09/06/20 Email from David Peterson
• 09/06/20 Email from Dave Maczko
Page 2 of 6
PB Minutes 09/09/2020
i
• 09/08/20 Email from Victor Wolejko
• 09/09/20 Email from Patrick Ellis , Tree Warden
• 09/09/20 Email from Jillian Douglass
Barrett left the meeting as she is ineligible to vote on the application .
Joshua Burdett of Tetra Tech , Inc . participated remotely on behalf of the Applicant Distributed Solar Development, LLC
( DSD ) . Jenny Nicolas , Alex Norman , and Timothy Magner of DSD and 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 , Chuck Hanson , Energy Committee , Colin Odell , Energy Committee , Liz Argo , Executive Director,
CVEC , and Lauren Mills .
Burdett stated that the Applicant is willing to work with the Board and is looking for constructive feedback from the Board
to move the application forward under time constraints and make this a valuable project . Burdett referred the Board to the
September 4th letter he provided outlining supplemental information provided to the Board including a landscaping plan
with detail sheets (C103 - 105 ) , a revised site plan (A100 ) including the wooden fence and bollards recommended by the
Board , a lighting plan (A103 ) , a site specific Operation & Maintenance Plan that was modified to take out references to
herbicides and add in battery storage , and a response to the request to paint the canopy .
Hoffmann read the Planning Staff memo dated September 3 , 2020 into the record .
In response to public comment , St . Cyr announced the packet was available via the calendar on the town website by
clicking the link for " Planning Board Packet" on the agenda .
Degen noted discrepancies within the plan set provided by the Applicant. Degen stated that pages G001 did not line up
with page A100 as far as the spread and reach of the panels . Further, Degen stated that she understands the trees
underneath the canopy will be taken away but the islands are confusing as in one picture they are present and not present
in another picture . Degen referred to page A200 and asked for clarification as to what was shown above the panels .
Burdett responded that dimensions are being noted and there is no object above the panel . Degen referred to page A201
and asked for clarification on column and column foundation size and Norman responded that all columns are the same
length and that the foundations for columns would be going in the grass . Degen confirmed with Norman that the base of
the foundation is 30" wide . Burdett referred to the enlarged site plans on A101 . 1 and A101 . 2 and stated that circles
shown inside the islands show where the foundations will be placed . Degen expressed concern for the scale of the
canopy given the zoning district . Degen asked whether it was possible to add more evergreen growth between Freemans
Way and the canopy . She also expressed concern over the two islands upon entering and potential impact on sight view.
Degen stated she had concerns about the completeness of the landscaping plan .
Hillis- Dineen shared Degen ' s concerns especially as it relates to adequate buffering . Hillis- Dineen also noted public
sentiment about the size of the project . She expressed concerns regarding the stormwater design and stated that use of
the existing catch basin may be a good option .
i
Taylor appreciated the information provided by John Kissida as well as the Planning Staff Memo provided by the Town
Planner. Taylor asked if there will be any changes to nitrogen loading as a result of the project and whether fence height
needs to be considered as it was on another recent solar application . Taylor also referenced comments made by Kissida
and asked if homeland security issues needed to be considered as they relate to protecting the supports for the canopy .
Taylor asked the Applicant to consider using something other than the Rosa Rugosa proposed in the landscaping plan as
it is invasive . Wallace followed up and asked the Applicant if there would be a future electrical requirement to add a chain
link fence around the array . Norman confirmed that a chain link fence would not be required to be installed around the
panels based on their height .
i
Hoffmann noted discrepancies in the plans as the solar canopies do not seem to line up from plan to plan . Hoffmann I
asked the Applicant to compare A103 to G001 and A101 . 1 . Norman responded that A103 was prepared by a lighting
consultant who did not have the level of precision provided in A101 . 1 and A101 . 2 which was done by a surveyor. Norman
stated that the canopies can be globally shifted if preferred by the Board . Hoffmann visited the site and expressed
concern regarding the stormwater plan as she noticed what appeared to be stormwater runoff on the western side of the
parking lot already . Norman responded that the guttering system is unique and is not water tight so water does come ;
through onto the pavement. The water that is caught by the guttering system is re- routed from the islands to the existing
PB Minutes 09/09/2020 Page 3 of 6
I
3
catch basin . Norman noted the current sheet flow and stated that the sheet flow should get better as a result of the
proposed guttering system as a large amount will be captured and piped underground . Norman noted that the existing
catch basins will be used to capture runoff and he expects no additional sedimentation . Burdett stated that the original
proposal for stormwater was what Kissida called out in his comments to capture in the guttering system and sheet flow
across the parking lot. The stormwater plan was redesigned to account for landscaping underneath the canopies .
Burdett further stated that the primary purpose of the guttering system is irrigation . Burdett stated that the original
stormwater proposal reduced nitrogen loading . As a result of the last Planning Board meeting and the request to try to
keep vegetation underneath the canopy alive , the stormwater is now being used as irrigation . Nitrogen loading and
sedimentation will be reduced through this plan .
The Board discussed the vegetation underneath the canopies and the possibility that it will not survive . Bennett directed
the Board to comments provided by Patrick Ellis , Tree Warden .
Hoffmann read an email from Patrick Ellis dated September 9 , 2020 into the record .
Norman stated that there is no guarantee that the vegetation underneath the canopy will survive with this design .
Wallace stated his concerns with the scale and color of canopy . Wallace suggested grass underneath the canopy and if
the grass does not survive a condition that it be replaced with gravel within three years .
Hoffmann read an email from Victor Wolejko dated September 8 , 2020 , an email from David Peterson dated September 6 ,
2020 , and an email from Dave Maczko dated September 6 , 2020 into the record .
St . Cyr stated that no public comment had been received thus far into the meeting .
Wallace suggested the Board discuss the aesthetics of the project. Hoffmann stated that she supports solar and thinks
this is an interesting project . Hoffmann stated she reviewed the notice town administration provided on the solar project
and green community initiatives . Hoffmann stated that she also understands the need for funding but that is not within the
Planning Board ' s purview . Hoffmann referenced special permit criteria the Planning Board considers . Hoffmann stated
that the project is located in a residential rural neighborhood and although it is adjacent to an industrial neighborhood it
still is located in a residential rural zone . Hoffmann stated the Board did not receive a rendering that gave a clear picture
of the canopies . Hoffmann did internet research on the aesthetics and design of solar canopies . In listening to Golf
Commission meetings , she noted comments the Commission made on the aesthetics and the need for balance between
funding and aesthetics . Hoffmann noted the scale of the canopies as it was compared to the size of Shaw' s supermarket
and she cannot picture something of that scale in the parking lot. Hoffmann would not move forward with this project
based on the design .
Degen stated that this was a very big structure with a dramatic change underneath . She is not sure if this is the right
design especially underneath the canopy . Degen would like to find a way to advance this important project but is
concerned with what it will look like underneath the canopies . She believes the project can be softened on the Freemans
Way and golf side with a softer paint scale and additional greenery . Degen noted that she visited the parking lot late
morning and it was half utilized at that time so she has concerns with the number of vehicles that would be under the
canopy . Taylor requested elevations which would show what landscaping would look like on all sides . Taylor also
requested canopy paint colors be presented . Hillis- Dineen noted other designs she reviewed on the internet . Hillis-
Dineen would like to see the canopy in soft gray beige . She stated the design needs to be more aesthetically pleasing .
Wallace stated that he also reviewed designs and he feels there are other designs out there that are more aesthetic
pleasing and appropriate for the golf course parking lot .
Wallace suggested the Board take a straw poll on the current design . Degen stated that she needed more information on
the landscaping plan , specifically underneath the canopy and could not approve the project as presented . Degen also
stated that the design would need to be softened to fit in with the zoning area for her to approve the project . Hillis- Dineen
stated that this is a main attraction of Brewster and more effort needs to be put into a more pleasing design . She further
stated that if nothing can be done with the design but softening can be achieved with better landscaping and color she
may vote to approve . Taylor does not believe the project is ready for a vote and wishes the Applicant provided options for
different designs . Taylor requested more information on landscaping and stated the project needed a lot more work .
Hoffmann stated she is struck by the size of the structure and does not think landscaping and paint will provide that much
softening of the structure . She would vote not to approve . Wallace stated he would like to see a redesign of the panel
structure . He noted the expanse of panels and the gray color , and the darkness underneath as not suiting the town .
PB Minutes 09/09/2020 Page 4 of 6
Norman stated that the point of solar is to maximize parking lots because they are underused spaces . Norman suggested
the Applicant return with a drastically smaller system but work needs to be done to see if contractually that design will
work . Norman suggested a T design canopy which will give more light. He stated that the framing style will be different
but the columns and the drainage will be similar with 40 % less solar panels . Hoffmann asked if trees along the driveway
can remain with the new design . Norman stated that keeping those trees can be part of the redesign but the Applicant will
need to run production estimates to see what is possible . Norman further stated that the redesign would split the
canopies into Ts but the Applicant has to do further research on cutting back of the canopies as the canopies need to
remain symmetrical .
Argo stated that she believed the Board should have someone involved to guide the redesign so that this project does not
end up back in the same place . The Board suggested the Applicant could communicate with staff or possibly present a
redesign at a meeting .
Wallace stated that he reviewed the Wayland High School solar project and suggested that type of design . Norman stated
he was familiar with that project because he designed it. Norman further stated that there are not many design options
available for the parking lot. He offered that there is either long span which does not seem well received by the Board or
T canopies which has slight design variations . Wallace asked whether solar could be considered in the parking lot to the
east . Hoffmann stated that she believes the septic system is located in that parking lot. Argo confirmed the septic system
was located in the referenced lot. Hanson responded that the parking lot was considered for pane ►s but in discussions
with the Golf Department it was decided to leave the panels out of that parking lot so the clubhouse would be visible upon
driving into the site . Hanson noted that the design has been reviewed and considered for at least a year and a half and it
is too bad that the Board was involved so late in the process . Hanson further stated that there was a lot of thought that
went into this design and many of the concerns of the Board were considered .
Norman asked if the Board would consider the project if the canopy remained as a long span structure but the steel was
painted to soften the look and gaps were left between drive aisles to bring in more light . The Applicant would like to keep
the same frame to maximize use of the site . Wallace stated he would have to see the proposed design to comment .
Hoffmann stated that she looked at the Wayland High School project online and noted trees in between the panels and
pole lights . Hoffmann stated she would like to see something pulled back from Freemans Way. She would prefer the
canopy not be the first thing you see upon entering or the last thing you see as you are leaving . Hoffmann suggested
moving the canopy to the west as much as possible and to work on softening the look ,
Nicolas thanked the Board for their comments on the aesthetics of the project and stated that she would like involvement
from the Board on the redesign and asked if the best way to go about that would be discussion with the Town Planner.
Nicolas stated that the Board asked the Applicant to soften the look of the canopy and she would like to get a better sense
from the Board as to whether that means reducing size , changing color, or landscaping . Wallace stated he preferred the
look of the T structures to the current design but would consider the current design if some panels were removed or the
canopy could be angled . Degen stated that the design was too commercial and industrial for the site . She suggested that
the size may not need to shrink so much but the space has to be used more cleverly . Hillis- Dineen would like to see a
different design that is not so large and flat . The landscaping does not bother her as much as the design . Wallace
suggested the Board send designs to staff that they prefer and staff could forward them to the Applicant . The Applicant
could respond to staff. Norman suggested Board members visit a project site in Sharon that is currently being worked on
to get a sense of scale and frame of possible designs .
Hoffmann stated that she believed the size , color, and landscaping need to be worked on to soften the impact of the
project. She referred to the special permit criteria the Board needs to consider. Hoffmann stated she thinks there is a
design that can be moved forward while maintaining the character and beauty of the golf course . Taylor asked that if the
Board is going to be considering various designs , all members receive the information so that all are considering the same
materials . Wallace stated distribution of materials for review will be coordinated with staff.
St. Cyr read a comment into the record received from Jillian Douglass during the meeting . Hanson responded to the
comment and stated that the cart garage was considered a long time ago and to add solar panels the structure would
have to be rebuilt.
Wallace suggested the Applicant continue the meeting to a later date . Lombardi suggested the Applicant may want to
withdraw without prejudice to work on what seems to be a major redesign . Burdett asked if withdrawing the application
would reset the clock so that the Applicant would not be able to present the new application for M weeks after
submission . Bennett responded that a withdrawal of this application would put the Applicant M weeks out for a public
hearing upon filing a new application . There was discussion on the continuance process . Norman stated he believed a
PB Minutes 09/09/2020 Page 5 of 6
redesign could be provided in two weeks and he preferred not to withdraw the application . Burdett stated the Applicant' s
preference is to continue the application .
There was discussion on how to proceed with review of the redesign and Bennett suggested a staff review that would also
involve members of the Golf Commission and other committees who have participated in review of the project . Lombardi
stated that Bennett' s proposal was the best option to vet the redesign . Wallace asked if Board members could send
pictures of preferred designs to staff to provide to the Applicant , Bennett stated that she is hesitant to transfer any
information to the Applicant outside of an open meeting . Argo suggested a posting on the CVEC website of preferred
solar canopies , Bennett suggested a call with the Applicant and staff to vet design ideas .
Colin Odell stated that he did the town ' s economic analysis and scaling down the size of the project could mean that the
project is no longer worth it. He suggested shifting the project west to lessen the visibility to the clubhouse and the road
and asked if that would satisfy some of the Board ' s concern over the visual impact. Wallace responded that he still had
an issue with the design and would suggest removing panels from the main structure and making up for those panels by
adding them to the area Odell suggested . Degen agreed and stated that the design needed to be shifted to make the
structure consistent with the quality of the draw to the golf course rather than the generation of solar. Hillis- Dineen agreed
with Wallace . Hoffmann agreed and stated the massive structure does not fit in with the character of the area , Hoffmann
suggested staff provide a list to the Applicant based on meeting discussion of what the Board would like to see in a
redesign . Taylor asked if the structure was moved to the west would it still be a parking area or would it be installed
closer to the ground , Taylor stated that the height creates the visual impact . Wallace stated that he did not have an issue
with the height but the design .
Nicolas asked if a draft redesign could be considered at the Board ' s next meeting . St . Cyr stated that the meeting on
September 23rd already had a full agenda . Hoffmann suggested the redesign be reviewed through staff review . Bennett
stated that a design review could be considered at the next meeting as part of an informal discussion but the Applicant
should withdraw their current application so as to avoid having discussions outside of an open meeting . Bennett stated
that withdrawing the application would allow the applicant to move forward with a new application which would have full
board participation . Nicolas sought clarification on the process and Bennett stated that the public hearing could be
continued to the next meeting to review the redesign . There was continued discussion on continuation and availability of
materials for the Board to review . Nicolas invited the Board to a site visit of a project in Sharon . Wallace stated that the
Applicant should send details to staff.
Motion by Hoffmann to Continue Public Hearing on Special Permit and Site Plan Review Application #2020 -10 to
September 23 , 2020 . Second by Degen . Vote : Hoffmann -aye , Degen -aye , Hillis -Dineen -aye , Taylor-aye , and
Wallace -aye . Vote : 5=0 -0 .
8 : 50 PM PLANNING DISCUSSION
Approval of Meeting Minutes : August 26 , 2020 .
The Board reviewed the August 26 , 2020 meeting minutes . Motion by Degen to Approve August 26 , 2020 Meeting
Minutes , as amended . Second by Hoffmann . Vote : Bebrin -aye , Hoffmann -aye , Degen -aye , Hillis -Dineen -aye ,
Taylor-aye , and Wallace -aye . Vote , 6 =0 -0 .
8 : 52 PM TOPICS THE CHAIR DID NOT REASONABLY ANTICIPATE
Hoffmann suggested the Board review the solar bylaw and possibly schedule a working meeting to consider amendments
during the month of November. Wallace directed staff to review available dates for a working meeting .
Motion by Taylor to adjourn . Second by Degen . Vote : Bebrin -aye , Hoffmann -aye , Degen -aye , Hillis -Dineen -aye ,
Taylor-aye , and Wallace -aye . Vote : Meeting adjourned at 8 : 54 pm .
Next Planning Board Meeting Date : 09/23/20
Respectfully submitted ,
Lynn St . b r, Senior Depafttfient Assistant , Planning
i
PB Minutes 09/09/2020 Page 6 of 6
J
i
i
r