Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutPlanning Board -- 2006-05-17 Minutes~~~\\~~`~\\\uu1~u ~ u ~ ~ u u rrrirurii~ ~ ~aE WSrF'~''°% 2 a.e ~ ; 2 N~~ 3 m V 9r ////~/~ ~FFC RPOAAZ~g ~ ~~\\\~ ~~///i~r r i i r u t i- r ~ i i i~ n~ ti~ u u~~~~ ~~~o\~ Date Approved: January 24, 2007 Vote: 5-0-0 Brewster Planning Board ~ 2198 Main Street w0 Brewster, Massachusetts 02631- BREWSTER BICENTENNIAL 1898 (508) 896-3701 ~`' FAX (508) 896-8089 p TOWN OF BREWSTER MINUTES OF PLANNING BOARD Wednesday, May 17, 2006 7:00 P.M. Brewster Town Office Building Present: Chairman Henchy convened the Planning Board meeting at 7:OOPM in the Brewster Town Office Building with members Taylor, Tubman, Pierce, McMullen and Remy present. 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 for this hearing: Henchy, Taylor, Tubman, Pierce, McMullen and Remy Chairman Henchy opened the hearing 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. Henchy was informed that the applicant did not show up for the scheduled DPRC meeting and Henchy informed the applicant of this. Henchy also informed the applicant that the following was needed 1. Landscaping plan - 2. Worse case scenario for the building usage -from least to most that the site can be used 3. Site plan should show area, existing driveways and if possible even show the intersection. 4. DPRC meeting important because the comments from the Police and DPW and others need to be addressed. Allard -the building will have offices on the first and second floor on each side of the building, the use will be retail and office space. The 3-bays rented individually, no outside storage. Henchy and all Board members agreed that until after the DPRC has had the meeting with the applicant to discuss usage and impact, this meeting should be continued. Motion by Taylor to continue to June 6, 2006, at 7:50PM Second by Pierce All voted AYE. Informal Discussion McGinnis -regarding Special Permit for Bay Side Seafood and the proposed sale of retail Malt and Wine. Planning Board Meeting Page 1 of 6 May 17, 2006 Present for the Applicant: Hoyt and McGinnis; Duane Landreth, Atty. Jane Remy did not call the State Ethics Commission yet, since this is an informal discussion (she has sold them insurance in the past). Landreth - We are appearing before you informally because Bayside Seafood has applied before the Board of Selectmen for a Malt and Wine Package Store License. The Board has requested input. For the record I would like to hand in three copies of a letter from the Assistant Town Manager, in essence making the referral for a Malt and Wine license . What the Bayside Market proposes to do, which Kathy McGinnis will explain in greater detail, is to use 200 square feet of the total of 1,350 square feet of selling space within the retail market as a compliment to its core business of ready-to-eat food. It will allow their customers to do one-stop shopping by selecting a wine or beer to go with their meal selection. They will not offer alcoholic beverages as a stand alone business. The beer and wine will not be an independent attraction, but an accommodation to their customers. Now, you might reasonably inquire that this particular aspect of the business was not put before you when we went through the exhaustive COPD process in the summer of 2005. In fact, the Special Permit Decision, based upon the minutes of 7-19 meeting stated that in response to a Board members question Kathy McGinnis said that there were no plans to apply for a liquor license. My recollection of that inquiry is that the Board was concerned about the consumption of food on the premises because of the restaurant aspect of the business. Kathy's assurances were that no pouring license would be applied for. This inference is supported by the context of the answer and that particular paragraph in the decision made reference to the hours of operation, to what foods or meals would be served and when, how many employees would be in the premises, what kind of trucks would deliver the products and the like. In any event the Special Permit finding did not include a reference to alcoholic beverages in its findings which were fairly exhaustive. They covered A through P, and again, 1 through 13. Now, the Special Permit Conditions 1 thru 23 also did not explicitly condition this. I want to hand in copies of the permit; you may well have it in the file. But since I'm going to be relying on it, I want you to have a copy. This is the recorded copy, so it can't really be an issue in regard to what was said. I think we can all agree that there is not an explicit prohibition in the permit against wine and beer sales. We're requesting that you evaluate this proposal on its merits in order to make an appropriate recommendation to the Board of Selectmen. And the issue of traffic is likely to come up. A couple of points need to be made. The products that will inhabit this 200 SF of space, which is dedicated to Beer and Wine will displace other saleable goods, which would otherwise to available to the public for purchase. Secondly, Jack Gillon's traffic report which was offered on behalf of the McGinnis's as the Special Permit decision notes, was based on a building size of 5,800 SF, whereas the total commercial space both public and private (employees only), is 3,150 SF. You may recollect the Cape Cod Commission in its analysis used the 3,150 SF restaurant to calculate the traffic generation figures and the impacts on the levels of service of the surrounding roads and has found that to be acceptable. I refer you to page 7 of the decision "A retail establishment with mixed sales of goods including beer and wine isn't going to achieve the traffic generation of a full service 3,150 SF business". The second point that I'd like to make is that at each of the false starts concerning this hearing, there have been attendance by merchants who are interested in suppressing potential competition. I don't blame them. If I were in their shoes I'd do the same thing. However, I think there are two responses to their concerns. The first is that offered by Peter Putkarski, a Harwich Selectmen at a license hearing for a wine and malt license at the Cooperage. He asked the proprietor if he was opposed to healthy competition. The merchant said that if he was doing a good job, he didn't think he would be afraid of it, to which Putkarski replied, "Exactly". Healthy competition is good for the public and this license is available. (Handed Chair copy of Cape Codder article about Cooperage) Planning Board Meeting Page 2 of 6 May 17, 2006 Secondly, with regard to that aspect of it, those merchants who hold licenses hold them as privileges not as rights. Now, I want to offer a copy, or actually several copies of that article. There is a second article which refers to a like operation which just opened in Wellfleet. Some of you may know Peter Hall, who has been operating Van Renssallears for a long time. The Wellfleet Board of Selectmen granted such a license to the Catch of the Day, a similar operation, and the operator, Paul, said that he was really pleased in terms of the climate of doing business up there. And, that's a business that is located on Route 6. (Handed Chair copy of newspaper article on "Catch of the Day"). Now, the second point that I would make to the Board is that this establishment is not going to compete with a stand alone alcoholic Package Store license, with the kind of variety and the range of beverages that they have to sell. At this point, I'd like to ask Kathy to explain to you what the layout is to be and what their plans are if they are fortunate to be granted this license by the Board of Selectmen. McGinnis - (Handing out plans) When you walk in there will be several rows of food items (indicating where different items for sale were located; various comestibles, such a chips, salsa, fresh breads, crackers, etc.) We want to couple those things with a wine rack near the food service. Where we have designed a 200 foot piece, one big long wine rack, we would like to have fifteen reds. There will be a cooler close to the front door for white wines, the lower part will have a small variety fresh vegetables. And, that's basically a dinner. We really want people who are renting their homes to come to our store to be able to get everything they need for dinner, including; macaroni and cheese for the kids, a bottle of wine, the lobsters and go home and not have to go traveling around. Henchy - Well, I think the principle issue here tonight is Does the original Special Permit essentially cover this?" One of the key elements of our Corridor Overlay Protection District Bylaw is the element of change of use. The small 200 SF beer and wine rack absolutely constitutes a special use because: a. You have to get a license from the Board of Selectmen for that particular use. You don't have to get a license to sell cheesecake and the other stuff. Well, maybe a common victualers license. b. It is also regulated by the State; you have to get a State license. And, the impact of having beer and wines readily available to Ocean Edge, 100 feet down to Villages Drive, absolutely puts this in a category of an additional use of the property. This is a use that would have been very carefully scrutinized at the first hearing, had you made the decision to go ahead with that. It's my feeling personally, and I think the Board would concur with this, although we have not had any private discussions on it. I think that the Board would concur with this, that we would have to have a complete new application for an operation that would combine two uses, atake -out facility and the beer and wine license. Remy - Since I didn't sit on the first round, I would be interested in hearing what other people have to say. You people know a lot more about this than I do. Taylor- When we went through the first set of hearings, the major issue here was traffic. This is a very heavily traveled area and you are talking about adding something that is going to increase traffic. Not just from people getting dinner in the evening, but people who will be driving there specifically to get their beer and wine. I think it is a very significant change and I think we have to have them come back in for a modification of the permit. Tubman - Well, I have a little different view on it. I know when I buy my beer and wine, I go to a liquor store because it's cheaper. Specialty beers and wines are expensive, but this is people's choice. I do not know how many people will come out for those. That is something I do not know about. Pierce - I very much agree with the very fact that to get a separate license from the Selectmen and from the State for this is proof it's an added different use. We really need to have a modification hearing. Landreth -What are you relying on from the Use Table? Pierce -There isn't anything about licenses in the Use Table, but the very need for a license indicates a change of use. Henchy - I don't know if it is in the Table of Uses or not. Landreth - A couple of things concern me about this. The conclusary nature of the letter, from the Assistant Town Manger, where it quotes the chairman of the Planning Board as coming to a conclusion concerning this. Planning Board Meeting Page 3 of 6 May 17, 2006 Henchy -That was a personal conclusion. Landreth -We will deal with it when we make the presentation. Thank you very much for your time. Henchy -And, as Marjorie says, there is no way that we have prejudged what we are going to do. It will be based on how you present the case. Before you go, I would like to see if anybody in the audience has anything to say? What we have done here tonight is simply say that we are going to have a public process to review this whole thing and everyone is going to have inputs. And, if anyone wants to have some input tonight, we thought it might be appropriate. Jillian Douglass - It will be an issue when it comes before us and when you are talking about impacts because we have never granted a package store license with a common victualers license. Henchy -Does anybody else in the audience have a short comment? No. So we will adjourn this section and go on the next item on our agenda. LEGAL HEARING -SPECIAL PERMIT #COPD2006-07 -CORRIDOR OVERLAY PROTECTION DISTRICT BYLAW -Upstairs at Brewster SweetslBurges- Located at 1069 Route 6A Main Street, - on Assessors' Map 19, Lot 52-2 - Extending Use to Include Lounge on Second Floor. Sitting for this hearing: Henchy, Taylor, Tubman, Pierce, McMullen and Remy Chairman Henchy opened the hearing 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. Henchy states -Any one who is dissatisfied or objects to the decision of the board in this matter has a right to file an objection in the Barnstable superior court within 21 days after the decision is filed. Henchy -Have you been to the Historic Distirct about a new sign. Burgess - No - we have a sign on our shop and that is sufficient at this time. Henchy -Signs are not grandfathered. New text requires a new permit. Hours of operation -last time you were in you were going to be open from 4:30 to 9:30 and you didn't feel it would be a problem because most of the stores were closed down earlier. We would like to have, for the record, letters from all the shopkeepers as to when they plan to close in the evening during the summer. Burgess -they told me but they also hedged. For example at first it was stated they were open to 5 p.m. There was talk of being open until 8 p.m. on Thursday and Friday night. What I got was "we don't know". I will try it, but we'll see if I get anything. No matter what they say in a letter they change their mind. Henchy -That tells us that there is uncertainty as to what stores will be open. What is the number of customers you would anticipate you will need for you to be successful. Burgess - We can do with 21 seats with one turn an hour we will be fine. Henchy -what incentives will you use. Burgess - we will advertise probably in conjunction with the downstairs business. Henchy -You will be serving Italian pastries, coffee, beer, wine and cordials, is that correct. Planning Board Meeting Page 4 of 6 May 17, 2006 Burgess -That is correct. Henchy -You've given us a menu and you are going to use the existing driveway. You have septic for 21 seats. Have you prepared a lighting plan. Burgess - I have not. The lighting will remain the same. Henchy - We have had concerns in the past regarding keeping the lighting on the premises. We don't allow the lights flooding outside the area. You don't need a landscaping plan. What about music and noise. Are you going to have music. Burgess -Yes, there will be music inside. It will only be background music. Henchy -Will there be any seating outside? Burgess -Yes, there will be 4 tables of seating outside with 3 seats each, or 12 people outside. Henchy -Trip reduction -the fact that you are operating in evening hours would accomplish that. Other stores would be closed so you are not increasing the load on the property. Burgess -correct. Henchy -There will be no new parking. Existing facility meets the required parking. There is a letter in the file to Victor Staley from Bob Perry, that states the Conservation Commission requested a revised proposal to create an addition to the building rather than a new building and create a new parking area, but one that is farther from the wetland. No loading facilities exist. Types of truck deliveries should be conditioned. Bob Perry has reviewed the septic and looks like there is lot of margin. It is good for 800 gpd and your loading is only 438 gpd. The selectman may require a common victualers license. The health dept states the EPA septic system inspection form must be submitted. A copy of certified food management certificate must be received by their office. Any board members have any comments? Bugle - What do you have for restrooms? Burgess -There are two public restrooms on the first level. Bugle -Are they open in the evening? Burgess -They are. Remy -Concerned that people my come in to get beer and wine and take it to Kate's to have dinner. Burgess - It is very important that the beer, wine and coffee be served in china or glasses so there will be no take out. Only food will be served on disposables. Taylor -the only issues might be noise and if there are problems, the police will get involved. I just want to question the flows. Are they strictly from your two shops or do they include the public restroom which will get more use? Burgess -The flow included the entire building, which includes the restrooms and all the shops. Planning Board Meeting Page 5 of 6 May 17, 2006 McMullen -You mentioned an operating elevator that could be used for the handicapped. Are the bathrooms handicap? Burgess -Yes. Henchy -Looks like nice project. Anyone here from public that has comments? Eric Barber -seems like a good idea. Motion by Remy to close to public input Second by Taylor All vote AYE. Henchy -Any comments from the board before we proceed to a decision? Henchy -Motion to approve application inclusion of representation made in the application Second by Taylor All voted AYE Henchy -Motion to approve Minutes as corrected - Taylor Second All voted AYE Respectfully submitted, lC~ ~ e u- Marjorie Pierce/Clerk ~L~ arilyn Mooers/S retary o ~' ~ rn ;; ~. a , z N O~ a ci ~o Planning Board Meeting Page 6 of 6 May 17, 2006