HomeMy Public PortalAboutPlanning Board -- 2020-10-14 Minutes aEws Brewster Planning Board Approved : 10/28/20
\\\\\\r\\\\\\ONIIII1111IIRI1111N//// �/i/i/i%
2198 Main Street
� Vote : 7 =0 =0
a � Brewster MA 02631 - 1898
r
(508) 896 -3701 x1133
' r -= brewplan@brewster-ma . gov
BREWSTER PLANNING BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, October 14, 2020 at 6 : 30 pm
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(brewster-ma . gov.
I
To view the:
• Live broadcast: Tune to Brewster Government TV Channel 18
• Livestream: Go to www. livestream. brewster-ma . .qoy
• Audio/video recording: Go to www. tv. brewster-ma . gov
• Planning Board Packet: Go to: http : //records brewster-ma . qov/weblink/O/fol/ 118269/Row1 . aspx
6 : 32 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 23 , 2020)
Documents :
• 10/08/20 Email from Robert Bassett
• 10/08/20 Email from Tom Hughes
• 10/08/20 Email from Joanne Hughes
• 10/09/20 Letter from Josh Burdett with revised plan set and nitrogen loading calculations '
• 10/10/20 Email from Bill Barnstead !
• 10/ 10/20 Email from Karnig Ovian I
• 10/ 11 /20 Email from Paul Taccini
• 10/ 11 /20 Email from Elliott Jemison
• 10/ 12/20 Email from David Walker
• 10/ 11 /20 Email from Mark O' Brien , Director of Operations , Captains Golf Course
• 10/ 13/20 Email from John Kissida
• 10/ 13/20 Email from Robert Tobias
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 also participated remotely .
:
I
The following individuals also participated remotely : 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 Director, CVEC , and Lauren
Mills .
PB Minutes 10/14/2020 Page 1 of 8
i
Burdett reviewed revisions made to the plan set and nitrogen loading calculations . Burdett stated that four trees
previously slated for more removal will remain and fourteen trees are now proposed for removal along with the addition of
several new trees . Burdett noted that four additional downward casting light fixtures have been added to canopy CPS .
DSD has agreed to paint the canopies and Burdett stated that four paint color options have been provided for the Board ' s
consideration . Burdett referred to the updated landscaping plan that was provided and simplifies plantings as well as
provides better screening to canopies . The stormwater plan has been revised to develop a rock trench for discharge onto
the ground surface allowing for percolation into soil . There is an underdrain which collects the underflow and the overflow
disburses over the parking lot. Burdett stated that this plan was developed to provide drainage , irrigation to plantings , and
to deal with ponding issues on the property . There have also been six gravel walkways added between the parking
spaces .
Hoffmann read emails into the record from Robert Bassett, Tom Hughes , Joanne Hughes , Bill Barnstead , Karnig Ovian ,
Paul Taccini , Elliott Jemison , David Walker, Robert Tobias , Mark O ' Brien , and John Kissida .
Degen stated she would like more information on stormwater management and plantings . Burdett stated that planting
sizes depicted on the planting list is the size at time of planting not growth size . Burdett responded to Kissida comments
on stormwater management . Burdett explained there is confusion on the rain gardens as the proposal as is does not
include rain gardens but characteristics of rain garden management. Burdett stated the Applicant is confident in the
stormwater management plan as proposed . He explained that stormwater will be discharged to ground surface within
islands and allowed to percolate over riprap surface which will help mitigate erosion . Supporting calculations will be
provided prior to issuance of a building permit . The runoff will tie into the exiting drainage and be directed to the existing
catch basins . Burdett stated that runoff from the northern canopies is expected to flow onto the ground surface , as it
currently does , and sheet flow across the parking lot to the existing catch basins . Burdett pointed out an existing area
near CP2 and CP3 that contains a detention basin for stormwater management . Kissida expressed concern with
proposed stormwater management for the northern canopies near Freemans Way and design of the proposed riprap .
Kissida is concerned water will end up in parking lot and not the proposed stone trench . Burdett stated that the canopies
are not 100 % impervious and some water will fall in between canopies . Burdett directed the Board to C103 and C105 for
comparison of trench and riprap . Kissida suggested a condition that the Board will review in one year. Norman stated that
the Applicant will replace any vegetation and revise drainage plan if not working in one year. Norman stated that if there
is any erosion or plant die off it will be fixed . Degen stated that there should be a condition for accountability of drainage
system . Wallace referred the Board to Chapter 179 , Section 57F which contains performance standards for the Water
Quality Protection District and read them into the record . Wallace suggested the standards could be conditions to the
special permit , if approved . Hillis- Dineen is concerned with stormwater management due to the property being located in
the WQPD . She stated she supports conditions for evaluation after one year and possibly again after three years . Hillis-
Dineen agreed that the performance standards should be included as conditions in a special permit. Hoffmann stated that
the Board typically receives a stormwater plan separate from a landscaping plan . Hoffmann is concerned with the " go
with the flow approach and is not sure if the current plan will work . Hoffmann pointed out concerns she has with the
design . Hoffmann stated she was trying to figure out how far and how fast the water flow. She could not figure those
calculations out because elevations are missing from the plans . Hoffmann feels as though stormwater management was
an afterthought. Degen asked what the percentage of permeability is for the panels and Norman responded but could not
provide a permeability calculation . He stated that the Applicant is confident in the durability and functioning of this
drainage system . Taylor pointed out that with all the plans that have been provided there are still no elevations for the
landscaping although they were requested at the first hearing . She stated it was difficult to visualize and extrapolate plant
sizes without the elevations . Burdett stated that he echoes Norman comments and assumed that there would be
conditions to provide additional calculations related to stormwater runoff and also plant sizes . Wallace confirmed with the
Applicant that the current stormwater management design is an improvement over existing conditions . Wallace asked why
run off from CPI and CP4 was going directly onto the pavement and Burdett responded that space is limited for providing
a proper underdrain in that area and the Applicant had already met the nitrogen loading requirements .
The Board reviewed the email from Kissida and discussed the proposed plantings . Wallace stated that he believed the
plantings have been improved since the last meeting . Hoffmann expressed concern about the missing rain gardens 1
Kissida referenced in his email . Taylor stated she cannot figure out how planting are supposed to look and buffer when
there are no elevations and the board is only seeing plantings from overhead . They cannot determine screening or sight
distances . Further, Taylor stated that elevations are standard on landscaping plans . Burdett reviewed updates to the
landscaping plan . He directed the Board to the western drive aisle and noted comments from Eversource that there
should not be plantings under utility poles . Burdett directed the Board to C104 . 1 . Wallace asked if sight distances were
being impacted with the shrubs at the main driveway . Wallace suggested a condition may be needed to make sure
shrubs were maintained and not impacting sight lines at the main driveway . Burdett directed the Board to C105 , Note #7
Page 2 of 8
PB Minutes 10/14/2020
I
which states that plantings will be staked prior to planting so location can be reviewed by the Board . Wallace suggested a
condition that the Golf Commission or Town approves the final location of plantings before they are placed .
The Board reviewed lighting plan and noted Kissida ' s comments on safe lighting standards for self- parked areas . Norman
responded that safe lighting standards will be maintained .
Wallace asked the Applicant to respond to Kissida ' s comments regarding posts placed in open pavement . Norman
responded that any column placed in asphalt will have a raised pier at 3 ' above grade .
Wallace noted additional comments from Kissida regarding the proposed height of the trees being planted and the Board
agreed that the taller the tree the better. Burdett commented that the Applicant believes the trees will have a better life
span at the size proposed . Wallace referred the Board to additional planting comments provided by Kissida including
swapping out the proposed New Jersey tea plant .
Wallace referenced Kissida ' s comments regarding paint colors and stated he thought the paint color could be chosen at a
later date with involvement from the Golf Commission and Town . Wallace stated he would like to see the canopies
painted and would also like to see actual paint samples . Taylor would like to see the canopies painted a shade of light
grey . She noted that it was hard to tell what colors are proposed from the information provided in the plans . Degen ,
Hoffmann , and Hillis- Dineen would also like to see the canopies painted .
Wallace stated that he believes one of the Board ' s main concerns is stormwater management .
St. Cyr stated that no public comment has been received during the meeting .
The Board discussed the WQPD performance standards and whether those standards have been met . The Board
discussed the water quality compliance certificate . The Planning Board would issue the initial certificate by way of special
permit and the WQRC would review for compliance every three years . Bennett stated that any decision would include
conditions based on site plan review standards and also contain the requirement to maintain the performance standards
of the WQPD and remain in compliance and issued a compliance certificate by WQRC every three years . Wallace stated
that any affirmative decision by the Planning Board would have to include a finding that the WQPD performance
standards have been met. Hoffmann stated that she is not so sure this application meets site plan review standards .
Wallace stated that he would like to see a draft decision prepared by staff for review at a later meeting .
The Board reviewed and discussed the WQPD performance standards (Chapter 179 -571= ) and whether the application
meets those standards . Hoffmann stated that she believed there would be direct discharge of untreated stormwater on
the site . Degen stated she does not believe the Board has enough information to decide whether the performance 3
standards are being met . Hillis- Dineen asked why the Applicant did not provide a stormwater management plan and also
noted that there is currently untreated stormwater on the site . Argo responded that currently there is run off present in the
parking lot. She asked the board to consider that this is not a solid structure like a building . The solar installation is
pervious and the Applicant is doing much more and providing much more information related to stormwater management j
as she has seen on other solar projects . Argo further stated that the solar installation design is not the same as proposed
in the first meeting . It is now a smaller design with large gaps . Hoffmann responded noting that the current design is
actually larger in terms of square footage than the initial proposal . Degen asked about the permeability of the panels and
how much water would actually go through the panels . Argo responded that the panel itself is 3 ' x 5 ' with openings all
around it and is not a solid sheet. Norman stated the panels are 3 ' x 6 ' in size and there are gaps on all four sides of the
solar panels ranging in size from 3/8 to 1 " . Gutters have been added to minimize icicle formation on the lower side of the j
panels . Norman stated that during light rainfall the water has time to run off the panels and into the guttering system .
During heavy rainfall , rain will pour over all four sides of the panel . Norman stated that the amount of rain captured varies
depending on the type of rainfall . Norman stated that during light rainfall the gutters will capture 95 % of the rain and
during heavy rainfall 60 % . Wallace stated that he agrees with the Applicant that this is an improvement over the current
conditions on site but the Board still has to make sure that the performance standards are being met. Wallace read
standard #2 into the record and stated that he believes the discharge rate will be lower with solar installation on site than
current conditions . Hoffmann stated concerns regarding the velocity of the water which may mean the discharge rate is
higher than current conditions . Hoffmann asked if there were industry standards on panel permeability and noted that the
Board was not provided with an actual description of the panels .
Bennett stated that it is unfortunate that after five meetings the Board still does not have all the information they need . l
She suggested the Board take a straw poll on approving the application and allow the Applicant to decide how to proceed
based on the poll . Degen stated that she cannot approve the project without more information on stormwater and
PB Minutes 10/14/2020 Page 3 of 8
elevations . Hoffmann stated the importance of striving to be a green community but stated many factors have to be
considered in approving this application . Hoffmann said she is not confident the water performance standards are being
met. Hoffmann also noted concerns regarding the lack of technical review provided for this project particularly given its
location in the WQPD . Hoffmann also stated concern related to the site plan review standards including landscaping
design and appearance . Specifically , Hoffmann referred to the scale of the project not being compatible to the
neighborhood (#6) and felt that, if approved , this would not be promoting open space but encouraging building massing
(#7 ) . Hoffmann stated she was inclined to abstain from the vote on this application . Hillis- Dineen stated that she is
inclined to vote yes because of the benefits to the community and the strong community support evidenced in comments
submitted to the Board . Hillis- Dineen stated that the space is a parking lot and is not a beautiful space now. Hillis- Dineen
thanked the Applicant for the numerous revisions made to accommodate the Board ' s suggestions . Hillis- Dineen stated
that although she has concerns regarding stormwater management she believes with conditions she could vote to
approve this application . Taylor stated that she is not happy that the Board has not been provided a stormwater plan
especially since the property is located in a Zone II . Taylor stated that any approval would require significant conditions
related to stormwater management . Taylor stated that the Board does not know what the site will look like in terms of
landscaping . She understands that this is an important project . Taylor stated that she would support approval but is not
happy that there is so much missing information which the Board will need to draft conditions . Wallace stated that he
would vote to approve the application . Wallace stated that it is unfortunate that the Board is being put in a position in
which they have to write a stormwater plan for the Applicant . Wallace stated he appreciates the Applicant' s willingness to
revise the plans and redesign the installation and the current design is better than the one proposed in the initial
application . Wallace stated that according to his notes , he would vote to approve along with Hillis- Dineen and Taylor,
Degen needs more information , and Hoffmann would abstain from the vote . Degen stated that if there was a stormwater
management plan or a set of conditions related to stormwater management she could possibly vote yes but she needs
more information . Wallace stated that all five Board members would have to vote yes to approve in order for the
application to be approved .
Nicolas applauded the Planning Board ' s diligence and stated that the Applicant has learned a lot from this process .
Nicolas further stated that in previous meetings stormwater management was not a focus and had the Applicant known a
stormwater management plan was needed they would have provided one . Based on the last meeting , the Applicant
focused on improvements to design , landscaping and aesthetics in response to the Board ' s comments and in hopes of
receiving approval . Nicolas reminded the Board that the project still has to be approved by the Building Department so
their review is not the last gate for the Applicant to go through before construction begins . Bennett responded that the
Applicant was made aware of the stormwater standards at the time of staff review in February and although stormwater
was not discussed in depth at the previous meeting , the Applicant was aware of the standards . Wallace appreciated the
comments by Nicolas but stated the Board cannot be responsible for reviewing all aspects of the project at every meeting
on the project .
i
The Board noted that if the Applicant withdrew without prejudice and submitted a new application with the information that j
was requested by the Board , they would have the benefit of all seven member Board for review and would need five
affirmative votes for approval . Bennett confirmed that if the Applicant submitted a new application it would be six weeks to
be scheduled for hearing . Burdett noted that the WQPD performance standards were reviewed in the narrative of the
Applicant' s initial submission with the original design and the narrative has not changed . Burdett further stated that the
Applicant would provide updated calculations for the new design .
Hoffmann stated that she cannot vote to approve the application based on the size and scale and referred to the site plan
review standards specifically the landscape , design , and appearance . Hoffmann stated that it is unfortunate that the
Board has been put in the position to essentially design the project . She noted that the financials of the project and
benefits to the Town are not in the Board ' s purview. Hoffmann further stated that she was impressed by the Town ' s
outreach on other projects such as the master plan for Drummer Boy Park and the Millstone Housing project and wishes
more outreach and community input was sought on this project ,
The Applicant requested to withdraw the application .
I
Motion by Degen to Approve Applicant ' s Request to Withdraw Without Prejudice on Special Permit and Site Plan
Review Application #2020 -10 . Second by Hillis -Dineen . Vote : Degen -aye , Hoffmann -aye , Hillis -Dineen -aye ,
Taylor-aye, and Wallace -aye . Vote : 5 -0 -0 .
Argo encouraged the Board to visit some similar installations , which CVEC would help set up , as she believes there is a 3
misconception as to the structure , its size , and its imperviousness . Wallace directed Argo to speak to staff to coordinate .
PB Minutes 10/14/2020 Page 4 of 8
a
i
Hoffmann again noted that public outreach was needed . Taylor asked if the Applicant was clear on what the Board
needed to see in a future application . The Applicant confirmed they understood what was needed for a new application .
8 : 20 PM PUBLIC MEETINGS
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 . (CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 23 , 2020)
Documents :
• 07/28/20 Traffic Memorandum by VHB
• 07/29/20 Site Plans
• 07/31 /20 Floor plans and elevations
• 08/ 11 /20 Planning Board Application , revised 09/21 /20 including Narrative and EFG background information
• 09/ 18/20 Staff Review Comments from August 12 , 2020
• 09/30/20 Summary of Reasoning by Singer & Singer
Andrew Singer of Law Office of Singer & Singer, LLC and David Lawler of Law Office of David V. Lawler, P . C . participated
remotely on behalf of the Applicant Elevation Financial Group , LLC . Stuart Heaton of Elevation Financial Group , LLC also
participated remotely .
In addition , the following individuals also participated remotely : David Michniewicz of Coastal Engineering Co . , Ian
Anderson of PH7 Architects , Jonathan Petty of Hawk Design , Inc. , Randy Hart of VHD , John Ciluzzi , Jr. , Donna Kalinick ,
Assistant Town Administrator, and Jill Scalise , Housing Coordinator.
Singer stated that the Applicant has applied for site plan review only . The proposed project is located at the former
Wingate facility . Further, Singer stated that the Applicant is proposing to use the existing building and site with some
proposed upgrades for senior ( age 55 + ) independent living . Singer noted that the Applicant obtained approval from the
Zoning Board of Appeals for the use . Singer stated that he believes the project meets all the standards of site plan
review. From a use point of view there will be a 13 % reduction in the number of units , a 40 % reduction in bedrooms , and
therefore a reduction in traffic . Singer noted that a traffic report has been submitted and the traffic engineer, Randy Hart,
is present for the meeting . The building and site coverage will remain conforming . The open space of more than 60 % will
remain conforming and there is no work getting closer to the wetlands . Singer stated that there will be upgrades and an
increase to the parking to provide adequate availability for the use . There will be some building changes and the building
will remain heavily screened from Route 124 .
Dave Michniewicz reviewed the site plan changes . Michniewicz pointed out the open space to the north near the j
wastewater treatment facility and also wetlands located on the property . He noted proposed changes to the main
entrance of the former nursing home including removal of the gazebo and portico to allow for more parking spaces .
Michniewicz stated that 190 parking spaces are required for this project and there are currently 157 spaces . Additional
i
spaces will be created on the south side of the property .
i
Due to technical difficulties , Andersen began a review of the architectural design . Andersen reviewed photos of the
current building and noted the Applicant would like to make the building more compatible to a Cape Cod look while
spending a moderate amount of money . Andersen showed a photo rendering of proposed changes . The Applicant would
like to paint the brick and replace the stucco with vinyl rather than wood due to the long term maintenance costs of natural
wood . Andersen stated that the Applicant proposes spending money on the building facades that are visible from street .
If affordable , the entire building will be redone . Shutters , dark blue in color, are proposed and the building will be painted
a cream color. The trim will also be updated . Andersen pointed out the portico and gazebo that will be demolished .
i
Taylor stated that the proposed changes were an excellent visual improvement and she appreciated the elevations
provided by the Applicant. Barrett also appreciated the elevations provided and inquired about window sizes and
replacement. Andersen stated he needed to review the scope of the project and would get back to the Board regarding
window replacement .
Singer stated that the building is 121 , 000 SF and is proposed for assisted independent living for seniors . The Applicant
will make 20 % of the units permanently deed restricted and is also working with the Housing Partnership to place
PB Minutes 10/14/2020 Page 5 of 8
I
i
3
1
additional units on the subsidized housing inventory . Singer stated that costs due need to be maintained so the Applicant
is looking to reuse as much of the building as it possible . He also noted that most of the building , including the windows ,
is not visible from the street .
Michniewicz rejoined the meeting and reviewed changes to the main entrance of the nursing home including demolition of
the portico and gazebo additional parking spaces . A green island and entry sidewalk with landscaping will be added to
the area . Michniewicz reviewed the parking layout and noted additional parking being added to the area which previously
contained an ambulance entrance . He pointed out handicap accessible parking on the site plan . He also pointed out the
proposed dumpster area and noted the dumpster is enclosed with a fence . Michniewicz stated that the Applicant has
provided 190 parking spaces as required for this project . Michniewicz stated that the Applicant participated in staff review
and during staff review the Fire Chief stated that access was adequate and modifications to the parking lot were not
required . Michniewicz pointed out the three hydrants that are on the property . He also stated that there was no work
proposed in the buffer zone to the wetlands and no required conservation filing .
Petty reviewed the landscape plan noting that three sides of the property are buffered naturally . The Applicant is
proposing to keep the existing trees along the right of way . There are a lot of really mature plantings on the site and the
Applicant would like to keep those and enhance with additional plantings . The Applicant will protect the existing plants
and prune as necessary . Petty reviewed proposed enhancements to the entries and parking areas including evergreens
and shrubs for screening . He noted that a blue spruce will be relocated on site due to parking .
Hoffmann read staff review comments from August 12 , 2020 into the record .
Barrett asked about landscape and open space for the residents . Barrett asked if landscaping in courtyard could be
shown on plan . Barrett asked the Applicant to consider adding bike racks . She pointed out the dumpster on the site plan
and asked about internal collection of trash or whether residents take their own trash out to the dumpster. Barrett
suggested two dumpsters may be appropriate for the site . Barrett pointed out the signage history on the property and
stated that the signs have to be addressed and appropriately permitted . Petty responded to Barrett' s comments on the
landscaping and stated that he does have an inventory of the plantings but it is not currently shown on the plans . The
Applicant proposes to reuse what is on site , At this time , no inventory of plants exists for the courtyard . The Board
requested an inventory be added to the plan . Petty will look into adding bike racks to the plan . Singer stated that the
Applicant does not provide internal trash collection and noted that some residents put their trash in their car and drive to
the dumpster or they go to the dump . Singer stated that the proposed signage has not been designed yet but will comply
with requirements on the Applicant will seek the necessary relief. Barrett stated that one dumpster may not be adequate
given the number of units and asked the Applicant to consider a second dumpster. She also commented that signs not
permitted should not be shown on the plan . Wallace stated that the sign location can be shown on the plan and a
condition can be included in the decision that signs will go through the appropriate permitting process . Lawler stated he
was not aware of the sign compliance history and as Singer stated the signs will comply or relief will be sought.
Taylor asked about the handicap spaces and noted they were 8 'x20 ' not 10 ' x20 ' . She also thought there should be more
than six handicap spaces given the age of the residents . Taylor asked if the handicap spaces will be located near the
three entrances . Michniewicz responded that the handicap spaces are 8 ' wide with an 8 ' aisle and are van accessible . He
reviewed the location of the spaces on the site . Michniewicz stated that only six handicap spaces are required pursuant
to ADA regulations and the Applicant has not considered adding more than six . Taylor asked if parking spaces were
assigned and Singer responded that all spaces are on a first come first served basis . Singer noted that code
requirements are being met for parking . Taylor asked about the connection to the rail trail and Lawler responded that
there is already a connection to the rail trail and the intention is to maintain and possibly enhance that connection . The j
connection is near the gazebo . Taylor stated that the staircase leads to the abutting private property . Taylor suggested j
the Applicant look into an easement. Taylor asked about the affordable units . Lawler responded that the Cape Cod
Commission required a 10 % affordable unit requirement. Lawler stated that Elevation Financial at their own initiative
offered to double the affordable component to 20 % at 80 % AMI . Singer stated that other units not formally deed restricted
will be rented at below market rates . Taylor asked how the affordable rates are figured out and Heaton responded that
units must be affordable for seniors living on Social Security with no other assets . Heaton stated that rent increases j
follow Social Security increases . Taylor asked if any of the units be accessible and Heaton responded that accessibility is
treated on an as needed basis so if residents need accessible units the Applicant makes reasonable accommodations . I
Further, Heaton stated that all of the Applicant' s senior housing residences have some accessibility components .
i
PB Minutes 10/14/2020
Page 6 of 8
I
3
i
Hillis- Dineen appreciated the presentation the Applicant made to the Affordable Housing Trust and asked if the handicap
ramps will remain for accessibility .
Bebrin asked if there was a barrier near the wetlands . She pointed out the steep drop and expressed concern for people
backing up . Bebrin asked about maintenance management and how the Applicant will maintain the vinyl and
maintenance of mature plants . She also suggested signage be place at the more setback entrance if that was to become
the main entrance for residents and visitors . Bebrin stated that the Wingate in Harwich has both a sign and a bench on
the bike path and the Applicant may want to consider that option . Michniewicz responded that there is a guardrail along
the driveway and near the drop referenced by Bebrin . He also stated that there are accessible routes from the handicap
parking spaces to the building .
Hoffmann stated that she counted more than six handicap spaces and stated she would like to see more handicap spaces
added . Hoffmann also referenced the sign compliance history for this property and suggested the Applicant review
previous Planning Board meetings . She asked if the monitoring wells shown in the traffic report are accurately depicted
and Singer stated that the wells may be part of the leach field for the new septic system that was put in a few years back .
Michniewicz stated that the monitoring wells are part of the groundwater discharge permit . Hoffmann asked if the Health
Department saw the plan with monitoring wells and Michniewicz responded that he is not sure but MA DEP is the
authority that has jurisdiction over the monitoring wells . Michniewicz stated that the wells are measured monthly and
tested quarterly by the wastewater treatment facility operator. The current operator will continue once Elevation Financial
takes control of the property .
Degen referred to the summary of reasoning provided and asked if the properties will be combined . Singer confirmed the
lots will be combined . Degen asked about lighting on the site and if there was a lighting plan available . Singer responded
that it was the intention of the Applicant to keep the existing lighting and all lighting is downward casting . Degen
requested more lighting information including the back of the building . Degen asked about internal circulation for the site
and suggested the Applicant provide information on the site plan once the bike racks are added . Degen asked the
Applicant to consider bicycle access to the bike trail . Degen asked about circulation of delivery and mail trucks within the
site . Michniewicz stated that the site is accessible to delivery and larger trucks . The north entrance will be the main
entrance for delivery . Degen asked for the circulation to be shown on plan . Singer stated the site as laid out now meets
Fire Department accessibility standards and there is no issue with access .
Wallace would like the Applicant to clarify bike path access , and add an additional dumpster. Wallace stated that he was
disappointed with the age restriction on the rentals as there is a need for affordable housing on the Cape for young
people . Heaton stated that their research showed that there was a need for senior housing in the area . The Applicant' s
business leans towards senior housing and they know it well . Heaton stated that the Applicant received a variance was
granted based on the senior housing need . Wallace stated he would like to see a lighting plan . He also commented that
the guardrail in the corner needs to be freshened up . Hoffmann asked the Applicant to review bike path access as the
staircase goes onto private property . She would be hesitant to approve a plan that allows access to private property
without evidence of permission granted by the land owner.
St. Cyr stated that no public comment has been received during the meeting . I
Hoffmann pointed out the typo in the deed reference and Singer responded it will be corrected . Taylor asked what relief,
as referenced in the summary of reasoning , is being requested . Singer responded site plan review approval is being
requested .
i
Lawler asked if the Board would consider approving the proposal tonight with conditions being drafted by staff. The Board
would like to see the additional information including a lighting plan and additions to the site plan such as a dumpster, bike
rack , and landscaping for the courtyard before voting on the application . Bike path access also needs to be clarified .
The Board reviewed the site plan review checklist. Wallace noted that sight distances to the north could be improved to
the north . Hart stated that the minimum requirements for sight distances at both driveways have been met . The Board
requested at least one bike rack be shown on the plan . The Applicant is not requesting any waivers to site plan review.
Degen asked for internal circulation route to be shown on plan and noted the circulation to loading areas would be helpful
since residents will be moving in and out of rentals . Barrett asked that the mailboxes be shown on the site plan if they are
outside , Michniewicz stated that there would be a minimal addition of pavement and additional run off is not enough to
make changes to the existing stormwater drainage system . Singer directed the Board to the site plans for drainage basin
location . Degen asked about the sink hole on the south side of the property . Michniewicz responded that repairs need to
1
PB Minutes 10/14/2020 Page 7 of 8
1
i
s
i
be done to fix settling . Wallace suggested the Applicant note all drainage in red on the plan . Wallace stated that if money
permits he would like to see the entire building updated . Hoffmann asked about flickering or flashing lights in the windows
and whether that fell under the Board ' s purview or a rental agreement .
St . Cyr stated that no public comment has been received during the meeting .
Motion by Hillis -Dineen to Continue Site Plan Review Application #2020 -13 to October 28 , 2020 . Second by
Taylor. Vote : Degen -aye , Hoffmann -aye , Hillis - Dineen -aye , Taylor-aye , Bebrin -aye , Barrett-aye and Wallace -aye .
Vote : 7 -0 -0 .
10 : 02 PM PLANNING DISCUSSION
Approval of Meeting Minutes : September 9 2020 and September 23 , 2020 .
The Board reviewed the September 9 , 2020 meeting minutes . Motion by Hillis - Dineen to Approve September 9 , 2020
Meeting Minutes , as amended . Second by Degen . Vote : Degen -aye, Hoffmann -aye , Hillis -Dineen -aye , Bebrin -
aye , Taylor-aye , Barrett-aye , and Wallace -aye . Vote : 7 =0 -0 .
The Board reviewed the September 23 , 2020 meeting minutes . Motion by Hoffmann to Approve September 23 , 2020
Meeting Minutes , as amended . Second by Taylor. Vote : Degen -aye , Hoffmann -aye , Hillis -Dineen -aye , Bebrin -
aye , Taylor-aye , Barrett-aye , and Wallace -aye . Vote : 7 =0 -0 .
10 : 14 PM TOPICS THE CHAIR DID NOT REASONABLY ANTICIPATE
Hoffmann announced the Vision Planning Committee held their kick off meeting .
Motion by Hillis -Dineen to adjourn . Second by Taylor. Vote : Degen -aye , Hoffmann -aye , Hillis -Dineen -aye ,
Bebrin -aye , Taylor-aye , Barrett-aye , and Wallace -aye . Vote : 7 =0 -0 . Meeting adjourned at 10 : 15 pm .
Next Planning Board Meeting Date : 10/28/20
Respectfully submitted ,
i
I
Lynn St. r, Senior Dep ar ent Assistant, Planning
i
1
I
i
i
t
i
i
I
1
i
3
i
i
i
i
f
I
PB Minutes 10/14/2020 Page 8 of 8
I
i