Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutPlanning Board -- 2021-07-28 Minutes aEWs Brewster Planning Board Approved : 08/ 11 /21 nm�,. \P`OQ OER . %pi 2198 Main Street Vote : 7 -0 -0 a rP Brewster, MA 02631 - 1898 o _ ' ,�` (508) 896-3701 x1133 brewplan@brewster-ma . gov ro *�° BREWSTER PLANNING BOARD / \ MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, July 28 , 2021 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 , Madalyn Hillis- Dineen , Mark Koch , and Elizabeth Taylor, Charlotte Degen did not participate . Also participating remotely : Ryan Bennett , Town Planner, Lynn St, Cyr, Senior Department Assistant, and Kari Hoffmann , Select Board Liaison . This meeting will be conducted by remote participation pursuant to Chapter 20 of the Acts of 2021 . 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 meeting may be viewed by : Live broadcast (Brewster Government TV Channel 18 ) , Livestream ( livestream . brewster- ina . gov ) , or Video recording (tv . brewster-ma . gov) . The Planning Board Packet can be found at: http •//records brewster-ma gov/weblinWO/fol/118269/Row1 . aspx or by going to the Planning Department page on the Town of Brewster website (www . brewster- ma . gov) . Wallace declared that a quorum of the Planning Board was present. 6 : 33 PM CITIZEN ' S FORUM No citizen comments . 6 : 34 PM PUBLIC MEETING Approval Not Required Application #2021 - 10 • Approval Not Required Application #2021 -10 : Applicant/Owner : Todd Olson . Representative : Robin W. Wilcox, PLS , Sweetser Engineering for property located at 1492 and 1494 Long Pond Road and shown on Assessor' s Map 94 , Lot 36 in the Residential Medium Density ( R- M ) zoning district . Documents . • 07/01 /21 Approval Not Required Plan • 07/08/21 Approval Not Required Application Robin W. Wilcox , PLS was present on behalf of the Applicant Todd Olson . Wilcox stated that the Applicant has converted the duplex on Lot 3 to a single- family home . The purpose of the ANR is to divide the parcel providing Lot 3 with over 70 , 000 SF and creating three smaller parcels to be used by the abutting properties . One of the abutting property owners plans to build a three-bedroom home . Hillis- Dineen asked if two houses are planned on one lot and Wilcox responded that there would be one house on Lot 3 but that it was previously a duplex which the Applicant has converted to a single- family home . Barrett commented that the plan helped improve the lots on Greenland Pond Road . Motion by Hillis -Dineen to Endorse Approval Not Required Application #202140 . Second by Bebrin . Vote : Taylor-aye ; Hillis - Dineen -aye ; Barrett-aye ; Koch -aye ; Bebrin -aye ; and Wallace-aye . Vote : 6 -0 -0 . 6 : 39 PM PUBLIC MEETING CONTINUED Review and Vote on Request for Extension to Special Permit & Site Plan Review Decision #2019-07 . Documents : 07/ 15/21 Email from Michael Manchuk Michael Manchuk, Owner of 0 Independence Way , Assessor' s Map 76 , Lot 33 , was present to request an extension on Special Permit and Site Plan Review Decision #2019-07 . Manchuk requested a one-year extension due to pandemic related delays to consider potential changes to the current approval including eliminating the one-bedroom apartment to relieve parking requirements . Any change may necessitate the filing of a modification application . Taylor asked if the Board ' s standard policy was to grant a one or two-year extension . Bennett responded that the Board did not have a policy on extensions , but the Applicant was requesting a one-year extension . PB Minutes 07/28/21 Page 1 of 5 Motion by Hillis -Dineen to Approve Request for Extension on Special Permit & Site Plan Review Decision #2019 - 07 . Second by Taylor. Vote : Barrett-aye ; Koch -aye ; Bebrin -aye ; Taylor-aye ; Hillis -Dineen -aye ; and Wallace -aye . Vote : 6 -0 -0 . 6 : 42 PM PLANNING DISCUSSION Review and discuss potential zoning bylaw amendments related to floodplain . Documents : • 07/20/21 Planning Staff Memo with proposed floodplain bylaw amendments Bennett reviewed proposed changes to the floodplain bylaw and noted that changes are being proposed to comply with the National Flood Insurance Program ( NFIP ) . Shannon Hulst , the regional floodplain coordinator, has been working with local towns on a model floodplain development bylaw issued by the Massachusetts Division of Conservation and Recreation Flood Hazard Management Program . Bennett described the changes as housekeeping in nature and noted that there are no changes proposed to the regulated floodplain . The Board discussed the next steps in the review process including referring the proposed amendments to the Select Board . Taylor asked about bylaw amendments to the Water Quality Protection District and Bennett responded that the Board would be reviewing those amendments in August. Bebrin pointed out a scrivener' s error related to the definition of " floodway" . The Board discussed referring the amendments to the Select Board at their August 11th meeting . 6 : 49 PM PLANNING DISCUSSION CONTINUED Approval of Meeting Minutes : July 12 2021 and July 14 2021 . The Board reviewed the July 12 , 2021 meeting minutes . Motion by Barrett to Approve July 12 , 2021 Meeting Minutes , as amended . Second by Bebrin . Vote : Taylor-aye ; Hillis -Dineen -aye ; Bebrin -aye ; Barrett-aye ; and Wallace -aye . Koch abstained . Vote : 5 -04 . The Board reviewed the July 14 , 2021 meeting minutes . Motion by Bebrin to Approve July 14, 2021 Meeting Minutes , as amended . Second by Hillis -Dineen . Vote : Taylor-aye ; Hillis -Dineen -aye ; Bebrin -aye ; Koch -aye ; Barrett-aye ; and Wallace -aye . Vote : 6 -0 -0 . Motion by Hillis -Dineen to Recess until 7 : 00 pm . Second by Bebrin . Vote : Taylor-aye ; Hillis -Dineen -aye ; Bebrin - ayesKoch -aye ; Barrett-aye ; and Wallace -aye . Vote : 6-0 -0 . Recess taken at 6 : 54 pm . Motion by Bebrin to Resume Planning Board Meeting . Second by Barrett. Vote : Taylor-aye ; Barrett-aye ; Bebrin - ayes Koch -aye ; Hillis -Dineen -aye ; and Wallace -aye . Vote : 6-0 -0 . Planning Board meeting resumed at 7 : 00 pm . 7 : 00 PM PUBLIC HEARING Special Permit and Site Plan Review Waiver Application #2021 -09 : Applicant: Danielle Panzica , Owner: TKC Investments , LLC for property located at 2671 Main Street and shown on Assessor' s Map 89 , Lot 20 in the Village Business (V- B ) zoning district. The Applicant proposes a food trailer as an accessory use to the current restaurant use pursuant to § 179-51 , § 179-66 , and § 179-67 of the Brewster zoning bylaw . Documents : • 06/22/21 Planning Board Application with site plan , traffic flow plan , and photos • 07/22/21 Staff Review Comments • 07/28/21 Email from Louis and Andrea Baerga Danielle Panzica and Jayme Valdez participated remotely and presented their application to the Board . They purchased the property at 2671 Main Street and are currently doing interior renovations to the restaurant . They would like to use the food trailer to sell beverages ( non-alcoholic) and snacks this season . Panzica stated that they have had conversations with JT' s about a potential exit onto Winslow Landing from their property . It is the Applicant' s understanding that JT' s owns the property at the top of Winslow Landing and JT's is willing to work with the Applicants on an exit. The restaurant is planned as a year- round operation . Barrett asked if the food trailer would be temporary and Panzica responded that they would like to use the trailer seasonally , most likely between April and October. Taylor stated that she did not believe that the food trailer proposal was in line with the character of the neighborhood . Hillis- Dineen agreed with Taylor. She stated that at the front of the lot , the trailer was in full view of Route 6A and was not in keeping with the community character. Panzica asked the Board for clarification as the property is zoned for a PB Minutes 07/28/21 Page 2 of 5 restaurant . Hillis- Dineen explained that the Board considers community character as part of the special permit criteria . Panzica suggested the trailer could be parked on the site and used for promotions . There would be no sales from the truck . Bennett suggested Panzica speak to the Building Commissioner as food and merchandise trucks are not recognized by the zoning bylaw . Panzica stated that the unit is a food trailer not a food truck . Wallace stated that alterations to the site need to be shown on a site plan including a specific location for the food trailer and pedestrian flow . Panzica asked for clarification on the additional information needed and any additional fees . There is no additional fee for review of the site plan as it is part of the application before the Board . Koch directed the Applicant to the Planning Board Application , specifically the requirements of site plan review and waiver of site plan review . Koch stated that he does not believe a food truck would be detrimental to the neighborhood . Wallace requested a narrative for the proposed project. He explained that a site plan would be helpful not only for the Board , but the Building Inspector will use the plan as well . The Board discussed the location of the trailer on the site . Panzica stated that the trailer was currently located in parking spaces and could be moved to near the outdoor patio . Wallace stated that if the trailer meets setbacks , he does not have an issue with it. Hillis- Dineen stated that the trailer would work better for safety purposes in the back of the property . Barrett stated that loss of parking spaces is something the Applicant should consider. Panzica stated that they were willing to move the trailer to green space . Wallace stated that the Applicant should speak to the Building Commissioner about relocating the trailer to green space . Panzica stated that if the trailer was relocated to green space it would make for better pedestrian flow . Bebrin stated that a trailer would not be an issue for her as it relates to the character of the neighborhood . She noted that the site plan provided shows the trailer parked in four spaces , but it is smaller in size and takes up about 1 . 5 spaces . Bebrin stated that the Board needs more information on parking flow , accessibility , walking paths , lighting information , if open when dark, and hours of operation . Bebrin noted that the Board holds all applicants to the same standards and that is why they are seeking the requested information . Panzica asked if the Board could provide different options they would like to review . Bennett responded that the Applicant could discuss options with staff. Wallace suggested the Applicant review the site plan review checklist. Bebrin suggested the Applicant consider transportation and traffic especially if both the restaurant and food trailer are open at the same time . Wallace stated that bike traffic should be considered by the Applicant. Panzica stated that the trailer has no grills or exhaust fans . The Board reviewed their schedule . Panzica requested the hearing be continued to August 11th. Panzica asked if the Board could vote on the project because she did not want to invest more time and money if the project was going to be denied . Hillis- Dineen stated that the Applicant should consider moving the trailer to a different location on the site . Doug Ross , a resident on Winslow Landing Road , wished the Applicants luck . He described the current traffic and parking situations along Winslow Landing Road caused by customers of JT' s . He expressed concern with adding an exit onto Winslow Landing Road . Panzica responded that an exit only onto Winslow Landing was proposed . Norman Cantin , a longtime resident of Winslow Landing and a member of the Winslow Landing Association , wished the Applicants well . Cantin noted that the road services 57 residences , in addition to vehicle traffic from JT' s , and foot traffic . The residents are concerned with traffic and would request reconfiguration without the exit onto Winslow Landing Road . Hillis- Dineen read comments from staff review into the record . She asked if the project needed review by the Historic District Committee . Staff will follow up with HDC . Koch read an email into the record from Louis and Andrea Baerga . Motion by Hillis -Dineen to Continue the Public Hearing on Special Permit and Site Plan Review Waiver Application #2021 -09 to August 11 , 2021 . Second by Taylor. Vote : Taylor-aye ; Hillis -Dineen -aye ; Koch -aye ; Bebrin -aye ; Barrett-aye ; and Wallace -aye . Vote : 6- 0 -0 . 7AII PM PLANNING DISCUSSION CONTINUED Review and discuss potential bylaw amendments related to stormwater. Documents . 07/23/21 Planning Staff Memo with draft stormwater bylaw Lori Kennedy and Mark Nelson , Consultants , of Horsley Witten participated remotely . PB Minutes 07/28/21 Page 3 of 5 Bennett stated that the proposed stormwater amendments are proposed as an amendment to the general bylaw not the zoning bylaw. She summarized the history of work by the town on a stormwater bylaw including work in 2015 and 2016 that tied stormwater regulations to the state ' s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems ( MS4 ) regulations . She explained that the current bylaws are not compliant with MS4 and with the proposed amendments the town looks to come into compliance . Bennett stated that the permits are proposed as regulatory permits with major and minor categories based on land disturbance activities . The minor projects would be reviewed administratively by staff. The major projects would be reviewed by either the Planning Board or Conservation Commission , depending on whether the property fell within the Conservation Commission ' s jurisdiction . These regulations are proposed as a general bylaw to be approved by a simple majority at Town Meeting . A Planning Board policy regarding these regulations is being worked on and will be provided at a later date . Barrett asked for clarification on major versus minor projects . Bennett referred the Board to the Applicability section of the proposed bylaw on page 5 . She noted the proposed thresholds of 10 , 000 SF or more of land disturbance and 500 SF or more of additional impervious area . These thresholds are tied to staff review requirements . Kennedy stated that the MS4 permit requires that municipalities regulate erosion sediment control , construction phase disturbances , and post development stormwater run -off for any projects that disturb over 1 -acre . Kennedy stated that many communities tend to go with lower thresholds based . on stormwater impacts . She suggested the Board consider projects that would meet the 1 -acre regulation as well as those that would not be subject to the 1 -acre requirement. Kennedy stated that most Cape communities that she is aware of follow the 1 -acre requirement except for Dennis which has a 2 , 000 SF land disturbance threshold and captures uses with high pollutant loading . She stated that many communities she works with have a 10 , 000 SF land disturbance threshold . They also capture projects that convert to a higher polluting land use and those with an expansion of impervious area . Kennedy stated that once regulated the Board should consider requirements for both minor and major projects . For example , Kennedy stated that a minor project may be related to a single- or two-family residential use and a more simplified review process may be used . Wallace asked Kennedy about the 500 SF threshold for impervious areas as he felt that threshold was low . Kennedy responded that the threshold is low , but a minor permit review could be used in those situations . Wallace asked about definitions of major versus minor and Kennedy responded that those definitions will be part of the regulations currently being drafted . Bennett directed the Board to page 7 of the draft bylaw . Bennett asked the Board to consider the enforcement piece and that minor projects will be enforced by staff. The policy objective of the bylaw is that stormwater management and containing stormwater on site is part of doing business in Brewster. Wallace asked about the regulations referenced as part of #3 on page 7 . Bennett responded that the regulations are being worked on and will be presented as part of this package to educate the public . The regulations will not be included in the warrant before Town Meeting . The Board discussed the Applicability section of the bylaw further. Nelson commented that these regulations flow from the Integrated Water Resource Management Plan and concerns about drinking water, ponds , and coastal water run -off. Nelson stated that it is important to define the thresholds in the regulations and that they can be easily adjusted over time as new engineering practices come in to play and state requirements change . Barrett commented that a 500 SF disturbance in one area of Brewster can have a different impact than a 500 SF disturbance in another area such as those located near a pond or well area . Barrett asked whether there should be more definition to include environmentally sensitive areas or whether a universal threshold should be used . Bennett stated that a universal threshold is easier to enforce but that the Board should consider additional language for environmentally sensitive areas . Wallace stated that areas within the Water Quality Protection District may need to be considered more stringently . Nelson stated that further thought should be given to how to approach areas within the overlay district as some ponds do not fall within the overlay . Taylor suggested the Board review the comments outlined in the draft bylaw that request further discussion . Taylor stated that she hoped the new bylaw would make residents more aware of run -off and its impact. The Board discussed the Conservation Commission ' s role in permitting if a property is partially or entirely in their jurisdiction . Bennett stated that further discussion with the Conservation Department is needed . Taylor stated that she would like to hear from Conservation and thought it may be best for both boards to work in conjunction to issue permits where the property falls under the jurisdiction of both boards . Wallace stated that he would be reluctant to require approval from both boards . Taylor responded that properties located near wetlands need the approval of both boards . PB Minutes 07/28/21 Page 4 of 5 Bebrin suggested the Board seek comments from Conservation , similar to the department review process used , for these type of permit applications . Kennedy noted that the permitting process is more streamlined in towns where the Conservation Commission is the stormwater permit granting authority as in many situations the applicant is before that body for an order of conditions . Bennett stated that it is not without precedent for boards to delegate authority . She gave the example of working with the Zoning Board of Appeals on special permits . Wallace asked for a timeline for work on the stormwater bylaw . Bennett stated the draft bylaw was proposed for Fall Town Meeting . A public hearing before `the Planning Board is anticipated for late September. Bennett anticipates two additional working sessions before the public hearing . The Board discussed the 10 , 000 SF threshold for land disturbance and the 500 SF threshold for increase in impervious area . Wallace stated that he felt both thresholds were low . Taylor would leave the thresholds as is as they are consistent with staff review requirements . The Board discussed the two-year period referenced in paragraph C of the Applicability section and agreed that cumulative activity that surpassed the thresholds within a two-year period would require permitting . The Board discussed waivers as outlined in Section 272 -6 Exemptions . Bennett stated that it was not the intention of the bylaw to capture any projects retroactively . Kennedy explained that the Building Commissioner could be given the authority to grant waivers for minor projects . A minor project would not be required to have a hearing before the Board for a waiver. The Board discussed eligibility for Minor Stormwater Permits as referenced in Section 272 -7 , paragraph 3 . Kennedy stated that the language presented for consideration gave the Board an option to set an upper threshold (2000 SF of impervious area) but that was not required . Nelson noted that by capturing a new impervious area the Board would also be able to look back and possibly improve past work. The Board reviewed the waiver section on page 9 . Bennett noted that the regulations promulgated under the stormwater bylaw would be used by both the Planning Board , Conservation Commission , and building inspector. The Board is awaiting further comment from town counsel on an appeal process . Taylor thanked everyone for their hard work on the draft bylaw and requested comments from the Conservation Department . Bennett stated that she would request comments from both Conservation and the DPW. Bennett stated that additional review will be scheduled for the August 25th meeting . Motion by Hillis -Dineen to adjourn . Second by Bebrin . Vote : Taylor-aye ; Bebrin -aye ; Koch -aye ; Hillis -Dineen - ayesBarrett-aye ; and Wallace-aye . Vote : 6-0 -0 . Meeting adjourned at 8 : 20 pm . Next Planning Board Meeting Date : 08/ 11 /21 Respectfully submitted , Lynn St. yr, Senior Deptiment Assistant , Planning PB Minutes 07/28/21 Page 5 of 5