HomeMy Public PortalAboutPlanning Board -- 2003-08-19 Minutes I IP
i�i/i
ReWS �i�,
00
oro* Brewster Planning Board O
BREWSTER BICENTENNIAL
p `� —9 = 2198 Main Street
r =- . �` Brewster, Massachusetts 02631-1898
N
(508) 896-3701 41p
FAX (508) 896-8089
TOWN OF BREWSTER MINUTES OF PLANNING BOARD
Tuesday, August 19`h, 2003 7:00 P.M.
Brewster Town Office Building
1. Present: Chairman Taylor convened the Planning Board meeting at 7:OOPM in the Brewster Town
Office Building with members Henchy, Pierce, McMullen,Bob Bugle, Linda Bugle and Remy present.
2. CONTINUATION OF A LEGAL HEARING — SPECIAL PERMIT #SP2003-08 CORRIDOR
OVERLAY PROTECTION DISTRICT BYLAW — PUTTER-A-ROUND, INC. - Located at 81
Underpass Road, on Assessors' Map 27,Lot 15-1 —construct a Mini Golf
3. Present: Tim Brady from East Cape Engineering and the applicants Mr. & Mrs. Prete. Mr. Brady gave
the Board a revised plan last dated 7f812003.
4. Brady — Recapping, we were here sometime ago. Since that time, we have gone to the DPRC and have
gotten approval and to the Conservation Commission and at this point have continued the hearing with
them in order to come back and speak with the Planning Board regarding parking. In general, the chief
concern at the last meeting was parking space area. We have enlarged the parking area by 40 feet and
shrank the golf area to eighteen holes to meet this. We now have parking plan with 20 spaces including
the handicap space. The Conservation Commission's concerns are in the buffer zone. The amount of
pervious material existing is 7,000 square feet of concrete. With the new project, there will be 4,500
square feet divided into separate putting areas. In between each hole, vegetation will be planted, as
shown on the planting plan.
5. Brady — Activity is being kept in areas that have been disturbed. All the area that has not, will not be
touched. Except for a small area of the parking lot expansion, parking is to be a pervious stone drive.
This is to be a seasonally used establishment, with about four months of use. We have filed an
application with Board of Appeals in order to actually waive the paving. It is a little confusing in the
Bylaw. The Parking and Loading section of the Zoning Code asks for paving if there are more than 10
spaces. Whereas the Corridor Overlay Protection District asks that paving be minimized wherever
possible. The Conservation Commission is in favor of a pervious parking area. The Planning Board is
also in favor of a pervious area. So this is what we had initially come up with after talking with the
DPRC and with this Board relative to parking, to increase the parking lot as much as possible.
6. Brady - In dealing with the Conservation Commission at their last meeting, they indicated to us that we
are going to be able to work out something with them in order to get this project approved. We are doing
the plantings that were proposed, we are removing the existing pervious surfaces, we are even looking at
planting additional wetland plants in the presently undisturbed areas and if those do not grow, we can
supplement those areas. If there are holes in the present undisturbed areas, then we will go ahead and
include the plantings is those areas. Those are the things we are talking about with the Conservation
Commission.
7. Brady - But what they asked is whether the Planning Board would consider a reduction in the number of
parking spaces to reduce the amount of parking that is in the 100-foot buffer zone. We have made the
parking area as large as we can, as this is what the Planning Board requested. That puts us with a portion
of the parking in the 100-foot buffer zone. That was not there before. This is new parking lot in the 100-
foot buffer zone. The existing parking lot stops down here, before the 100-foot buffer zone line. We are
going to expand it up here. So, the Conservation Commission is trying to obviously reduce the activity
in the buffer zone as much as possible. They would rather see a couple less parking spaces and a little bit
more planting in that area. So what I have done, I have marked in red a scheme that would reduce the
number of parking spaces by two and would reduce the number of parking spaces in the buffer zone by
three.
8. Brady - This is the little triangular area that we are talking about. If we take out these three spaces, we
can gain a space here and just lose two parking spaces. So, this is the little triangular area of buffer zone
that the Conservation Commission is talking about if we take out these three parking spaces and this
turning area. I gain one parking space here, that is a total loss of two parking spaces. That reduces the
area in the buffer zone by about 600 SF.
9. Brady - That was sort of the thing that the Conservation Commission wanted the Planning Board to take
a look at. In the original plan, the one you have, there are 20 parking spaces. In this revision, it would be
18 parking spaces. The other mini-golf courses that we have looked at tend to have around 20, 22 or 24
parking spaces. There isn't really a way in Brewster's code to determine how many spaces there should
be. Just by going to the code. So it's sort of up for grabs. At one time, we thought that there was a rule
of thumb, one space per employee, and there is an apartment in this building. So 20 at one point seems
to be kind of a minimal number that made sense. Whether the Board would consider 18 or not I think is
the question.
10. Brady—Other than that I think that we have covered most all of the things that you were most concerned
about the last time. We have talked with neighbors about shared parking and there is nothing that will
work out at this point in time for that. From a practical point of view, should this parking area ever fill
up that people will just park next door in the video store parking lot and next door to that at the welding
shop. From a practical point of view, if this was ever filled, I think that's where the people would go.
But we are not going to get any kind of agreement from those owners that would say that that is OK.
11. McMullen— I think that is a lot of parking. I just can't imagine that that would get that stacked up, with
a group waiting for each hole. I certainly can see reducing parking. I think the plan is good. You know,
right now that property is an eyesore.
12. Brady- There is one thing I would draw on. On the initial plan that we put in, there were eleven parking
spaces. On the revised plan that I am showing you, there are eighteen. And on the very first plan I
showed you, there were twenty.
13. Henchy—The property as it stands right now is an eyesore. Nevertheless it is there. It has been used as a
miniature golf before. This not going to be a change of use and frankly if you could put that thing back
in order, have it cleaned up and looking nice, it would improve the Town. From the standpoint of the
buffer zone and parking, it is my feeling that these places seem to be popular. I have driven by the one in
Orleans in a couple of times in the evening and people are lined up waiting to play. My son and
daughter-in-law, who are here from Europe, are aficionados of these miniature golf courses and they like
to go out and try them. I have been checking with them to see what their findings are. They were down
in Dennisport a couple of nights ago and there were sixty people lined up, so I think that we are going
the wrong direction if we eliminate parking spaces.
14. Henchy - The complaints that we seem to have from people who have written letters are their concerns
about the crowd coming across the street and parking in those shops across the street and in the lots
across the street. And, Brewster Video does have a lot of parking spaces that slop over and Ray Parks
Welding parking space is never used in the evening, it is wide open. I really believe that we should leave
the parking as is shown on this revised plan with all twenty parking spaces. The parking surface is
pervious, that means that the water is going all the way through. On a good heavy rainstorm, I don't
think you are going to find people out there playing miniature golf or parking there. I don't think we are
doing any serious harm to the water table or to the environment with that. The place exists there, there
are property rights there. I am supportive of the plan and I would like to see it go with the parking spaces
the way it is.
15. Bob Bugle—no comment, Linda Bugle no comment.
16. Taylor to Henchy—did you read the letter from Conservation? Henchy—No. Taylor reads letter.
17. Henchy — Well, but the thing was there before the Conservation Commission was there, you know...
and if the operation of the thing had not been interrupted it would be going forward right now. I think
the Conservation Commission is over-reaching. I think it is more important to get the cars off Underpass
Road and to park on the property rather than on the neighbors property and I frankly feel the
Conservation Commission is over-reaching here and I think there is some very effective grandfathering
going on here and again I would support the project as it is shown on this print.
18. Brady—Yes, I would just like to let you know how things went at the Conservation Commission.
I did let them know that parking was the chief concern of the Planning Board and that was why we had
come up with the design that we had, The parking, even though it is in the buffer zone, is pervious
parking and is sloped away from the wetland area. So runoff from that pervious parking area is going
away towards the street, rather than towards the wetland area. The impression that I got from the
Conservation Commission, and I could be wrong, cause things could change, was that we were going to
be able to work out something with them one way or the other. Whether it be with 20 parking spaces
proposed or with a few less parking spaces. So I don't see that as being a big factor one way or another,
as far as the Conservation Commission.
19. Brady—I think, personally, having looked at the property I would rather keep the 20 spaces and give
them whatever plantings we can elsewhere on the property. But also there is a scheme for eighteen, so I
don't know how else we might address that at this point.
19. Taylor- Well, I was at the meeting with Conservation, and I think that they asked for this additional area
to do mitigation planting, so I have no idea what this will do to their approval or non-approval, if we
leave the parking as it is. So I don't know if you want to wait to see what they are going to do, but I
have some other questions. What are you doing to preclude light spill into the wetland areas?
20. Brady—We are preparing a plan. We talked with them about that. I have a lighting consultant from...the
Reflex Lighting Group who is working on that.
21. Taylor—Do you have a light spill plan? She is going to do throw patterns, etc. ?
22. Brady—She pointed out that "Light Trespass" is the term. We have a table here that talks about the
amount of light for different activities, such as parking areas, mini-golf courses, ticket booths, etc. There
will be some post-mounted lighting, and there will be some bollard mounted pathway lighting. With an
emphasis on keeping it out of the wetland areas, keeping it all on his property, having safe lighting in the
parking lot. So, we are working on that. I talked with her today.
23. Taylor—so that is information that we still need to get. And where are we on screening. Is there a
height on what you are putting in here at all?
24. Brady—I actually took the words right out of the bylaw where it says "provide landscape buffer strips,
medium height evergreen shrubs" in that area in between the parking lot and the street and in the area
between the parking lot and the building next door where there is no vegetation now. All of the rest of
the property, there is a line shown that is called the "existing developed area".
25. Taylor—Is that the area where you will be adding vegetation?
26. Brady—That is already vegetated. That is where we are going to add some if it is determined that it is
appropriate to add any more. It's pretty heavily vegetated all around the outside of the property, other
than from the existing building out to the street and we have shown buffer zone planting to go in there as
required by the by-law.
27. Brady—Hours of operation we are anticipating something like 11:00 in the morning to 10:00 at night.
Seven days a week, seasonal, somewhere around the order of four months.
28. Brady—We don't anticipate a dumpster, because inside there will be plenty of room for that. If there
needs to be individual trash receptacles throughout the golf course, there will be a couple. Typically that
is not a problem. There is no food going to be served here other than vending machines. Packaged
foods. There is nothing prepared or served here.
29. McMullen and Henchy agree that as the property sits now it is a great improvement over what it is, I
cannot believe that it will fill with cars in a consistent basis. this is an attractive addition to arnviaunce of
the Town. It worth while doing harmless type of entertainment and I really think we should support this.
30. Taylor to Pierce—I know you can't vote on this but do you have comments? Pierce—I agree with
McMullen and Henchy , it's a great addition to the Town and improve the looks of that location.
31. Brady—no structures the existing building will have a water wheel added to it. No other structures give
it the Old Mill look. No High structures, there will be some bridges and walkways with water fountains
that spray up to 4ft or 5ft high, nothing fancy, no thunderfalls, no clowns heads, windmills or skulls.
Very low key may have large rocks added.
32. Brady - one procedural question the Zoning bylaw says that that 4 votes are needed for a special permit.
33. Henchy—on a 7 member Board 5 votes are needed, as per our Town Counsel regarding the state statute.
34. Henchy Motion approve this plan,with 18 or 20 parking lots, subject to the final determination of the
Conservation Commission on the final number of parking lots and applicant must also submit a lighting
plan for approval. McMullen Second Roll call
McMullen—Aye
Henchy—Aye
Bob Bugle—NO
Linda Bugle—NO
Taylor—Aye
35. At this point Brady rises and asks that the findings tell why it was denied. Henchy—for the record, Bob
bugle to explain why he denied this?
36. Bob Bugle—Still believe it's a new use of the property which is what I had stated in the beginning and
have not changed my opinion.
37. McMullen—I think that before a vote all the members should express why they are going to do one
thing or another.
38. Linda Bugle- I also think it's a new use, and I'm not in agreement that 20 parking spots is enough and
where will we get them on the property once its built.
39. Taylor—I had a long talk with David Thyng today about the use. I questioned that it had not been a use
there for some years, he said that it is still the same use.
40. Legal Hearing to discuss the following proposed Zoning By-law changes for the Annual Town Meeting scheduled for
November 17,2003.
AMENDMENT TO ZONING BYLAW
ARTICLE 6: To see if the Town will vote to amend the Code of the Town of Brewster, Chapter 179,
also known as the Zoning Bylaws, by deletiniz the following section 179-35.1, from the Code of the
Town of Brewster:
179-35.1. Flexible development.
At the owner's option, any parcel may be divided into not more than six (6) lots, whether a
subdivision or not, and built upon under the following alternative area and frontage
requirements.
A. Number of lots.
(1) The total number of building lots created from any parcel shall be no larger than the
number which reasonably could be expected to be built upon in consideration of how
much of the land is actually buildable, and in compliance with Table 2 of - 179-16 and
all other applicable zoning, subdivision and health requirements.
(2) That number shall be determined at the applicant's option either by a registered land
surveyor's certification of the number obtained by dividing eighty percent (80%) of lot
area (see definition) by the lot area required for a single-family dwelling at - 179-6; or by
the Planning Board, based upon review of a sketch conventional plan submitted by the
applicant showing division in compliance with - 179-16.
B. Frontage. The average frontage for all building lots created shall be no smaller than the minimum
required under Table 2 of - 179-16, but individual lots may have frontage of as little as two-
thirds (2/3) that requirement.
C. Lot area. The area of individual lots may be as little as one half (1/2) that required under Table 2
of - 179-16.
D. Open space. At least twenty percent (20%) of the lot area of the premises being divided shall be
in continuous parcels restricted from building through limitations established on the plan.
E. Endorsement. The plan creating the lots shall be endorsed by the Planning Board as approved for
flexible development.
F. Limitation. No further increase in the number of lots shall be allowed through subsequent land
division or to take any other action relative thereto.
41. Mr. Soule presented the board with a letter asking that the Board not approve this change and the reasons
for it. The Board voted all in favor of withdrawing this amendment for November Town Meeting.
42. LEGAL HEARING — DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION PLAN #DEF2003-18- Doeg, Robert - Located off
Buggy Whip Road on Assessors' Map 21, Lot 82-1. - Proposed 6 lot subdivision.
43. At the request of the applicant the opening of the hearing for DEF2003-18 was continued to September
2, 2003 at 7:15 PM. All voted in favor.
44. CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF AN APPROVAL GRANTED
UNDER SPECIAL PERMIT PROCEDURE, TO ALLOW THE PLANNING BOARD TO
AUTHORIZE THE USE OF THE EDDY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FOR SAFETY REASONS
WITHOUT A PUBLIC HEARING. TO USE THE EDDY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, FOR
ACTIVITIES RELATED TO TOWN SPONSORED FUNCTIONS THAT COULD BE NORMALLY HELD AT
STONY BROOK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL,AND CANNOT DURING THE TIME OF REPAIR WORK AT THE
STONY BROOK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL,FOR PROPERTY OWNED BY THE TOWN OF BREWSTER AND
REQUESTED BY THE TOWN OF BREWSTER,LOCATED AT 2298 MAIN STREET IN BREWSTER ON
ASSESSORS MAP 16,LOT 80.
45. Chairman Taylor read the legal advertisement and announced that the applicant and any aggrieved party
had a right to appeal.
46. Prior to the hearing the Board had requested written comments concerning the application from the Board
of Health, the Department of Public Works, Water Department, the Police and Fire Departments, the
Conservation Commission and the Building Commissioner and the comments were on file at the time of the
hearing.There were no letters,pro or con, read at the hearing. Abutters were present.
47. Sitting on the Planning Board and present at the hearing were members Taylor, Pierce, Henchy, Remy and
McMullen. Linda and Bob Bugle withdrew from the hearing because they are direct abutters of the Eddy
School. Chairman Taylor opened the hearing at 8:OOPM by reading the legal advertisement and making the
applicant and parties in interest aware of their rights to appeal as required under Chapter 40A, Section 17.
She stated that during the hearing any member of the Board or interested party may direct questions through
the Chairman.
48. The Town of Brewster is asking that the Planning Board allow the alternative use of the Eddy School for
Town of Brewster sponsored functions when the Stony Brook School is not available because of safety
reasons. Currently the Board needs to hold a public hearing to request use of the school, this is time
consuming and costly.
49. The Board members agreed that this is a good idea. They stipulated that all requests be in writing and
include an endorsement from the Building Department and one of the following; Town Administrator,
Police Department or Fire Department. Upon review of the requests, the Board may suggest safety
measures to deal with potential traffic issues, such as having patrolmen detailed to direct traffic or any
other safety measures that the Board may deem necessary.
50. The Board assured all present that this Modification of the Special Permit will only occur when the
Stony Brook School cannot be used because of safety concerns and only for Town sponsored functions.
Other requests will need to go through the public hearing process at their expense.
51. Diane Cooney, Board of Selectmen requested the use of the Eddy School for the Town of Brewster
sponsored Bicentennial picnic in case of rain. The picnic is scheduled to be held at the Drummer Boy
Museum Park. The Bicentennial Committee had requested the use of the Stony Brook School and
permission had been granted, overlooking the fact that the school would be under repair and it would not
be possible to hold it there.
52. The Board granted permission to allow the Town of Brewster sponsored Bicentennial picnic to be held
at the Eddy School in case of rain.
53. The Following are comments from other departments:
B.O.H.- 08/6/2003 OKAY.
BUILDING - YOUR MEMO DATED AUGUST 1, 2003 REQUESTED INPUT FROM THIS OFFICE
REGARDING THE ABOVE. IT IS MY OPINION THAT THIS PROVISION SHOULD HAVE
BEEN LISTED IN THE ORIGINAL PERMIT. IT MAKES ONLY SENSE THAT THE EDDY
SCHOOL BE USED FOR TOWN SPONSORED FUNCTIONS IT THE STONY BROOK
SCHOOL PRESENTS AN UNSAFE LOCATION. I THEREFORE AM IN FAVOR OF THE
MODIFICATION.
I ADDITIONALLY FEEL THE BUGLES SHOULD ABSTAIN FROM VOTING ON THIS
MATTER AS MEMBERS OF THE BREWSTER PLANNING BOARD. I DO HOWEVER,
FEEL THAT THEY ARE ENTITLED TO GIVE PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
211
WATER - NO COMMENTS FROM THE WATER DEPARTMENT OTHERTHAN SUPPORT THE
REQUEST.
FIRE - OK BY ME! THE WHOLE RULE IS CRAZY AND UNNECESSARY IT WAS A CHEAP
SHOT DO AWAY WITH THE RULE PERIOD.
54. After the Board heard all the evidence presented, the Brewster Planning Board voted that the Decision
granted on May 23`d, 1995 is hereby modified to allow the Planning Board to consider use of the Eddy
School as an alternative site for Town of Brewster sponsored functions when the Stony Brook School is
not available due to safety reasons. All requests must be in writing with an endorsement from the
Building Department and one of the following; Town Administrator, Police Department or Fire
Department. Upon review of the requests the Board may suggest safety measures to deal with potential
traffic issues, such as having patrolmen detailed to direct traffic or any other safety measures that the
Board may deem necessary. Below is the vote of the individual members of the Planning Board on the
Application for a Modification of the Special Permit #6501 with a date of May 23`d, 1995: Present and
voting:
Elizabeth G. Taylor Aye William C. Henchy Aye
Marjorie Pierce Aye John McMullen Aye
Jane Remy Aye
55. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF A PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAN # PRE2003-10 —
MATTHEWS—Located off Ruddy Duck Road on Assessors' Map 45,Lots 41 & 58-1 (sub. lot#5).
56. The applicant requested a continuance, the Board voted all in favor, to continue hearing until October
21, 2003 at 7:OOPM.
57. Meeting Adjourned
Sincerely
Marjorie Pierce