Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutPlanning Board -- 2023-08-09 Minutes1/////i,�� Brewster Planning Board Approved:09/13/23 \\��p\��\\\\\OµEW& J t 'ELDER BYVc9 �i 2198 Main Street Vote: 5-0-1 2 a� >s u 3 y - Brewster, MA 02631-1898 O —9 y` r * (508) 896-3701 x1133 IIIII\�A1P\d0\\\\`\\\ brewplan@brewster-ma.gov lllllll� MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 6:30 pm Brewster Town Office Building Chair Amanda Bebrin convened a meeting of the Planning Board at 6:33 pm with the following members participating: Tony Freitas (remotely), Madalyn Hillis -Dineen, Rob Michaels, Elizabeth Taylor, and Alex Wentworth. Charlotte Degen was not present. Also participating: Jon Idman, Town Planner, and Lynn St. Cyr, Senior Department Assistant. Bebrin declared that a quorum of the Planning Board was present. She read the Meeting Participation Statement and Recording Statement. 6:34 PM PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMENT None. 6:35 PM PUBLIC MEETING Major Stormwater Management Permit, Case No. 2023-35: Applicant/Owner: Reiss Wolf and Dana Levy through their representative Baxter Nye Engineering & Surveying has submitted a major stormwater permit application for property located at 50 Fisherman's Landing Road, formerly known as 0 Jolly's Crossing Road, and shown on Tax Map 62, Parcel 29, pursuant to Brewster Town Code Chapter 272 and its accompanying Regulations. Documents: • 07/14/23 Stormwater Management Plan and Details Plan • 07/14/23 Site Operation and Maintenance Plan • 07/14/23 Stormwater Management Report • 07/18/23 Major Stormwater Management Permit Application • 07/26/23 Staff Report Matthew Eddy, P.E. of Baxter Nye Engineering & Surveying was present on behalf of the Applicant. Eddy described the subject lot as 6.1 acres containing no wetlands. The lot is undeveloped except for a gravel cart path. Significant topography exists across the property. The application proposes a 5 -bedroom house with a stone driveway, tennis court, and swimming pool. A Title 5 septic system will be installed. Eddy stated that the proposal meets stormwater quantity control and quality treatment. Best management practices being used include a grass Swale, vegetated wooded and grass buffers, and infiltration basins. The water recharge on the site meets and exceeds the stormwater regulations. Eddy stated that he has adjusted the calculations to reflect NOAA Plus values and will provide the revised calculations to staff. Eddy discussed the expansion of one of the basins. Michaels noted that there was not a large buffer for the water quality volume at study point 1 but that has been addressed. Idman asked Eddy to discuss the check dams on the site. Eddy stated that the check dams help attenuate water flow, remove TSS, and reduce velocity. Michaels stated that study point 1 is crucial because it is located close to Sheep's Pond. He suggested the size of the BMP be increased. Eddy stated that improvements to the lot including grading will capture some of the runoff that typically goes to the area. Michaels asked if the recharge volume provided is greater than that required for all infiltration basins. Eddy stated that he believes that is the case and that information is provided in the full HydroCAD report. Michaels noted an error in the computation of the dewatering time for basin 1. Eddy stated he would submit corrected numbers. Taylor asked where the water goes when the pool is emptied. Eddy responded that typically a draw down pit is included for the pool. Idman noted the Town's illicit discharge and connections bylaw. The Applicant will need to get the approval of the Department of Public Works prior to draining the pool. Wentworth asked for clarification PB Minutes 08/09/23 Page 1 of 5 on a note on the plan regarding pool drainage. Eddy stated the note was directed to the contractor and details will be provided on specific drainage with the application for a building permit. There was discussion on the stormwater management system working to offer treatment through various BMPs such as the swales with check dams. Eddy noted that a volume buffer is provided with all infiltration basins, but the Planning Board should also consider the treatment that occurs prior to reaching the basin. Motion by Wentworth to Approve Maior Stormwater Management Permit, Case No. 2023-35, subject to Submission of Supplemental Calculations for Catchment Volumes by Area, Revised HydroCAD Report Reflecting NOAA Plus Precipitation Rates, Revision of Arithmetic in Dewatering Time, and Revision Reflecting the Redesign of Infiltration Basin 1 as well as the Conditions Required by the Stormwater Management Regulations. Second by Michaels. Roll call vote: Freitas -yes; Hillis -Dineen -yes; Wentworth -yes; Michaels -yes; Taylor -yes; and Bebrin-yes. Vote: 6-0-0. 7:00 PM PUBLIC MEETING Continued review and discussion on the Accessory Dwelling Unit {ADU) :Drovisions of the zonine bylaw including review and discussion of potential amendments. Documents: • Draft Article I General Provisions • Draft Article IX Special Regulations • Draft Table 1 Use Regulations • Draft Table 2 Area Regulations • 08/09/23 ADU Points for Discussion Building Commissioner Davis Walters (remotely), Assistant Town Manager Donna Kalinick, and Housing Coordinator Jill Scalise were present. Michaels asked for clarification on comments raised by a resident at the last Planning Board meeting regarding allowing additional bedrooms not associated with an ADU in a structure that includes an ADU. Bebrin responded that she believed the resident had property with unique circumstances and the Planning Board should decide how to consider those circumstances during their discussion. Idman stated that the subject property is a lot with two principal single- family dwelling units and the lot is large enough to support those dwellings. The resident is interested in making one of the two dwellings an ADU, but he cannot do so because the structure is too large under current ADU provisions. Bebrin suggested the Planning Board focus generally on the maximum size for ADUs and whether additional bedrooms should be allowed generally and not focus on a specific property. The Planning Board discussed removing Table 2, Footnote 13 regarding accessory apartments. Idman stated that removing the footnote could have unintended consequences. He gave an example of family guest spaces that do not include leases and can be used by various family members. He also stated that the footnote does not affect the ADU section of the bylaw. Idman stated that accessory apartments require a special permit from the ZBA, must be attached, and are restricted in size to 600 SF. There is also an owner -occupancy requirement for accessory apartments. The Planning Board agreed that Table 2, Footnote 13 should remain. The Planning Board discussed lot size specifically the size at which a special permit would be required for an ADU. Bebrin, Freitas, Wentworth, and Hillis -Dineen thought special permits should be required for lots under 15,000 SF. Jillian Douglass commented that one of the reasons special permits were originally required for ADUs was to allow for a hearing and for neighbors to provide feedback. If special permits are no longer required and there is no hearing, the town may see more neighbor conflict and disputes. Idman responded that the Planning Board is not considering eliminating all special permits. Special permits will continue to be required based on lot size and the Planning Board will consider whether they want to add an additional special permit for non -owner occupied ADUs. Freitas stated that PB Minutes 08/09/23 Page 2 of 5 revisions to the current ADU provisions should make it easier for those interested in constructing an ADU so the Planning Board may want to consider reducing the instances in which a special permit is needed. Jillian Douglass suggested that the Planning Board may want to require special permits for lots less than 20,000 SF. Bebrin responded that neighbors could use noise, pet annoyances as a cover for not an ADU in their neighborhood. Michaels does not believe the lot size of 15,000 SF should be the size to trigger a special permit. He finds the special permit process beneficial to allow for comment from the public, abutters, and neighbors. Freitas reminded the Planning Board that the proposal they are discussing will be voted on at Town Meeting. The residents that attend Town Meeting will ultimately decide what lot size will require a special permit. Idman noted that residential zoning in Brewster has never been at 20,000 SF but has included 15,000 SF, 25,000 SF, 40,000 SF, 60,000 SF, and 100,000 SF. Idman said that lot size should track zoning in Brewster so 15,000 SF or 25,000 SF would make the most sense. Bebrin stated that the current ADU provisions include many guardrails to help with concerns such as extensive development or noise, but those concerns have not come to fruition. The Planning Board agreed that lots under 15,000 SF would trigger a special permit. The Planning Board discussed the special permit granting authority (SPGA) for ADUs. The Planning Board decided to revise the current ADU provisions to propose the Planning Board as the SPGA. Currently, the ZBA is the SPGA. Freitas noted that the Planning Board meets twice a month whereas the ZBA only meets once a month so this may help move ADUs through the special permit process faster. Taylor stated that since the Planning Board is revising the ADU provisions they should be the board to review special permits to see how the provisions work. Jillian Douglass stated that the Planning Board is more familiar with issues that need to be considered and how to help ameliorate those issues. The current ADU provisions allow for a maximum of two dwelling units per property. The Planning Board discussed revising the provisions to allow for one ADU per property. Idman noted that this language was clearer and dealt with regulating ADUs as opposed to other types of dwellings. The Planning Board decided that one ADU per property should be allowed. The Planning Board discussed whether the removal of cooking facilities should be specifically cited as a type of enforcement mechanism. Walters referred to the removal of cooking facilities as a point in time enforcement mechanism meaning that the cooking facilities can be put back in place post inspection. He also asked the Planning Board to consider that a cook stove may not be needed by occupants as microwaves and hot plates could be used. The Planning Board discussed whether additional bedrooms not associated with an ADU should be allowed in detached ADUs. Wentworth stated that he did not think it was fair to renters of an ADU to allow property owners to have bedrooms for other purposes in an ADU. Walters stated that historically the removal of cooking facilities has been the standard used for enforcement purposes. Walters stated that he would like to discuss the language further with the Health Director and Town Planner before deciding whether it should be included. Hillis -Dineen suggested those not in compliance be fined. Idman stated that fines were an available remedy. The Planning Board decided to include fines in the list of examples of enforcement mechanisms. The Planning Board continued their discussion on whether additional bedrooms not associated with an ADU should be allowed in detached ADUs. Walters commented that if additional bedrooms were allowed it would create complicated construction and compliance issues for the Building Department. Idman reviewed the definition of net floor area and described additional confusion that could be created. After additional discussion, the Planning Board decided that additional bedrooms not associated with an ADU should not be allowed in detached ADUs. The Planning Board discussed a situation in which a family member is using the ADU year-round, but no lease existed. Idman stated that this situation could be handled with the filing of an affidavit. The Building Commissioner could be given discretion as to what information needed to be provided in the affidavit. Walters agreed that this approach was most suitable and noted that he sees regular inquiries from families who want to create an ADU for a son, daughter, or PB Minutes 08/09/23 Page 3 of 5 parent but are turned off by the requirement to provide a lease agreement. He thinks the affidavit can help with that situation. The Planning Board agreed with Walters. The Planning Board discussed the definition of "year-round" housing. Hillis -Dineen stated that a 6 -month lease was too short in her opinion and she would like to see 10-12 months with the understanding that people take vacations. She stated that the purpose of ADUs is to provide year-round housing, so leases need to be longer than 6 months. Freitas expressed concern that if the lease was not for 12 months renters would get kicked out for the summer season and be forced to find temporary housing. Michaels stated that year-round housing should require a 12 -month lease. Bebrin clarified that an ADU must be used as an ADU year-round so if a lease is less than 12 months long the ADU cannot be used as a short-term rental for the remaining months. Bebrin stated that short-term rentals are prohibited in the ADU provisions. Idman stated that year-round housing needs are made up of different intervals and are impacted by the year-round economy. The provisions provide minimum thresholds, they do not define the landlord tenant relationship. Idman stated that 6 months seems like a fair balance realizing that leases can be extended or may even be signed for longer initially. The Planning Board discussed situations in which people would only need a 6 -month lease including seasonal workers, those buying homes, and those between homes. Hillis -Dineen stated that leases can be broken. Walters described a situation where residents are having work done on their home and may need to move out for an extended period. He felt an ADU could assist in that situation. He also noted that tracking short-term rentals will be a challenge for his department. Bebrin stated that college students and Ameri Corp volunteers are other examples of individuals looking for year-round housing that may not necessarily need or want a 12 -month lease. Jillian Douglass suggested the Planning Board consider requiring an 8 -month lease. She believes this requirement could help reduce the summer shuffle and provide flexibility. Taylor asked the Planning Board to consider what would happen if leases were given for less than one year. The units could be used for other purposes during the other months. Idman stated that the bylaw requires continuous rental terms. Walters raised concerns about monitoring and tracking of ADU usage. Idman stated that Chatham requires evidence that an ADU is continually leased and occupied. Freitas suggested that the Housing Office may be able to help and work with people to understand and meet the requirements for ADUs. Scalise shared information on ADU terms from other Cape towns. Scalise stated that having an ADU permit will be helpful to staff to be able to monitor and track ADUs. Bebrin asked the Planning Board to consider whether shorter term leases would encourage property owners to create ADUs. Taylor stated that year-round housing means 12 months and does not include short-term housing for individuals such as J1s. She stated that ADUs are not affordable housing units. There would need to be separate regulations for affordable housing. Scalise stated that a goal of the Housing Production Plan (HPP) and the Vision Plan is to create a variety of housing options at various income levels. ADUs are intended to be market rate units providing more housing and rental options. Scalise stated that she receives calls from people looking for rentals where cost is not the issue finding a rental is the issue. Idman stated that in deciding the appropriate lease term for ADUs, disruption to neighborhoods should be considered. There was a brief discussion on tiny homes. The Planning Board discussed whether owner occupancy should continue to be required or whether part-time residents should be allowed to create ADUs and if so, what guardrails should be put in place. Wentworth stated that he believes that part-time residents should be allowed to create ADUs so long as one of the two dwellings is rented for 12 months. There was discussion on subleases and there is draft language in the revisions that does not allow for subleases. The Planning Board agreed that part-time residents should be allowed to create ADUs and that one of the two dwellings will be required to be rented for 12 months. Ther was discussion on whether a special permit should be required for part- time residents creating ADUs. Michaels stated that special permits should be required for part-time residents to create an ADU. He stated he believes abutters, neighbors, and interested parties should be able to weigh in. Idman stated that there are special permit standards referenced in the provisions. The Planning Board discussed whether, by special permit, both units on a lot can be rented out for 12 months. Wentworth and Michaels supported the concept. Taylor expressed concern that it would allow large companies to buy property and make money renting them out. She stated there would be no local connection to the property. The PB Minutes 08/09/23 Page 4 of 5 Planning Board decided that both units could be rented on a 12 -month basis by special permit. Hillis -Dineen stated that if these leases were required to be 12 months, she feels all ADU leases should be for a period of 12 months. Michaels agreed. Freitas stated that he was not against both units being rented for 12 months. Freitas stated that all ADUs should be 12 months so that it isn't seen as a benefit full time residents have that part time residents do not have. Idman responded that a two-tier system is supportable as the needs will be different for an owner living here versus not living here. Bebrin reviewed the decisions the Planning Board made for further drafting as proposed ADU provisions including: 1. Table 2, Footnote 13 will remain; 2. 15,000 SF will be the threshold for triggering a special permit; 3. Part time residents will be allowed to rent ADUs but the unit rented must be rented for 12 months; 4. Part time residents will need to obtain a special permit to create an ADU; 5. Both units can be rented for a period of 12 months by special permit; 6. The special permit granting authority will be the Planning Board; 7. The Planning Board is still working on the definition of "year-round" housing; 8. The Building Commissioner is authorized to handle enforcement of family usage of ADUs through an affidavit process; 9. One ADU will be allowed per property; 10. In detached ADUs the only bedrooms should be those associated with the ADU; and 11. Further discussion is needed amongst staff as to whether fines and removal of cooking facilities should be referenced as enforcement mechanisms. Taylor asked about bunkhouses. Idman stated that the zoning bylaw allows for accessory residential buildings with bedrooms. These buildings do not have the same requirements as ADUs. The Planning Board may discuss revisions to this section of the zoning bylaw after their work on ADUs is completed. Jillian Douglass stated that an issue she keeps coming back to is that the town does not regulate rental housing because they do not have much. She believes there needs to be a rental registry that requires annual inspection. A registry will allow the town to have better control over citizen concerns. Douglass also stated that 12 -month leases are simplest for providing year-round housing. She noted that people break leases all the time. Kalinick stated that a rental registry is a policy decision that would be made on the Select Board level. She thanked the Planning Board for their work on revising the ADU provisions. She noted backlash in the community towards short-term rentals and expressed the need for year-round housing for people that live and work in the community. She suggested the Planning Board speak to members of the community about lease periods. The goal is for the bylaw to pass at Town Meeting. The Planning Board reviewed the timeline for work on the ADU provisions moving forward including the public hearing on proposed amendments on September 13, 2023. 8:50 PM APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES Approval of Meeting Minutes: July 26, 2023. The Board reviewed the July 26, 2023 meeting minutes. Motion by Taylor to Approve July 26, 2023 Meeting Minutes. Second by Wentworth. Roll call vote: Hillis -Dineen -abstained; Wentworth -yes; Michaels -yes; Taylor -yes; Freitas -yes; and Bebrin-yes. Vote: 5-0-1. 8:51 PM FOR YOUR INFORMATION The Planning Board received a public hearing notice from the Harwich Planning Board for Tuesday, August 22, 2023 and a public hearing notice from the Dennis Planning Board for Monday, August 28, 2023. Motion by Wentworth to Adjourn. Second by Michaels. Roll call vote: Freitas -yes; Taylor -yes; Michaels -yes; Wentworth -yes; Hillis -Dineen -yes; and Bebrin-yes. Vote: 6-0-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:52 PM. Next Planning Board Meeting Date: August 23, 2023. sp tfully submitted, Re Lynn St. yr, Senior D artment Assistant, Planning PB Minutes 08/09/23 Page 5 of 5