Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutPlanning Board -- 2006-06-28 Minutes\ \\\\\\\\\\\\N111tt1N111Jt!!!!1////////// ~\\`~ ~aE w S ~~`` ~~~'°•% ,~ 4~ ~3u ~9r~ o ' ~' ~iiii i i i i u! r f f J l i i l i t t t n ~ ~\\\\\ \\\\ Date Approved: January 24, 2007 Vote: 5-0-0 0 Brewster Planning Board p 2198 Main Street ~''' Brewster, Massachusetts 02631- BREWSTER BtcENTENNIAL 1898 C (508) 896-3701 FAX (508) 896-8089 w TOWN OF BREWSTER MINUTES OF PLANNING BOARD Wednesday June 28, 2006 7:00 P.M. Brewster Town Office Building Vice Chairman McMullen convened the Planning Board meeting at 7:OOPM in the Brewster Town Office Building with members Taylor, Tubman, Pierce, Bugle and Remy present. DISCUSSION WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF OCEAN EDGE REGARDING AN ADDITION AND A PREVIOUSLY ISSUED SPECIAL PERMIT. CONTINUED -LEGAL HEARING -SPECIAL PERMIT #SP2006-12 -CORRIDOR OVERLAY PROTECTION DISTRICT BYLAW -DOUGLAS GROVER -Located off Freeman's Way, on Assessors' Map 45, Lot 72 - Existing Metal Building to be used for Multi -Use Storage building. Present for the hearing: McMullen, Pierce, Remy, Taylor and Bugle Tubman recused herself, as an abutter to the project and went to sit in the audience. Present for Applicant: Roger O'Day, Atty.; Douglas ~ Cynthia Grover; Brad Malo, Coastal Engineering. McMullen -This is a continuation of a legal hearing SP 2006-12 Douglas Grover. O'Day-When we were here two weeks ago, we understood that 1. Victor Staley would be here and 2. That we would focus in on the use. We did have an opportunity to speak briefly with Victor prior to this meeting. This is under a use under wholesale manufacturing as a permitted use in the I Zone. It is OK to store equipment, including construction equipment, which is .the use that we fit. And, again I would remind the Board that this is for storage only. There are no sanitary facilities or sinks, for any number of reasons, but mainly because of proximity to the well fields. All that is proposed is storage and we want input from Victor. There has been some concern as to what the specific use would be. We can describe generally what that use would be, but it is impossible to tell what all six bays will be used for before we even have your approval. If this is partitioned off into individual bays- it would be no different than if you had a small retail mall with six retailers. You do not know who will be there until they are rented to tenants. Normally you would get your approvals and then rent them out. The tenants that came in would have to comply with zoning. This is the same situation. As long as tenants fit under the zoning categories here, the same situation applies here and Victor as the enforcement officer deems what is an approved use for that area. Brewster Planning Board Page 1 of 12 June 28, 2006 The building was being used for personal storage for the owner. Right now there is a big question as to whether Keyspan is intending to use their permit. They have the Special Permit, which expires in November 2006, but their agreement to lease the premises has already expired. Pierce - There is the possibility of permitting a use, but then the use changes. Our difficulty, as I see it, is that we don't know what we are giving permission for tonight, what use? O'Day -Tonight, what we are looking for, and again we have discussed this with Victor, is structures for storing equipment. It has been used for personal storage by the owner, now we would like to partition it off and lease it to tenants. There have been discussions with a plumber, landscaper, building contractor. If those were rented out, then one by one Victor would have to say - "Yes, they fit that use." But if someone comes in with another use, say manufacturing, and then Victor would say if it was not permitted. This will not be a place where employees will come in the morning and work all day and leave in the evening. Then, other BOH requirements would come in to play. Douglass -What about Grover with one use already permitted, which has not yet expired. And then this use, which is new and not permitted, then becomes an accepted use. I have a question about uses that are not permitted, but happen and then become accepted uses. I guess I am trying to rectify in my own mind how that works under our bylaws. If you were to grant this after the expiration of the Keyspan permit and the Keyspan use was no longer an option, then it might seem to make sense. The second piece would be, that if you were to grant this with a prior use in the front portion of the property -you loose the frontage to the property and access to this use is now coming over another piece of property - so then if you don't have the first use, the Keyspan use, you now can regain access to the bays off the front of the property. And I just don't know how you do that. Perhaps the plan that was shown to you earlier shows something else. I don't know how you can bring in access, because the lot in question, although it is not subdivided, is separated by a fence from the frontage of the property. McMullen- Haven't we been told time and time again by Town counsel that we can't take access into consideration when reviewing a Special Permit application? We can't take the legality or acceptability of an access into consideration in Special Permit process. With residential lots, we hear this over and over. Douglass - If that is your assumption that the Keyspan use is no longer on the table, my concern is that permit legally has not expired - it does not expire until November 2006. And, to just grant another use at this time is a presumption and I seriously have a legal issue with that. And, I don't know if you do. I think you have to wait until that other permit expires or rescind the previous permit, but you are not being asked to do that. Brad Malo -Coastal Engineering - I was the representative for the Keyspan project as well -With the Keyspan project there were no structures proposed. It was an improvement of the access/egress to the facility so that they could store some temporary structures on the site. Actually as we were discussing with the Building Commissioner tonight, outside storage is one permitted use in this area. And I would submit to the Commission that if there was a fully constructed legitimized use of that pre-existing building at that time, there may not have been a need to install any infrastructure for the proposed Keyspan use. My point being that through the Keyspan project, it came to light that the building as it existed did not have, under the bylaw, a legitimized use and approval thru the Site Plan Review process, through the Water Quality Review Board, through the COPD, so this is a case of the cart before the horse. The building was put up but it never had gone through all of the permitting processes. And we now want to catch up with that through the least intrusive means possible by providing a legitimate access/ egress, a legitimized use. Personal storage is not a permitted use in this particular zone. So the applicant has approached with some alternatives that are permitted uses for that structure. So that he can actually make use of that building with parking area and drainage, with proper permits in place. McMullen - I guess the question is do we have a legal issue here? It has lost its lease, but not its permit. Do you think Keyspan is going to come back? O'Day -The answer is, probably not. I can't speak for Keyspan, but the lease has expired. Brewster Planning Board Page 2 of 12 June 28, 2006 Douglass - If you were to condition that permit as not having the Keyspan use on the premises, I think that my concern is that you are talking about two uses. You are talking about a building that doesn't have a permit as it is, it is not a use permitted in our "I" zone; it is currently not an acceptable use under our bylaws. There is a reason it was designed to be segregated off by fence from the Keyspan property... because it is a separate and distinct use. Perhaps this is an incompatible with the Keyspan use? If you are going to grant this other use on the premises, you need to decide which use is proper. I don't think you can allow the two uses, particularly since there is not frontage on the lot for the 2"d use. McMullen -Practically speaking, you have all this land out front and you have a building in the back -it's seems to me that you could accommodate both uses. But that is beyond the point - I think you could issue a permit here and allow Mr. Grover to go forward and make it contingent on Keyspan not coming back. And, if they do come back then we'd have to re- address the issue. Remy -Wouldn't it make more sense to hear from Keyspan that they were not coming back? The applicant has already offered to contact them and get a decision from them, a written decision that they are not coming back and then it would be pretty clear what the situation is. To go ahead and grant something on the condition that Keyspan is not going to do anything, it would be much better to have it in writing before we proceeded. O'Day - A couple of points - On the Frontage, any Keyspan use was a lease not giving up any frontage, just leasing a portion upfront to Keyspan. A very innocuous use, no improvements, no structure per se, just a facility where they would bring their equipment with them, set it on the property and then it would be taken away after each use. Again, they probably won't come back, but if they were to come back, Keyspan does still have the Special Permit. But they would have to come back to the Grover's to renew the lease. The building is there, as part of the Grover's proposal to ignore the front and use the back. I don't think it appears as though both of them will be there. But I don't see that with a lot this size that would be a horrible result. Particularly with the limited uses and the limited uses that can be permitted in the I Zone. And, there is no prohibition that I am aware of or a law against having two uses on a lot, as long as all of the other requirements are met -density, lot coverage, and that should be OK Staley -From the zoning standpoint, there is no prohibition about how many uses you can have on your property. Maybe that is something you might want to address with a future bylaw, but now there is no prohibition. But as to access, Jillian brings up a valid point, but the fact is that there is no requirement to access any property through the frontage. You have to have potential access through the frontage, but you do not have to actually access that way. So to access the building from the back over another property, whereas there may be some concerns, it is not in violation of the Zoning bylaws. Tubman - I am an abutter. I reside at the property abutting this parcel and I have a real problem with the application. They are talking about coming across a property they do not have access to at the moment. A court injunction does not allow them access to that property. What they have proposed is using the access to my business and they do not have access over my property through my business. The only plan I have seen shows an access right across my driveway, so if they are proposing something else you probably should have the plan that shows that. And I was wondering, is there a Certificate of Occupancy for this building? Staley - No, the building permit has been revoked. And, there is no CO -correct. Tubman -There were a few comments as well in the narrative here -about the small amount of additional traffic and things of that nature -that all of their access would be at the beginning or end of the work day. If they don't have tenants now, how can they make these statements accurately? And, the statement that the building cannot be seen from Freeman's Way, that is just not true. O'Day -There is pending in the Superior Court, an action between the Grover's and Brewster Sand & Gravel addressing these issues - I can't give you the specifics because I am not involved in that, but it has been going on for some time. However, there is no question but that the Grover's own the property. Brewster Planning Board Page 3 of 12 June 28, 2006 The only question before you is the status of the uses -whether it is a lease, the extent of the lease and any number of side issues. The Grover's own the property that they want to access over. Malo -This will help clarify. This is the driveway that goes down into Brewster Sand & Gravel -and this is what is shown as access. So, their access to this building is not through this fenced area...since there is no way to go through the fence. They want to come down the Brewster Sand & Gravel driveway and come off that driveway to the back side of their building. They are crossing this property (BS&T) to get into this property. Staley - I believe the Grover's own the property, but I believe the rights exist right now for the BS&T to have full rights and responsibilities for this property. And, there is some injunction about Grover trespassing unto this lot. But this is out of my jurisdiction. This is the road to BS&T - it is a separate property from the subject property for this application. But again, I can only talk about zoning, which has nothing to do with the civil issues of trespass. Staley -Keyspan was going to access the property through the front of the Grover (project) lot. Now there is no access to the building through the front of the property because of the high chain link fence. Keyspan would install it, but Grover would own it. So, if you find out that Keyspan isn't going to do anything there, then you can have access from that building straight down that lot. O'Day - I think the Grover's feel that they do have a right to cross their property and that is the shortest way to the building. But, the alternative, should the courts see that to be incorrect that the adjoining lot is the Grover's property, then Grover's could access the property through Freeman's way from the front of the site. I work as a title attorney and the question as to whether they can use that alternate access driveway is not within my scope. The Grover's say that they can and other parties say that they cannot. But we are here basically tonight to talk about a use permit. If this board can see fit to permit this use, then later on the title matter will be resolved. McMullen - I don't think the driveway issue is within our purview. We can't deal with that. It is in court. Our situation is to deal with the Special Permit re: uses. I personally don't see any reason why I wouldn't vote for it. What does the rest of the board think? Remy - I would really like to have heard that Keyspan was not part of the picture anymore, but I think I am going to be voted down on that. So, given that we will move forward - I would think that we would certainly want to put restrictions on as the Water Dept. has asked us to do. It's pretty clear that the use of the proposed areas should be tightly limited to meet all of the requirements of the Groundwater Protection District. And do we need to require additional proof from the Water Quality Review Committee? I don't know if we should. I guess that now that the applicant can describe the types of occupancy, if someone comes along that doesn't fit, then the Building Commissioner could take action and send them to the ZBA. Bugle -Condition it to say that it has to meet WQRC requirements and the building has to be brought up to building standards, whatever Victor requires. McMullen -We could also put in there that we would require further review if Keyspan did come back and decide to use their permit. I think Mr. O'Day has provided information that we can incorporate into the permit. O'Day -This would be a permitted use - we anticipate it is going to fall under the category of open storage of construction equipment and structures for storage of such equipment, but also construction industry supplies. McMullen - I would think that outside storage in a Zone II would have to be on some sort of catchment area, a bermed impervious surface. "Condition -outside storage only on impervious surface." Staley -Per the WQRC, truck and vehicle drippings are of concern, but we do not have language that prohibits it. We do encourage people to park on impervious surfaces such as concrete, or in a concrete bermed building. However, there is no direct prohibition against outside storage. There are also pre-existing uses that are there. McMullen - I would want to see that condition, the requirement for a WQRC approval. Put together the Special Permit and then vote on it at our next meeting. We will do the vote once we see the Special Permit and its conditions, with more people here, too. But we must see the certain conditions, before we vote it. Brewster Planning Board Page 4 of 12 June 28, 2006 I will get the narrative to Shari. If Keyspan wants to take action, then we want to word the permit that it will have to come back. What are the uses are going to be? Are we going to limit the outside storage to be on an impervious surface? Staley - I am not sure what the plans are for the land or driveway. Under Keyspan there was a large amount of impervious surface and WQRC would want that drainage taken care of with drainage and/or vegetated swales. We don't want any large amounts of petrol products stored anywhere here, by anyone. MOTION to close the hearing to further outside comment. MOVED by Pierce, SECOND by Bugle. All in favor -AYE MOTION to approve writing permit with conditions, to bring to next meeting for a final vote. MOTION by Pierce, SECOND by Bugle. All in favor AYE CONTINUED -LEGAL HEARING -SPECIAL PERMIT #SP2006-10 -CORRIDOR OVERLAY PROTECTION DISTRICT BYLAW - LATHAM CENTER, INC. -Located at 1646 Main Street, on Assessors' Map 24, Lot 21, - An approximately 4723 sq. ft., a single story dormitory in generally the southeasterly portion of the lot on the existing school campus. Present for the hearing: McMullen, Pierce, Remy, Taylor, Tubman and Bugle Remy disclosed that she has done business with the applicant 's Attorney, but that this prior relationship would not have any bearing on her decision relative the application. Present for the Applicant: William D. O'Brien, Esq., Singer & Singer, LLC; Anne McManus, Director Latham Centers; Brad Malo, Coastal Engineering; Sybil Asantugrul, with S. A. Architecture, Inc.; McMullen - At the prior meeting there were 3 main issues: Parking, Landscaping, location of light poles. O'Brien -With the new plan there is an increase of 14 parking spaces, going from 64 to 78. These will be delineated by concrete wheel stops. Shade trees will be added along the southern border of the new driveway. The new driveway will only be used to exit the premises and have a "Do Not Enter" sign per the Fire Department. People will enter off Route 6A and exit at Alden Drive. All of the lights will be shielded down lights. Taylor -There should be evergreen trees added to the buffer strip along the new driveway, otherwise there is no buffer in the winter. I would suggest Leyland Cypress. Asantugrul -There is already a lot of vegetation there. We will keep the existing trees and will add Leyland Cypress in between the shade trees. Remy - We need to have a condition that these plantings are subject to review once they have been installed. What size are the parking spaces? O'Brien -The existing spaces are 9'x18'. The new spaces will be 10'x20'. Overflow parking will not be permitted. Remy - If parking shows up on Alden Drive they will have to come back in front of the Planning Board. McMullen -Comments from other Board Members? Pierce - No comments Tubman - No comments Public Comments: Jim and Diane Levine -Where will the parking be and how will it be controlled? Brewster Planning Board Page 5 of 12 June 28, 2006 Marie Canarves -What about the problems with the cars on the street at the private house on Alden? McManus -This has been taken care of. Alicia Sanchez -The parking problem has been terrible on Alden Drive. This has to stop Stephen Doyle -Spoke in favor of project. The meeting was closed to public comment. MOTION by Remy, SECOND by Taylor. McMullen -Read the COPD Preamble and then read from the "Application of Corridor Overlay Protection District Bylaw to Educational and Religious Uses -from Town Counsel, Sarah Turano-Flores, Zisson & Veara letter, dated February 9, 2004. Town Counsel has provided this Board with the criteria by which it may review this application under the COPDD. Not all sections are subject to review. Discussion of Conditions: 1. No Parking on Alden Drive 2. Employees and Families must be made aware of parking policy. 3. Review of buffer plantings once installed 4. "No Exit" sign on Route 6A 5. "Exit Only" sign at new Alden Drive driveway MOTION to Approve With Conditions. Moved -Remy, second Taylor ROLL CALL VOTE: Taylor -Aye, Remy- Aye, Pierce-Aye, Tubman -Aye, McMullen- Aye, CONTINUED -LEGAL HEARING -SPECIAL PERMIT #SP2006-11 -CORRIDOR OVERLAY PROTECTION DISTRICT BYLAW -OLD KINGS HIGHWAY NOMINEE TRUST -Located at 2681 Main Street, on Assessors' Map 14, Lot 59 - A change of use of a Residential (1-Family Detached Dwelling) to, Services to Ocean Edge (Miscellaneous Business Offices and Services). The applicant requested a continuance to July 12, 2006. The applicants are working with the abutters on a screening solution and will need HDC approval. The Board voted to continue the hearing to July 12, 2006. CONTINUATION OF 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 this hearing: Tubman, Taylor, McMullen, Pierce, Remy and Bugle Present for Applicant: -Steve Allard and daughter. Allard -Since the last time I was here - a quick review. I have been to the Water Quality Review Committee and they approved the plan as it is. They also said they would send a letter to you asking to have gravel used instead of paving. She wanted to get it in, in time for this meeting, but she wasn't able to. She is going to send a letter to the Planning Board to get a waiver relative to how much paving is going down -now it is approximately'/z and'/z, '/Z bluestone, '/2 paving. I agreed that I would much rather use bluestone than the paving, except for the driveway apron. And we also talked about reducing the number of spaces in the parking lot. And they will send a letter. I came in and talked to Shari 8 Bill Henchy about the WQRC meeting and they were in favor of the changes. I guess there have been two traffic studies at the Millstone /Route 137 intersection. I talked to Bob Bersin and they are going to enlarge the island at 137 & Millstone, make it longer than it is now. Brewster Planning Board Page 6 of 12 June 28, 2006 Now, I and Walter Butler from Millstone Liquors are proposing to share an entrance. He will close the other entrance further down on Millstone, since that entrance will be interfered with by the proposed island. I went with Chief Jones and Chief Koch and Bob Bersin and discussed the driveway change and they were all in favor of the entrance/exit change. McMullen -did he give you any time frame on when they were going to do this? Allard -Actually they are in the process right now of getting Chapter 90 funds from the state/Feds. Taylor -Are we waiting for those funds before this can be done? Can we get a letter from Bob Bersin? If we are waiting for Chapter 90 funds, I don't know how quickly that will go through. Will you get a letter from Bob Bersin about this island? What about the traffic study or at least some trip generation figures? Allard - I didn't think I was going to have to do a traffic study? Douglass - I have the ITE Trip Generation Book in the office. I can show you how to work with the book and you can figure out the traffic numbers based on the SF/use. Taylor What kind of traffic do you anticipate? Allard -There are two people that work there now, two cars that come in and out every day. And those are the only two cars that come in and out of there on a regular basis. And on Fridays, 6 or 7 guys come in and get their paychecks. I can cut down on traffic by having only one person pick up everyone's paychecks on Friday -instead of all the workers coming in separately. Otherwise there is very little traffic. Taylor - Well, I guess that would be considered as a type of traffic mitigation. But we will need to see those numbers. McMullen - So you are also cutting down parking -what did you have originally for parking spaces? Allard -Well, right now we are only just cutting that one out, #19, a space in the front of the side parking spaces. Like I said -she is going to send a letter. We really have not come up with a number of how much parking we want to have. We would be required to get a variance to reduce the number of parking spaces. Pierce -Isn't that something we can waive? Taylor - We can do that. We don't need a variance. That was changed. But I thought that we had asked to have the two front parking spaces removed. Allard -What about the other? I was told that the entry way would be the only area that we have to be paved -like a large apron. WQRC was all for it. Taylor -Yes - we went to Town Meeting so we could do that ourselves. Allard -Well, the way it is set up now, according to the engineers, we are required to get a variance to reduce parking spaces and the amount of paving. McMullen - I guess the only questions I have is that Victor made this statement at the last meeting that we the use you want is prohibited. Allard -I believe that the use is OK, but the parking of the vehicles - is a problem McMullen -What about the parking of large vehicles outside? Allard-He has informed me that it is not allowed. - that I need to get a variance from ZBA. I don't really think that it is an issue -but he said for clarity, I should get the variance to be able to park trucks back there. You really should talk to him about this. It's Ok to have a building business with storage of materials and equipment inside. Brewster Planning Board Page 7 of 12 June 28, 2006 The only problem would be parking trucks outside. McMullen-Amber -any comments? Tubman -No Pierce - No Taylor - We still don't know what the uses are going to be? Allard -The three bays will be for storage and small equipment. McMullen -and your office is going to be upstairs? Allard -It's going to be downstairs and upstairs. It's the main office McMullen -and you are going to utilize the whole second floor? Allard - no, there is only one other office that will be on two floors also. McMullen -Would you stipulate with the permit that it would be strictly office and not retail. What we talked about before was that whatever use it was; you would come in front of us or Victor to make sure you were allowed to use it for that use. McMullen -I know under zoning that you could have retail, but it would make it a lot cleaner for us if you would state that it would only be or office space. Tubman -What would retail entail? McMullen -With retail, he would need to install an elevator for the second floor. I think traffic at that intersection is still going to be somewhat of a problem. Of course, office you would have less ins and outs than you would with retail. Pierce -Somehow he has to decide. Allard -The truth of the matter is that I don't know what the use will be. Pierce -Well, we can't leave it that way. McMullen - Victor do you have problems with his use -contractor's yard. Staley -Yes, that is not allowed in the CH District. The office is fine, but the storage is prohibited. The only place that it is allowed is in the Industrial District. Allard - My engineer has definitely told me that it is allowed, that it is in the Bylaws. Staley - And, I can't find that. McMullen -That's the CH District, right? Staley -You can have an office. I am not disputing the office. No matter what -whatever the committee makes as a determination and conditions it, as long as it is specific so Steve and I don't have any misunderstanding later on. We just want to make sure that it is all clear up front so that later on when he builds, if I come in and say you can't do that, and Steve says, well, I think we talked about that -well, we can look at the permit and it will be loud and clear as to what is allowed. If there is any construction equipment, if it is allowed inside, is there is a size to it -just make sure it is clear and concise. That is my only request because I am the enforcement agent and I get to re-introduce their conditions to people. Pierce- What about asking Steve to re-think #13 - to see if he thinks he can fit within that description. We have all talked about that. Brewster Planning Board Page 8 of 12 June 28, 2006 Allard - I think for sure on the surface, I either build new houses or remodel people's old houses. Pierce - We are talking about - we are trying to somehow to fit you into one of the uses. McMullen -Did you have a question about aback-hoe? Just trying to pull in there with a trailer would be difficult. Allard - No, that won't be stored here. I store all of that equipment on Route 6A. In the bylaw it says no outside storage of outside equipment or materials. And I have no intention of doing it. I want it to be a presentable building also. And we talked about the lighting issue. No heavy lighting. I don't want any lighting. No sign is going to be lit. A nice landscape plan. Pierce - We understand this, but we have to see your work, we have to see the plan. Allard -The Water Quality Review Committee said that they thought it was going to be a low impact design as far as they were concerned. Remy -It's really hard to reconcile what is in the table of uses with what he wants to do and I just don't know. It's really hard to fit it in. McMullen - Yeah, I feel the same way. One side of me says I want to help you out and the other side -you really don't fit into anything in here. We are putting a business in an area that right now there is nothing like it here. McMullen - Karlson -you mean the real estate office. But he doesn't have bays or equipment and trucks there. Allard - No he doesn't have bays. You are right. But I am hoping that the office is filled up with an architect, builder, and real estate. Anything in the building business. I really don't want to be restricted in anyway, but I agreed in one of the other meetings to come back before the Planning Board or the Building Commissioner when I am ready to rent space - that it will be reviewed before it happens. Pierce - I think that what we may be able to do is have you restrict yourself to things that fit more closely to this definition. And then if something came up that you wanted to do you would come back for a modification. Allard - I think I just said that. There are two other offices that can be rented. When it comes time to rent it, I am going to rent it and I suppose that what's going to happen is that I would be back to your Committee to make sure the renter fit within the bylaw. Pierce- I think that in order to get this permit in the first place, I think that we have to get the definition now McMullen -You could not fill one of those bays up with 2x4's and siding, etc. building materials? Remy -That is exactly the dilemma I am having. To me, then it is truly construction and you are supplying construction equipment. And it's just not permitted there. Tubman-And here we are back at the multiple uses again. You have office space and then you have storage space. Is there a point where one is a primary use and one is secondary or accessory use? Staley -Excuse me, These bays will only hold a little bit of construction material - it is not cost effective to store construction material. He has to turn it over fairly quickly. I don't think he is going to store wood there, maybe a window or two. Is it an accessory use? It may be. Is it considered an accessory to the office? He has stated that he is not putting in a backhoe. Probably no heavy equipment there because again heavy equipment would tear up his parking lot, would interfere with the ebb and flow of the parking lot. It's not a good place to get in and out of anyway without having to trailer in something. This use is like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. It still does not fill it exactly. There is no bylaw that covers this exactly. That is for the board to come up and they say lets talk about this. Brewster Planning Board Page 9 of 12 June 28, 2006 Allard - If you think that I'm going to buy in bulk and store it in those bays, that is not going to happen. That's not what I am interested in. McMullen -Where do you store your big equipment - or is this where you were hoping to store most of the equipment? Allard - No equipment at all. My truck, trailers, back-hoes won't be stored there. They are all stored on 6A. Taylor - We still don't know what kind of traffic we are going to have here. We originally talked about traffic issues and trafi:lc studies and what do we want to see. Because we don't know what kind of trips we are going to have or anything. McMullen -Do you want to guess that's going to be below LOS C? Every intersection in Brewster is below C. Allard - It is minimal in my mind compared to what it could be. Mc Mullen- You could rent a couple of Grover's bays. Tubman - I'd let you use the driveway, too. McMullen -Well, we got to do something here. You know, if I didn't know you, and didn't like you and you hadn't been here four times, I'd say you don't fit the category -but that's not what we are doing here. Pierce - If you think about it, we have spent a lot of hours, a lot of months trying to fit this something into our use table I think we have got to face the fact that we don't have adequate language in our use table . McMullen - We have to put some strong stipulations as to what he can and what he can't do. My big problem is that I didn't picture Independence Way being the way it is. I didn't think it would turn into a bunch of contractors yards and that's basically what it is down there. We have very little commercial property in Town. Allard- My office that I am in now, is a smaller area that is like a bay where I store my stuff. There are two cars that come in and out of there. Those are the only two cars that come in and out of there on a regular basis. On Fridays, 6 or 7 guys come in and get their paychecks. My operation will be a nice little building. To be quite honest, I am doing this for my daughter, so she can become an architect. She going to Boston Architect's School and will be graduating soon and I want to put her in this office. Taylor - Do we know anything about hours or lighting? Allard - We didn't do a landscape plan because we didn't know what we were going to do yet -with the driveway, etc. We passed through the Historic Committee and said we would do only what we had to do with significant lighting for the parking area and the building. Only what we need to. We don't want any bright lights. The landscape plan, when we figure out what we are doing will be a nice plan. We plan to leave whatever we can natural, but we will have to clear some of it make it a little bit more formal. Make it look nice. Remy - We have to have a plan. Taylor - We do have to have a landscape plan. McMullen - I hate to have to do this to you, but we are going to have to continue it again and must have a landscape and a lighting plan. Bring it into us and we will try to fit this into the use. Allard - If it could be approved as long as I was going to do a landscape plan McMullen -Part of the Corridor Overly Protection District permit requires that we need to review a landscape plan. We have to see that. So that is going to cost you one more coming back. Taylor - Do we have hours? McMullen - We have to have hours of operation Brewster Planning Board Page 10 of 12 June 28, 2006 Pierce - He has to answer all those questions. Remy - In the meantime - if your engineer could present Victor with the documentation for his rationale that you fit, then at least you would have a talking point. Staley - He may not want to bring it to me, he may not be able to go forward- because I am pretty black and white. I would have to say. The Engineer may want to present it to the Board, so the Board can mold, I can't mold. McMullen -The engineer can bring it to us and we can ask your opinion. Staley -You may want to limit that, because I may have to say no. Taylor -Because if we get an opinion, it is going to say no. Staley - I'm going to say no, it's prohibited. Just like I said no, you can't do the deli up there. But the Board has the ability to mold. And that's where the Board has the negotiation ability to say well we will let you do this if you do this for us. Douglass -How about if his plan does not show bays, but shows garages. McMullen -That would grease the skids. Douglass -Then in six months, after you have reviewed the table of uses and hopefully come back with some modified language and gone to Town Meeting, then if he is dying to get a permit and we don't see that he can fit in the table of uses. Staley -That would put Steve in a corner - he can't build without garage doors on the bays. That would put him in limbo. Douglass - He can build the structure according to what fits the zoning and come back when he can do the bays. McMullen -Part of this blame lies with us because this table of uses is not spelled out well enough. Douglass -But you are not the ZBA and you don't have the ability to waive the zoning. Pierce -But we have manipulated those uses before. McMullen - My question to the Board is "By granting this are we maintaining the CH nature?" Taylor -This is the same thing we did on Independence Way, the exact same thing. McMullen - I think that is what we ought to do, is continue it. Let Steve give us a Landscape Plan; let the engineer provide the narrative for #13. Pierce - I think that he should answer all those section of the COPD. Staley -The section where the Bylaw says that the Board will issue a Special Permit if a, b, c, d, e, f, g, You need to answer each one point by point. Pierce -When you apply for a Special Permit you have to answer these. Allard -Through you? I'll do that now. McMullen -You have to address the landscaping, parking, lighting, COPD and Special Permit. Allard - Didn't I do this when I went through the Development Plan Review?? Staley -They are not a Permit Granting Authority. What they are talking about is that under the Special Permit you have to address each one of these. Brewster Planning Board Page 11 of 12 June 28, 2006 Taylor -You can just print it out. It's on the Internet. You need to answer all the questions for: 179-51 Section 5, Special Permit, 179-63 COPD and 179-67 parking and loading. Allard -It's hard for me to figure out if you are telling me this is going to be approved or not? In other words why should I go and spend more money and time and energy to go forward if I'm not going to have some kind of a positive vote. It's foolish for me to go and get my engineer back on board and spend more money. To have a landscape plan drawn up and a lighting plan and all that and then get turned down again. Staley -But if he already did it, there should not be a problem. But the whole point is that is part of the requirements. You are going to have to have that. So, whether the engineer wants to do it or not, or whether you want to pay for it that is part of the application requirements. If the engineer says it is an allowed use by right, then he should have already had the homework done and should have given you that right up front, instead of verbally telling you and pushing you forward " Go do it". So this Committee can only work on what application is before them...you haven't given them a complete application. You keep coming out and saying that this is what you want to do. They can't issue it; they are trying to work with you Steve. Allard -Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to argue. Staley -But you are asking them for assurance when they can't really give you any. Allard - I though I had a legitimate request...) am sorry if I overstepped my bounds. Pierce- The answer is that you have a good chance. There can't be a guarantee. Taylor - We spent the last two hours trying to fit you in somewhere. McMullen - Can I get a Motion to continue? MOTION to Continue to July 12 at 7:05 MOVED by Taylor SECOND by Remy All voted AYE. MOTION to Adjourn MOVED by Taylor SECOND by Bugle All voted "AYE" Respectfully submitted, ~~ ~ ~ l ~ ~~~ /Cr~u Marjori Pierce/Clerk O Marilyn ooers/ ecretary a~ o ~'' ,~ --, z ~ ` a c~ 0 Brewster Planning Board Page 12 of 12 June 28, 2006