Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutPlanning Board -- 2006-04-18 Minutes\\\~~~~~~~~aE W S~;oii~`,~ii O~ o ~ •a~~^'Q ~=~e ~~~ r ~ s~ ~ `o ,N ~' :~'~- =rte .~ - ~~ _~. ///~~~~ .~ Eg P OAS boy ~~\\\\ ////// // /III 117 I l l l l l 11 l 1 l l l 1\\\\\\\\\\ Date Approved: January 24, 2007 Vote: 5-0-0 ~•-~ Brewster Planning Board O 2198 Main Street Brewster, Massachusetts 02631- B>I~WST>Ex BICENTENNIAL 1898 ~ (508) 896-3701 p w TOWN OF BREWSTER MINUTES OF PLANNING BOARD Tuesday, April 18, 2006 7:00 P.M. Brewster Town Office Building Chairman Henchy convened the Planning Board meeting at 7:OOPM in the Brewster Town Office Building Present: Henchy, Taylor, Tubman, Remy, Pierce, Bugle and McMullen. Informal discussion - Mr. Harrigan -Proposed bylaw change for home occupation. Harrigan -Our purpose tonight is to see if we can change the Bylaw to allow us to have a shed on our property to display the woodworking items that we build at home in a separate building, other than in our shop. A small garden shed type thing on the property to display it and have people come in and buy out of there. We would like to see an article for this on the Warrant for Town Meeting this Fall. Henchy -You said in your letter that you would like to have the Bylaw changed to permit the use of accessory buildings as defined in the bylaws, not to exceed 200 SF. That would be a 10x20 building. All the provisions of the Bylaw would remain the same except for the section that would add the following language on accessory buildings as allowed under 179-37 C Section C. The proposed change to Section C would read as follows: "not more than 40% of the existing net floor area of the principle building, not to exceed 400 SF, or in an approved accessory building, not to exceed 200SF, devoted to such use." This change would give the home owner the option of using their principle building for the 40% or the 400 SF limitation or the accessory building with its 200 SF limitation. Alternatively, under Section C you could use "and/or" language which would permit the home owner to use up to 400 SF of the principle residence in addition to the 200 SF of the accessory for a total of 600 SF. Or the net floor area could be limited to 400 SF total, with it being split 200/200 SF. Henchy -Members of the Board have any feeling about this one? Bugle - A couple things, I don't think we should expand the 400 SF max for home occupation, but it should be extended so that you could have a max of 400 SF total, inside the house and/or with an accessory building. I don't think we need to expand that to 600 SF. And the other thing is that I think in the case of this particular article I don't think the intention was for it to be in a shed type situation, a metal shed or some sort of inexpensive structure. I think the intent of the home occupation as I see it was to be accomplished in the existing residential structure, and not necessarily in something erected for that purpose. Taylor - I'm a little leery with new buildings being put up that are this large, because think that we would have more apartments popping up without permits; which is a problem that you run into when you have accessory structures. I Planning Board Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 10 Aprif 18, 2006 have no problem with number 3, limiting it to 400 SF total, but I think it would be nice if they were not all in little metal buildings. But, you also have to think about lot size. Because someone who has 5-8 acres has a lot more space if they want to put up a larger building. Henchy- If this Bylaw was put through in a general way, it would also allow for some of these tin sheds to go up. McMullen - I think there could be parking issues. Pierce - I think 10x20 is too small an apartment, so I am not worried about that... but I don't think there is any big reason not to allow it. We should put some language that the accessory building should fit in with the aesthetics of the main building, the neighborhood. Otherwise I don't see why we shouldn't do it, but I would limit it to 400SF total. Henchy -Home occupation is a big concession in a residential area. When you talk about a residential area, you talk about a place where people put their homes, they are going to raise their families, and most of the children in the Town are in residential areas. The idea of home occupation was to make a concession to people who were able to do things with economic value within the confines of their house, without changing the character of the neighborhood. If you start increasing the size of the floor space which is being used, whether it is in the main building or in an accessory building, you are starting to shift the residential neighborhood into a light manufacturing neighborhood. In your case you are talking about putting what is essentially a retail shop into the shed, so you can show off the products you are making and people can come in and buy them. That's getting beyond the definition of a residential neighborhood. One reason we stuck over the years to this 400 SF is to keep home occupations essentially small. I personally don't think that this is a good idea. I've got one of these small garden sheds planted in the next yard to me and it's in their yard and they meet the setback, but it is in a pretty awkward space and it sort of destroys the general appearance of my front yard. And these sheds have popped up all over the neighborhood and frankly, they don't add at all to the appearance of the neighborhood. If you start putting these things up, maybe some people will put up a shed like yourself, like you propose, and put in a little shop. And, someone else is going to do the same thing, and then he is going to want another shed for his garden tools. I think that gets away from the desire of the Town. One of the limitations on home occupation is the cap - no more than four off premise employees can be there. The idea of that is to discourage the amount of automobile traffic that comes in and parks in front of one of these home occupations. If you have an accessory shop out back, and people are going to come in and look at the articles, the presumption is that you are going to advertise to attract the public to come to your place and I think that starts to tear down the character of the residential neighborhoods. That's my personal opinion. I would like to hear from the audience. Harrigan -Under the home occupancy - it allows us to have a home occupancy business in our home of the same square footage. So all of the problems that you are seeing, as far as traffic, of people coming in and going out are going to be part of that. Henchy - If you start putting a little shop up in back, you start moving from a residential area to a light shopping area and that kind of a change starts to drift and it never drifts back the other way. My own personal feeling is that I would not favor such a change. And I really am interested to see what the public feels about this. Abutter: You should look at the wood shop right behind the Newport Shutter Company. He has two little small garden sheds which are Cape Cod style; they are salt-box style. They are wood, in my opinion they are very attractive. He does wood carvings. I have bought some, they are of high quality. He carves them there, he paints them there. It is small; there is not a whole lot of traffic going in and out. He sells most things to out-of-state visitors. Henchy -Does he do these things in the principle building on the lot, or does he do it in the shed? Abutter- He has two small sheds, one is for display and one is for manufacturing. I don't know the dimensions of these sheds, but they are very, very small. Planning Board Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 10 April 18, 2006 2 Henchy -That's all fine, but technically he is in violation of the Bylaw because the use is not being carried on within the building- the building on the premises, meaning the principle building. He has skidded by so far and we are not going to do any ringing of the bell on him or anything like that. Abutter- There are a lot of such buildings, with home craft shops, etc. They fit in to the rural character of the Cape, I think Yankee crafters have been on Cape Cod since it was first settled. Henchy - We have three or four situations in Town, I won't tell you where they are, but there are people who start off with a little landscaping business and now they have a fairly big landscaping business with a lot of big machinery stored outside and that's not consistent with a residential area. I know the Building Inspector is working on two or three of them right now to try and resolve those issues because the whole purpose of a Zoning Bylaw is to regulate land use. And what we are trying to do here in a residential area is provide a nice comfortable quiet safe environment for people to bring up their families and if we make a change of this nature, I think you will see a big shift over the years in what residential neighborhoods look like. I sense that several members of the Board feel the same way. Taylor - I'd like to hear from other members of the Board, but I also want to tell Mr. Harrigan that whatever we like or dislike about this does not prevent him from bringing this as a citizen's petition to the Town and this is something for the townspeople to decide. Harrigan - We were just looking for the Planning Board's endorsement of the idea. Taylor -Well, whether you have gotten our endorsement or not, it does not prevent you as a citizen from taking this to Town Meeting. Henchy -It's easier to do that at Spring Town Meeting, since you only need 10 signatures. Bugle - I think a lot of the confusion about home occupation situation probably stemmed from the switch in our Building Commissioner. The prior commissioner, David Thyng, used to allow home occupations within outside structures. He did not see the difference since the Home Occupation was limited to just one principle structure. Now we have had a change, with the current Building Commissioner, who is going right with the letter of the law. Now the original Zoning Bylaws that we have that cover Home Occupation, I have always felt that they pretty much were designed for Route 6A. When these were written, the Town was just not developed that much. We are seeing a lot more of people who are trying to open up some sort of business on the more residential roads, even though they are zoned RM. These Bylaws don't work anymore -and that can lead to that kind of situation. But we are kind of stuck because you have a limitation on what you can use out buildings for on 6A. Now we have this proliferation, which in the greater scheme of things was originally what was intended and now we have residences in RM zones that are trying to do the same thing and are running into problems. It may be time to separate 6A out as a separate area so that the Bylaw actually do work. Henchy -One of my neighbors runs a graphic design business and she has a computer in her bedroom And her customers come in over her telephone line and work output goes out over her telephone line. And you would never know it was there. Harrigan -Where we are in Brewster, it is either a RR or RL Zone. With the proposed change in the language -this would affect different zoning areas in Town. Henchy -How big is your lot? Harrigan - 43,000 SF. I'm on Freeman's Way. Taylor- It might make sense if we plan to look into this seriously, to create different allowances for different areas of Town and do it with overlay districts. Henchy -With different zoning areas, then you could factor in something different for larger lots. These are all things we could look at. We'd be glad to. Planning Board Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 10 April 18, 2006 3 CONTINUE- LEGAL HEARING -SPECIAL PERMIT #COPD2006-05 -CORRIDOR OVERLAY PROTECTION DISTRICT BYLAW -Backus -Located at 2342 Main Street - on Assessors' Map 16, Lot 83 - Change use of existing home to a Spa (massages and body-wraps). Sitting on the Planning Board and present at the opening hearing were members Henchy, Pierce, Tubman, Bugle, and Remy Present for the Applicant: Steve and Kate Backus Taylor and McMullen were not present for the initial hearing. However, the Applicant agreed to have them sit, since he had not made a full presentation at the last meeting. Backus- What we are requesting is a Special Permit for a massage establishment sometimes referred to as a spa or day spa. The spa industry is booming. My wife has a national license, which is very hard to get. We think it would be nice for Brewster to have a good spa in Town. Now, people go to Orleans or Chatham for massages. We are seeking to open an E-SPA, providing each client with an exceptional spa experience with select spa therapies. E- spa will offer massage, facials and body wraps. Clients will enter to the reception area and check in, appointments a 1 to 1.5 hours. There is a small steam room where some clients may opt for a relaxing steam before their massage or facial or body wrap. Those who choose the steam room can store their cloths in a locker and wear their bathing suit in the steam room. The steam room use will only be by clients that have booked other services for the same time. Outside the steam room is a small relaxation area with chairs and the client can relax in a soft robe while waiting for their appointment. There are to be four treatment rooms (floor plans exhibit C), one for facials, two for massage/body wraps and one room for massage with gas fireplace and relaxing tub bath. Henchy - (Reading from the application) The proposed use is consistent with the Town of Brewster's Comprehensive Plan. The project is located in the local business zone and is of the type and character and size that will be in harmony with the visual character of the neighborhood. There is no question that you have made a big improvement in the appearance of that building. The site is suitable for the proposed use. There is adequate access for Fire, Police and Emergency equipment. The front is open with two wide exits/entries. Route 6A had adequate design capacity. Traffic will be less than the previous use. Let's talk about the present traffic you have with the Bartending School. Backus -They didn't have anything going on with the Bartending School. What I noticed the few times that I visited the property was over the course of a half-hour time, was that 6-7 cars were pulling in looking at it. She called it antiques; I tend to call it junk. It was used. There were a lot of people in and out, but she did very well. A lot of people in and out spending 10-20 dollars. Henchy - (Reading from Applicant's application) The use has incorporated trip reductions measures: owners will walk to work and an employee sitting area has a refrigerator, table and chairs to encourage employees to lunch on the premises. Parking is adequate. The site will be suitably landscaped. A Landscape Plan has been submitted, showing that existing vegetation along the East lot line will be supplemented with a buffer strip of evergreen shrubs in a bed of bark mulch. The Western lot line has adequate vegetation. The fence will be repaired and will be enhanced by roses and daffodils. The existing paved parking area will be replaced with gravel to help protect the wetland in the rear. The site has a new septic system. Taylor -Have you been to Cons Com yet? Backus - I have met with Keith Johnson .We did not want to do anything that would involve Cons. Com. Keith reviewed my landscaping plan, changed a number of the plant species and their locations and moved parking out of the buffer area. He also suggested additional planting on the Western lot line; as long as they came from the list he gave me. He was happy to see the removal of the pavement and replacement with gravel for the drive and parking area. Taylor -Will you be doing anything along the back area, by the wetland? Planning Board Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 10 April 18, 2006 4 Backus -Yes, we will be adding vegetation and it will no longer be mowed. Taylor -That will be a super improvement to the wetland. Will there be lights in the back? I am also curious about parking and traffic. Will there be an entrance and an exit? Backus -There will be a required light at the back door of the building. It will not be bright. The existing parking is in the front and the proposed parking is to be in the front also. Due to the property being surrounded by wetlands in the back, we cannot put parking there. The sign will have in-ground lights for direct illumination of the sign only. One entrance will be marked "Entrance" and one marked "Exit". Henchy - (Continued to read the applicant's narrative) Parking will remain in the front, due to the constraints presented by wetlands in the rear of the building. They will not add any spaces. What will you be doing with the barn? Take it down or repair it? Backus -Nothing right now, but what I have done is replace the roof, which is the most important thing to do first to try and save it. There is a lot of work to be done there. Sometime in the future, I may want to use it. We can't use it now based on the parking. It was built in 1790 -Maybe it should be moved over to the Drummer Boy Museum -but the Town has never recognized it as an historic structure. For now, we will just wait. Henchy - (Continuing to read application) There will be an on site bike rack. Slight slopes gradually lead to the rear. There is a tremendous amount of existing vegetation. There are no plans to remove any vegetation. There will be no changes which will decrease the ability of the native soil to absorb rainfall. All lighting will be directed downward. The sign, located in the front buffer strip, will be illuminated by two external lights in the ground, hidden by low lying plantings so as not to be visible from the roadway. We have a "Typical Day at The Spa": 8:30 the Owner arrives, etc., reviews "List of Services". The only glitch I see is the parking out in front, but there is no way to get around that with the wetlands in the back. We will have to do a waiver for that. Tubman -Did we have comments from other boards? Henchy -Police,-OK, HDC, OK, BOH -septic has been upgraded. Pierce - I think you should have two signs at each drive so you can see from east and from the west. Taylor -Which would be the entrance and which should be the exit? Discussion of which should be exit and which should be entrance. McMullen -You should have the entrance at the eastern end and the exit at the western end. I think that this is a great addition to the Town and that we should approve this without any more discussion. Abutter Bud Noyes expressed that he was all for it. MOTION to Close to Public Input MOTION by Taylor, SECOND by Pierce All voted "AYE" MOTION TO APPROVE Special Permit with Waiver for Parking due to the Hardship of the Lot MOVED by McMullen, SECOND by Taylor Roll Call Vote. All voted "AYE". Planning Board Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 10 April 18, 2006 $ LEGAL HEARING -SPECIAL PERMIT #COPD2006-07 -CORRIDOR OVERLAY PROTECTION DISTRICT BYLAW -Upstairs at Brewster SweetslBurgess- Located at 1069 Route 6A Main Street, - on Assessors' Map 19, Lot 52-2 - Extending Use to Include Lounge on Second Floor. Sitting on the hearing were members: Henchy, McMullen, Taylor, Bugle, Pierce, Tubman and Remy. Chairman Henchy opened the hearing on April 18, 2006 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. He stated that during the hearing any member of the Board or interested party could direct questions through the Chairman to a speaker relating to the proposal. Burgess - It is really not a lounge, but no one has quite figured out what they want to call it Henchy - We have a letter here from Victor Staley: "The newly proposed project at Lemon Tree called 'Upstairs at Brewster Sweets', has recently come to my attention. Although my office has not seen any floor plans I am writing you to briefly explain some of the zoning issues of concern. It is my determination, that in order to serve liquor to be consumed on the premises, the Brewster Zoning Bylaw Article IV Table 1, Retail and Service, requires a Special Permit from the Board of Appeals. Now I do not know the size of the space, but if it is under 500 SF, it would go to the Board of Appeals. Over 500 SF you would need to obtain a Special Permit from the Planning Board according to Section 66 B-1 in the Corridor Overlay. And according to the Brewster Zoning Bylaws it would also be necessary for you apply to the Development Plan Review Committee. Hopefully this will give you some direction with your project. I have been out of the office, but do plan to return on March 1s1. Victor Staley, Building Commissioner Burgess -With outside seating, it will be over 500 SF. I have not been to the Development Plan Review Committee yet, but I have spent some time with Bob Perry and he sent a letter to the BOH about the Septic Inspection, which he performed. He wrote about how many seats that would allow us to have. I am not sure if we have actually been to the Health Department yet. Henchy -There is also a problem with the parking down there. Burgess -Well, we are not going to open until 4:30. There is a restaurant in the complex that goes until 4 or 4:30. The other shops close at 5. We lease the downstairs now, the Brewster Sweets. And now we are going to lease the upstairs. The whole complex is the Lemon Tree Village. Henchy -There has been a lot of parking on the grass and the parking isn't conforming. And I think that before we get to the end of this, that issue is going to have to be discussed. There needs to be some real work done on how the parking is going to be handled down there in the future. Burgess - Obviously, I can't control that, but we aren't even going to open upstairs until the other shops have closed. So relative to the issue of parking in the complex, where we just lease space, the good news on this particular use is that we open after everyone else closes. Henchy - It won't exacerbate the problem, but there is a problem there. And I think it's time that we dealt with it with somebody. Bugle -Should we actually be doing this with him? Shouldn't the property owner who actually owns the property be here? Henchy - We are going to have to get the property owner in here. But, you have not yet been to the Development Plan Review Committee. Planning Board Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 10 April 18, 2006 6 Burgess - I thought this was the next step. Henchy - We would really very much prefer that you go to the Development Plan Review Committee before you continue with the Planning Board. And, that you deal with all of the questions that you get from the different department heads. Burgess - We have already been to all of the departments and the Fire and Police. They have done their inspections too. The way I understand it, those things have all been done. I plan to open in June. This used to be the Skin Apothecary. Henchy - I think this Board is sensitive to the fact that you want to get started before the tourist season starts and we don't want to hold you up unnecessarily. We would like you to schedule yourself at the very first meeting of the Development Plan Review Committee and we will reschedule you for the 17th Pierce -Would it be possible to get the written statement from the departments and let it go at that. Taylor -What happens in the summer when the other businesses are open late? Burgess - A few of them stay open until 6. But I am the only one who is open late. They tried to be open late, but no one wants to be open after 5 PM. An abutter on Paines'Creek Road -I have a lot of questions. This curve is one of the more dangerous curves on Route 6A, is the intersection of Route 6A and Paines Creek Road. So I have an immediate concern with additional traffic, alcohol, the lights and lighting, noise, truck deliveries and restrooms. When I hear about outside seating, I am very concerned -that is a change. It is a different approach and use. The building has a very small space upstairs, outside seating makes it somewhat different. And I guess I am concerned as someone who lives very close to the slippery slope in terms of what happened at Luke's with Dunkin' Donuts. We were told that Lemon Tree Village was building a building that was going to be very small and if you look at the table top shop, it is a huge two-story building. I'm concerned - is this the beginning? Are we opening a door to more and more use of that property for parking or nighttime use? It is already lit all night long and it is very well lit. It is already distracting if you live in the area. So, I am concerned to hear -let's rush this through. Because it is a financial hardship -when in fact for people in the area -this is the first notice that we have gotten from the Planning Board to come in here and hear anything about this. And I am very concerned that it will be rushed through and we will not have a chance to comment further. Please take this into consideration as you talk about pushing something through. It is yet another alcohol permit in Brewster and that is a concern also. A moment ago you said that "our job is to create quiet comfortable safe environment". And while I know it is zoned commercially, there are residential homes in the area - it doesn't necessarily create a quiet safe environment. And the other is the bathroom - as I understand it. Unless they are gong to have a bathroom up there -patrons are going to have to come down the stairs and go into the bathroom on the first floor. There are only two bathrooms in the Village. Henchy -The whole purpose of the hearing is to discuss all of those issues and see if there are problems -what we can do to ameliorate the problems. Burgess -The proposal is for an Italian Pastry Shop that serves pastries, coffee, wine, beer, cordials and gelato. You don't stay there for the evening, like you might do in a restaurant. There will be two employees. Orders will be taken at the counter and brought to the tables. Hours will be 4:30-9:30PM; this will be the time when most of the area shops are closing. Henchy -The area is zoned Village Business which means light retail. If people have property in the Village Business Zone, they are entitled to use it for the other uses that are allowed in the zone. But again, with consideration for the neighborhood. We want to give this a full discussion, a full hearing and we want everyone who has a concern to be here and to speak up. Marsha Clark - We also have another business -the Restaurant/Cafb at the other end of the complex. I have a problem as to what Mr. Burgess would like to do. We are kind of in the dark as far as what he is going to do. My question is what is he doing? We don't close at 4:30 in the summer -but that is not a problem. The problem is, what is he going to do? Is he going to bus his tables? Is he going to have a bar, serve food? How are people going to get up and down? Are they going Planning Board Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 10 April 18, 2006 ~ to climb the stairs? If he does serve alcohol, the truck bringing in the alcohol. -when will this be? What size truck will it be? Burgess - We will be doing beer, wine and cordials. Alcohol deliveries will be made by Fed-Ex truck. The deliveries are coming from a very good friend of mine who has a wine company. Effectively he sells wine by mail. He uses Fed-Ex. We will get our wine, beer and cordials from that location. It is a good thing for me because it allows me a scope of wine and beers that I would not otherwise have access too. Abutter - Hours, I thought you people were going to stay open two or three nights in the summer until 8 PM. Burgess -That is possible, that there might be two nights. Last year they had that agreement, but nobody stayed open but me. So I will believe it when I see it. The number of tables is based on the septic system. The maximum seating total is 21; there will be seating outside and inside, maybe 6 tables total. Restrooms are downstairs. Abutter -Will there be outside seating? That will create a lot of noise in the area. Burgess - I can only get about two tables up there on the deck. McMullen -How about handicap access? Burgess -There is a small elevator that we will have access to. The restroom is also handicapped. Taylor- I have a real problem with the fact that we are short circuiting the process that we make everyone else go through, which is DPRC. That is cutting off all sorts of input. Getting it from notes from the different departments isn't the same as having it vetted by DPRC at the meeting with everyone there. We can't require one person to go and then tell the next person -well, since you are in a time crunch you don't have to go. We are supposed to be consistent and treat everyone in front of us the same way -and if we change from that we are doing a disservice to the people we represent. McMullen- I agree with Elizabeth this time. Burgess - I have no problem with that, but the reason that I did not do that was by direction. Henchy -There is a conflict here - we on the Board are sensitive to the nature of the season- but at the same time Elizabeth and John are right. We have insisted that other people see the Development Plan Review Committee and we will make sure that you'll get on the very first meeting and we will try to make sure that meeting happens quickly. Bugle - I think it is pretty bad that we have not had a DPRC meeting with the number of applicants that are sitting waiting. Don't we have four? Why is there a backlog? McMullen -They just had a meeting two weeks ago. Taylor -Why isn't it made very clear to people that they have to go to DPRC, so we don't' have to keep sending people back to go to DPRC -when they should have gone there first? What is the problem here? McMullen- I agree this has to be postponed so he can go to DPRC and then can come back here for the 17cn Henchy -Generally everyone starts with the Development Plan Review Committee. The advice you get from Shari and what not generally always says start with the Development Plan Review Committee. We really do want you to get full input from that Committee before we start the Special Permit, because there is so much involved. The Corridor Overlay is primarily designed to protect and preserve the Route 6A and the streets that feed into and out of it. So we w2nt to do that right. The Board requested the following: DPRC review, Menu, Hours of Operation, Number of Employees, Seating, other Businesses' Hours and Dept. Head Comments. MOTION to Continue to May 17, 2006 at 7:45PM MOVED by McMullen, SECOND by Tubman Planning Board Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 10 April 18, 2006 g All voted "AYE". APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED ANR2006-08- KASER -LOCATED AT MASSASOIT TRAIL ON ASSESSORS MAP 40, LOT 44-1 -divide lot and convey to abutting properties. Present for the Applicant: Phil Scholomitti Scholomitti - I am here tonight with a two lot division, an Approval Not Required. This is for Gary, Karen and William Kaser. It is a two lot division. We have lots 1-A and 1-B. It is Zoned RR. It complies with Zoning. It is on the north side of Massasoit Trail. The lots are rather large. Lot 1-A is 3.41 acres with no frontage on any road and Lot 1-B is 2.79 acres and fronts on Massasoit Trail. The two Kaser bothers along with Gary's wife, Karen, are abutters to the east. They purchased this whole parcel in 2003. And it was sold to them by one deed and it was sold to them in different portions. The deed described it as divided into interests, 55%to William Kaser and the remaining 45% intrust was sold to Gary and Karen Kaser. The reason for this plan is to divide it into those interests so it can be conveyed to the parties. It is basically housekeeping. I-A goes to William Kaser and 1-B goes to the abutters to the south -Gary and Karen Kaser. There is a note on the Plan - "No determination of compliance with zoning requirements has been made." MOTION to Endorse ANR MOVED by Pierce, SECOND By Taylor All Voted "AYE". APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED ANR2006-09 - BREWSTER ORLEANS PROPERTIES -LOCATED OFF MAIN STREET ON ASSESSORS MAP 30, LOTS 30-006 & 3007 -divide to allow a panhandle lot. Present for the Applicant: Phil Scholomitti, Engineer Scholomitti: Applicant wishes to withdraw this application. MOTION to Accept Withdrawal MOVED by Taylor, SECOND by Bugle All Votes "AYE" CONTINUED LEGAL HEARING -SPECIAL PERMIT #COPD2006-05 -CORRIDOR OVERLAY PROTECTION DISTRICT BYLAW -Allard -Located off Millstone Road - on Assessors' Map 42, Lot 14-102 - Commercial Office Building with 3 garage bays and apartment above. Sitting on the hearing were members: Henchy, McMullen, Taylor, Bugle, Pierce, Tubman and Remy. Present: Steve Allard and Amanda Allard Henchy - We need to see you after you have appeared before DPRC. Allard - We spoke with Victor and he has scheduled us for the next DPRC meeting. Motion to Continue to May 17, 2006 at 7:05PM due to the scheduling of the DPRC meeting. MOVED -Taylor, SECOND Bugle All voted "AYE". Discussion of changing Planning Board meeting nights to Wednesdavs instead of Tuesdays Schedule the next meetings 2nd and 4th Wednesdavs, May 3rd and May 17th 2006. Planning Board will now start meeting on Wednesdavs. Planning Board Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 10 April 18, 2006 9 Informal Discussion -McGinnis -regarding Special Permit for Bay Side Seafood and the proposed sale of retail Malt and Wine. Henchy - Applicant requested postponement due to the fact that their attorney could not be present. MOTION to continue to May 17, 2006 at 7:30 MOVED by Pierce SECOND by Taylor All "AYE. Meeting Adjourned at 9:15 Respectfully submitted, ,. r ~ ~ Marjori Pierce/Clerk o r-~ z N rn 0 b ~o Planning Board Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 10 April 18, 2006 10