HomeMy Public PortalAboutPlanning Board -- 2006-07-12 Minutes\\\\\\\\\ \\ 1 U 11 l 1411 I! J! 1 U/ I///////
\\\\o~ ~ftE W ~~~ Vii/
f ~w1 7 '~
3 r
~ a~ D
/ % ////// / / / / / / / l 1111 f f I I I 1111 l 11 1 1 1 1 \ \ \ \ \ \ \~\~\\\~ \
Date Approved: January 24, 2007
Vote: 4-0-0
Brewster Planning Board o
2198 Main Street ~
W
Brewster, Massachusetts 02631- BREWSTER BICENTENNIAL
1898
(508) 896-3701 ~`'
FAX (508) 896-8089 p
W
TOWN OF BREWSTER MINUTES OF PLANNING BOARD
Wednesday July 12, 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 .
Present: Henchy, Bugle, Remy, Taylor, Tubman, McMullen
Absent- Pierce
Also Present: Jillian Douglass
CONTINUED LEGAL HEARING -MODIFICATION OF CORRIDOR OVERLAY PROTECTION
DISTRICT SPECIAL PERMIT SP2005-07- McGinnis/Hoyt- Located at 2750 Main Street, on
Assessors' Map 14, Lot 61- to allow the use of the sale of beer and wine for off-premises
consumption. A 200 sq. ft. area will be used for such a sale.
Sitting on this hearing -Henchy, Tubman, Remy, Bugle, Taylor
McMullen - Recused himself since the applicant had previously been one of his tenant's at Foster
Square.
Present for the Applicant -Duane Landreth, Atty,
Board members reviewed letter from Town Counsel re: this application.
Henchy -Did you get a copy of Town Counsel's opinion letter generated this afternoon? I only got the
draft at 20 minutes of 5 and only got the final copy at 5PM.
Landreth- No. What is the topic of Town Counsel's opinion, Mr. Chairman?
Henchy -She analyzes the case as it stands now. I had a meeting with her during the week and she
essentially corroborated my feeling of what we could do with the issue. She analyzes the case and it
might be worthwhile for you to read it.
Landreth -I am sure it would probably be in my best interest to do so, but what I don't understand is, as I
understood the posture of the case, last time the Board was interested in consulting the CCC with respect
to the key issue identified which was the generation of additional traffic. And my clients had gone to the
trouble and expense of bringing in expert knowledge, an expert to testify in open session. I understood
that the Board was basically going to generate a request for technical help to the CCC with regard to the
Planning Board Meeting Page 1 of 15 July 12, 2006
argument that we were making that the introduction of wine and beer to this operation would not have a
detrimental affect on the traffic.
When I came to Town Hall today, Shari was kind enough to call me to indicate about Marjorie's terrible
situation. I came to Town Hall to look both for the referral and also for the response from the CCC, Jillian
Douglas was kind enough to help me but we could not find either document.
And now you are telling me that there is an opinion that has been generated by Town Counsel, without
any notice or any information to my client, who is a party in interest hereon a topic that I don't know -Yes
I think I'd like to read it, but in the first instance I would like to know what went on with regard to the CCC,
I assume that was in writing so we would have a paper trail.
Henchy - We had a motion passed by the Board as we closed out our last hearing which was to request
a traffic survey with your new operation as you are conceiving it, which we would then forward to the CCC
and ask for their opinion and what not. That was the Motion that was passed. Now, there was a lot of
talking, however, Have you actually prepared a traffic study as was requested last week?
Landreth -You didn't request us to do a traffic study Mr. Chairman. I am more than happy to conduct a
traffic study. My understanding was, quite clearly, that the Board was going to test the information that
was provided by our expert when he was here to testify and be responsive to all the questions that you
might generate.
Henchy -No, the motion before the Board was to request a traffic study which we would then send down
to the Commission. That's the way we left it.
Landreth- Well,
Henchy- Ok, Now, obviously not too much can go forward tonight, I guess, I think that you are absolutely
entitled to see this request from Zisson & Veara -that request, their opinion. And it harkens back to the
basic position of this Board that when your request came in, because the original Special Permit did not
envision the consumption of any food on the premises, the seats and the benches that we saw on that
one sketch - we could see three picnic tables, and the statement was made that the consumption of food
on the premises was incidental to the business and wasn't a factor. Now that's obviously changed. And,
members of the Board were astonished that we supposedly gave you the OK to consume food on the
premises. We have gone back over the records of the decision and of the minutes of the first meeting and
reviewed them with Town Counsel and this letter is the upshot of her discussions with us. And, I'd like to
give you a copy of this and I'd like to give you a copy of the attachment to that letter.
(Hands copy of letter and attachment to Mr. Landreth).
So, in the absence of a traffic study, I think our options tonight are to decide to terminate the discussion or
to continue it to give you a chance to look at that letter and prepare a traffic survey.
Landreth - I don't understand - is that a question?
Henchy- No it's simply a statement. We have those two options. If you would prefer to have a
continuance so you can prepare the traffic survey and bring it in and also respond to some of the points
raised in that letter, we would be glad to give you the continuance.
Landreth- But I really don't understand Mr. Chairman -you have handed me a five page, six page, letter
with footnotes,
Henchy- You can't possibly digest it tonight.
Landreth -No I really can't and I would like to have as a courtesy, of the copy of the Motion you passed,
in writing - so we do have a pretty clear idea of what is going on.
We did bring a traffic expert down here
Planning Board Meeting Page 2 of 15 July 12, 2006
Henchy - We are in the middle, of the throes, of a change on this Board - our very competent
Administrative Clerk has accepted more lucrative employment some place else, and she has not been
with us for the past two weeks.
Shari, have you had a chance to put together the minutes for this meeting in a draft form.
Shari - No, I have not. But the motion is on tape and I have already heard it. I can put it verbatim on
paper.
Landreth- I simply would like to have it in writing, I am more than happy to do so. Essentially, let me see
if I can characterize what the Board is looking for. The Board is looking for a traffic study which would
essentially substantiate the position of the applicant to the effect that the introduction of 200 square feet
of space to sell beer & wine would not have any impact on the earlier traffic study which was offered. In
essence it is a delineation of the opinion that was offered by the Counsel.
Henchy -Not exactly, when we first dealt with this thing, it was a retail restaurant, stake-out restaurant.
You came back and asked us to consider whether or not you could sell beer & wine as an add-on to the
meals that you were sending out. And, when we talked about it we suddenly found out we were talking
about 8 or 9 picnic tables with 6 seats per table. And, Mrs. McGinnis has filed an application with the
Health Department that talks about 10 picnic tables. It talks about 8 Adirondack chairs on the deck
surround, so there has been a tremendous evolution of the concept here.
Now, a decision has to be made as to what you folks really want to do and right now we have at least
three or four different snap shots of what the project is going to be. I think it is time to freeze the
snapshots and come up with a single concept and look to see what that does to traffic, and then we will
consider the whole overall picture in one big ball of wax.
Bugle - Mr. Chairman, originally when this project came before the Board, it was to be quite contained.
There wasn't supposed to be any consumption of food per se on the property.
Henchy -That was very clear in the record of the first meeting.
Bugle - It was a coffee and donut shop, take out. It was very similar to what they ran in Foster Square,
small scale. I was very reluctant to approve the project the first time around, you all know that. Because, I
felt we were just adding to the tremendous problems that we have, that already exists between the two
Ocean Edge entrances. I felt that the traffic study which was presented was quite good at that time with
the limited use of the property with no other outstanding concerns ,without people actually staying there,
with things like that we might squeak by and I voted in the affirmative.
The project has changed tremendously from that date. We are now considering basically a sit down
restaurant with liquor service, with take-out, whatever. I would have to say that I just want it for the record
that I am not any more comfortable with it now and far less than I was then.
Henchy -Bob, it is even more complicated than that. I have been told by the Selectmen's Office that if
you are a restaurant selling beer and wine and its consumed on the premises, that requires a pouring
license. A pouring license is a completely different ball of wax.
Bugle -You've got multiple uses on multiple uses.
Henchy -You can't take beer and wine away from an establishment that has a pouring license. If nothing
else, it requires multiple licenses. And I don't know how that works with alcohol and beverage
commissions. And, it's unfair really, what the applicant is proposing, based on different filings with
different boards. This not a simple situation, it is a complicated situation.
What I tried to do with Sarah was to go back to square one and trace the whole thing through to where we
are and she does this pretty effectively in this letter.
Do you have any comments Amber?
Planning Board Meeting Page 3 of 15 July 12, 2006
Tubman-No, I'm glad we have that letter to sort of re-direct us back to where we should have been
Taylor - I think that Sarah states the situation very clearly and I completely agree with Bob on the whole
situation. It's like a moving target. And, it is nothing like it was when we first approved the permit. And we
have a lot of issues and a lot of questions about that and it's just expanding.
Henchy -Well, the concept that carried the day -when we had our original vote was the fact that that
business exists already and it was simply being moved across the street. And it was a permitted use
down there and even though the traffic report from the survey was marginal, we decided that we had to
vote in favor for the applicant.
Remy - No, I had my say last time when I said to the applicant that I hoped that they would come back
with a very clear idea as to what they wanted to do.
Henchy - So, would you like to continue this, Mr. Landreth?
Landreth -Well, before we get to a continuance, I think there are some issues we need to discuss. In my
opinion, I have read enough of the letter to know that it is a piece of
advocacy. Now the question that I want to ask you folks is this -what do you define as food being served
on the premises?
Henchy - to go back to your definition?
Landreth - No, I want the definition that it is an establishment in which food is prepared and served and
customers are taken and served at dining tables. That's a restaurant. Now tell me how we are having
food served at dining tables.
Henchy - I have tried to do a little research on this - and I delved into this book -the North American
Industry Classification System -they too define a restaurant exactly the way our bylaw does and they put
one other wrinkle in it -that people pay after they have been served. Then they have another category of
limited service restaurants: and that category is take-out restaurants.
Landreth - Mr. Chairman we are not governed by the North American System, we are governed by your
bylaws.
Henchy - I know that.
Landreth -You as a board -insisted that this was a restaurant use at the outset. And, I quibbled with
you on that point and you went along and called it a restaurant. But calling it a restaurant doesn't make it
a restaurant. There is no food service, Mr. Chairman.
Henchy - We called it a restaurant because there is nothing in our bylaws that really permits or specifies
a take-out restaurant. And, because the business currently existed, was moving across the street, we
tried to find a way of accommodating you and pass it.
We would be very happy to go back and review the whole initial application and review it on the basis
that..
Landreth -With all respect Mr. Chairman. I don't think
Henchy- Please don't interrupt me, I have the floor...There is nothing in our bylaws that provides for a
take-out restaurant and our restaurant definition is just as you said, food is prepared and served and
customers orders are taken and served at dining tables. That implies the waiter and the waitress concept
A restaurant that otherwise satisfies this definition, may have one take-out station. Restaurants providing
in car drive-through services are prohibited. So we tried to slide you under this thing with atake-out
station.
Landreth - Mr. Chairman, then does that mean that anybody that sells pre-prepared food
In town, any delicatessen, any place at all that sells tuna fish salad is a take-out restaurant.
Planning Board Meeting Page 4 of 15 July 12, 2006
Anybody that sells a sandwich for consumption over the counter is a take-out restaurant. I mean, I
understand where the Board is coming from, but you know calling it a restaurant and it being a restaurant
are not the same thing. And when you spoke, Mr. Chairman, and talked about the need for a pouring
license -please...
I call to your attention Fancy's -which is now East Orleans Market -where they basically sell
sandwiches and they sell beer and wine and they have a sign that says - no drinking on the premises.
And nobody drinks on the premises. So, the idea that they need a pouring license is way beyond the pale.
But, there are two issues, as I understand it:
1. is the issue of the sale of beer and wine and that's the issue that's on the table
2. which really isn't part of this application for modification, is the questions of how you interpret
the first Special Permit and the various permutations.
So, I don't think the second is properly before you and if you are talking about a traffic study which relates
to some specific additional use which you claim is contemplated by
this modification, I guess I need to know that.
Henchy -OK, we do require some information on the traffic if the project proceeds the way it is currently
described. On the Permit application for the Board of Health, Mrs. McGinnis filed it -and said
Landreth -What you are saying is that you are relying on whatever the Board of Health...
Henchy - As I was saying, different boards in this Town have gotten different applications and the
application to the Board of Health filled out by Mrs. McGinnis talked about 10 picnic tables, that seated 60
people. Talked about 8 Adirondack chairs with people on that deck which surrounds the building. That's
totally different from the concept that we approved. And you can't go around from board to board and give
a different story as to what you are doing because we are all part of the Town of Brewster and we talk to
each other and it comes together.
Landreth -All right, well, I would request a continuance, Mr. Chairman
Public Comments:
Jeff Blanchard - I appreciate the Board, but I think this is the sixth or seventh meeting on this matter.
The applicant didn't even show up for whatever reason - I am sure it's great. We're all here.
And we have to come back again -and we have to listen to this back and forth about traffic, services,
liquor. I don't get it. There is enough before the Board for right now for rescinding this permit. I have
spoken to the Selectmen too. And three meetings ago, when it became apparent what the applicant was
trying to do. It was that office's opinion that the Planning Board was well within its rights to rescind the
Special Permit quickly. However much we supported the applicant as a fish market, this lemonade
stands has turned into a lemonade .Inc. And we are going to be asked to come back and listen to this
again.
Henchy - We have handled many Special Permits all in one evening. This is a very complicated
situation. It has been evolving and changing from meeting to meeting.
And we are going to establish a full and clear understanding of the project. We are going to establish a
full and clear record. And we can't rush the decision, we can't rush to anything that would be unfair to the
applicant -they have to have a full and complete opportunity to put out their final case. And then we will
make a decision. We want to get rid of this as quickly as you do; we have other stuff on our agenda. We
are trying to handle this carefully and patiently.
Shari - I just wanted to add that this is only the second meeting. The hearing wasn't legally opened until
June 14th. Anything before that was an informal discussion.
Blanchard -The applicant came in first with a proposal and you said yes. Now they are back. I'm not
getting' why you want to hear more. Why don't you go back to the beginning and start again? The
Planning Board Meeting Page 5 of 15 July 12, 2006
applicant can't get his story right from one meeting to the next. Now we find out about 8 Adirondack
chairs. It was my understanding ten years ago that you couldn't have a curb cut down there. Let's focus
on the reality.
Henchy -Because the shape of things has been changing. This is a public letter, public record. I'd like
you to have a copy of this letter from out Town Counsel. And, maybe you will understand.
Landreth - I just want to establish for the record, that I may ask that person - so I am clear -that he was
told several weeks ago by a representative of the Selectmen's office -that the Planning Board would be
well within its power to rescind the original Special Permit. Is that the statement correct? And I would to
like to know personally who made that comment on behalf of the Selectmen.
Henchy -A. I did not hear that comment myself
B. I f we were going to rescind it we would first get a legal opinion from Town
Counsel that we were legally able to do this. We would not do that strictly arbitrarily without
very careful preparation.
Landreth - Mr. Chairman, I raise a different point though, which is a violation of the open meeting law. If
the Selectmen's Office is having some kind of a meeting with respect to what or should or ought to be
done based on some business that's before the planning board, then the applicant has the right to be
present.
Henchy -There has been no such meeting that I have participated in. There has been no such meeting
that I know of that any other members have participated in. There has been no such meeting. We are
very careful. I have not had any discussions with members of this Board before this evening about what
we were going to do or not going to do. And they are seeing this letter from Zisson & Veara's office for the
first time this evening about maybe ten minutes before you got it.
Landreth -Let me be clear, Mr. Chairman. I don't think what the individual has said, says that the
Planning Board has violated the open meeting law, but apparently the Board of Selectmen or some
representative of the Board of Selectmen office is speaking out of school. And that's very disturbing. After
all this is the Planning Board's business.
Blanchard -Well, it's the Selectmen's business too. When you ask for a beer and wine license.
Landreth - Mr. Chairman, does this individual have the floor?
Henchy - I'm sorry - I am hard of hearing -and my hearing aid mysteriously disappeared about three
weeks ago. So I would appreciate it if you would talk a little louder.
MOTION to continue to August 16, 2006 at 7:05
MOVED by Bugle,
SECOND by Tubman
Meeting was moved to August 23, 2006 because meeting was not posted for newspaper.
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).
Seated for this hearing -Henchy, Taylor, Tubman, McMullen, Remy.
Present for the Applicant -John Mostyn, Attorney; Thomas Devane, Project Manager;
John Murtha, General Manager; Bob Keen, Landscape Architect .
Planning Board Meeting Page 6 of 15 July 12, 2006
Abutters present -Janine Getek and Joan Orr,
Mostyn -When we last met one of the issues was landscaping for the area between our property
and the private abutting properties, to try to address their concerns about visibility of the
property and noise. So we arranged for a meeting with Ms. Orr and Ms. Getek with Tom
Devane, our Project Manager, and John Murtha, General Manager of Ocean Edge. They toured
the site and talked about fencing in lieu of landscaping. We proposed 6 ft. fencing, 320 lineal
feet along the property border. We can show you the plan that was presented to the Historic
District Committee on Monday night and approved by them.
Keen -You can see Route 6A is to your left and the house and the garage with the driveway
coming in. On the left side is a huge Mulberry tree and we are going to run the fence from there.
It will be a minimum of 12" away from the property line and then it will run along the back, the
rear of the property on the south side. It will be a 6 ft. high board fence, natural. We had the
property surveyed and it has just worked out terrific, none of the trees have to be removed.
Some shrubbery that is on the other side of the fence will be preserved. There is actually a
little knoll, a raised area between the property, along the line, so that is where the fence will
be. The berm will be to the neighbors benefit as far as screening. The good side of the fence will
be towards the neighbors.
Mostyn - I have a couple of photos that may help you. It was the opinion of Bob and I hope our
neighbors that landscaping wasn't merited here. (Mostyn showed photos to Board and described
what they were.)
Henchy -Have you reviewed this proposal with the neighbors and have they signed off on it?
Mostyn -I personally haven't talked with them. I certainly hope so.
Henchy -Mr. Mostyn, has the debris behind the building been cleaned up? Remember those pictures that
the neighbors brought in a month ago?
Getek -All of the debris has been cleaned up. Tom Devane and Bob and everyone has been very helpful
in trying to get this thing cleared up.
Henchy - So basically you folks are happy?
Getek -We're happy.
Henchy -Were there any other open issues on this?
Taylor -Did we have a discussion about hours or lighting? What are you going to have for
lighting back there? What's there now, just the egress lighting on the building? There is nothing
back by the garage or anything?
Keen -There are some building mounted lights on the garage and that is on the site plan.
Taylor -Are these downlights, are they shielded?
Keen - I think they are not shoe-box style.
Taylor - If they are not shielded now, would you make sure that they are shielded downlights,
when they are replaced?
Mostyn -Sure.
Taylor -Now what do we have for hours?
Planning Board Meeting Page 7 of 15 July 12, 2006
Mostyn -The hours of operation, the garage was the area that was most at issue and that's 9-5.
There is a skeleton crew that is in the main house 24/7.
Taylor -Is the parking going to be delineated back there? The pictures that we have everybody
sort of just parks wherever there is space.
Mostyn - We are delineating the house parking, but had not planned on delineating the rest of it.
Remy - It might not be a bad idea to do that because people might start to park more towards the
neighbor's if there are no delineations. Headlights could be a problem with the neighbors.
Taylor -You could put in cement wheel stops, then they would know where to park. Where did
we end up on discussing any outside storage or any vehicles being parked there.
Mostyn -There are vehicles being parked there.
Taylor -Beyond cars?
Mostyn -Small pick-up trucks.
Taylor -And storage?
Mostyn -There is no open storage there.
Henchy -Hours ofoperation-regular 9-5? After hours a skeleton crew?
Mostyn -In the main building -there is always someone there.
Remy - Is there a dumpster there.? Where is it located?
Keen -Yes, It is shown on the site plan - to the rear of the garage, south of the garage.
A small four-yard dumpster.
Taylor -Is it permanent? Will it be enclosed?
Mostyn -Yes it's permanent. We discussed that, but we are fencing the whole side of the yard
now, so we thought we would not have to fence the dumpster.
Devane -You will not be able to see the dumpster from, over the fence.
Mostyn -One correction about the garage. I am told that the hours are 7-5.
Taylor -How noisy will it be from 7 to 9? Are there going to be saws, sanders and repair
work at 7 o'clock?
Mostyn -There is a power saw.
Tubman - Is there an overhead door? Is it all closed up?
Mostyn - It is closed. It is a residential garage.
Plaice -There was concern about the access to Villages Drive.
Mostyn - We actually have a new drawing of our latest proposed driveway. We had an
understanding that within six months we would commence work and complete it within nine
months. That would give us some flexibility. We wanted to make sure that it was lined up
appropriately.
Planning Board Meeting Page 8 of 15 July 12, 2006
Keen -You can see the orientation to Ocean Edge Drive. You can see 2680. We call this
building the White House. I have no idea why. There is parking behind here. Caldwell Real
Estate is there. The reason is that since Route 6A is so busy; this would be a way to access
Villages Drive without having to add congestion to Route 6a and we have tried to make it as easy
as possible. There is a huge grove of trees which we want to preserve, but instead of putting the
access driveway in the lawn area, I moved it to make it the same access, so we will be cutting
down some of the trees. I am a landscape architect, so cutting down trees is like cutting off my
arm. So we really do love our trees. It will be a very slow gradual road. No one will use it as a
speedway.
Taylor -Did you say that you were going to end up having registration on this side of the street
for this side of the street?
Mostyn -That idea has been tossed back and forth. There are pros and cons.
Taylor -The big pro is that you get the traffic off Route 6A. There is a lot of traffic from people
crossing 6A just to register. Anything we can get off of 6A is wonderful.
Mostyn -One of the trade-offs is duplication of staff. But we have made the change that people
don't have to check out, it is automatically done. That does reduce traffic.
Plaice -Uses?
Mostyn- In the house, just housekeeping and engineering offices; in the garage there is an
engineering workshop.
Henchy -How heavy is the machinery that you will have in the garage?
Mostyn -Mostly hand tools, a power saw and a drill.
Remy -The garage is open seven days a week? I would like to have something in the decision
that this will be revisited if the neighbors find it hard to have stuff going on at 7AM on Saturday
and Sunday. Maybe they could move it back to 9AM. I would like to hear your comments on that
-the neighbors comments.
Getek - We were going to come back to that. 7AM to 5PM? That is really early on weekends.
Mostyn -The Noise Ordinance is always available.
Douglass- Aclarification -the Town Bylaw covers 24/7 -people can complain about noise
anytime and the Police Department will look into it. There is no restriction as to when you can
make a complaint.
Mostyn -Hopefully we can voluntarily work it out with our neighbors and otherwise the Noise
Ordinance is available.
Henchy -There has got to be a way to handle normal emergencies. Is there any equipment in
there that you would be dragging it out if there is an accident. What sort of noise do you
anticipate coming out of this garage?.
Mostyn -Just normal drilling and sawing.
Devane -It's an engineering operation which does start at 7AM in the morning and they usually
finish around 3:30. But we have 350 hotel units that they look after. Mostly the operations that
go on in there are repairing screens, maybe an air conditioning units. Basically it is like your own
garage -and we have a skill saw and a drill press. I understand that the neighbors might be
concerned about noise at that time in the morning. We will try our very best not to use that
Planning Board Meeting Page 9 of 15 July 12, 2006
equipment early. The doors will remain shut. We understand that there is a Noise Ordinance and
if there is a problem, we hope that it doesn't get to that.
Remy - I would like to see something specific in the conditions. That they will keep noise to a
minimum from 7-9AM on the weekends.
Tubman- Is that going on there now? Is there a problem with noise now?
Getek - We would like to see a restriction on noise on the weekends.
Murtha - I think the compromise that Ms. Remy offered is fine. We would be happy to reduce
the hours to 9 to 5 on Saturday and Sunday. But, the fact of the matter is that the staff works
from 7 until 2:30 or 4 or 5; so to be restricted to having to start at 9:00 in the morning is a little
unreasonable given their working schedule. Weekends, I can understand. We are not quite as
focused on repair work on the weekends. It tends to be more emergency stuff that crops up. I
think we can be happy with 9 to 5 on the weekends if we could have a little more leeway on the
weekdays.
Getek - I guess the concern is when we talk about what's reasonable is that this is a residential
area. The question comes up about zoning, and whether or not this property is going to be a
commercial property. It is not a commercial property; when it is going to be making commercial
noise. I guess that is a concern. I wouldn't expect that my next door neighbor or I would be
drilling at 7 AM on weekday mornings. We wouldn't be doing that in a residential area, not
regularly. From what I am hearing it sounds like this is something that perhaps is going to be
done on a regular basis. And also, just based on touring the property and seeing the garage, it is
an old farmhouse rickety sort of garage- that has absolutely no noise barrier. And I imagine that
the garage doors are open when something is being worked on.
Henchy - I think as the gentlemen said, you have 300 some odd hotel rooms and there are a
thousand condos over there. When you have that big a package of facilities for people living -
things do tend to go wrong from time to time and when they go wrong people want them fixed in
a hurry, a pipe breaks, in summer time an air conditioner goes out or in winter time a heating
system goes out. So there will be some moving around. I don't see how you can avoid it and
it's essentially that to maintain the living quarters for 1,400 -1,500 units with maybe 3,000 to
4,500 people.
Mostyn - There are about 335 units. In the hotel section. The 800+ condo units are
Corcoran -Jennison which is a separate company.
McMullen - I can't imagine a drill press making that much noise.
Devane - No, it's the saw that makes noise. It doesn't happen that often. We just have to do a
better job of noise control/buffering.
McMullen - I don't see a problem. I see no problem of restricting it on the weekends, but if we
are going to allow the use - I don't think we should restrict their ability to work during the
week. It is VB.
Mostyn - As we mentioned hopefully the fence will do something to help. The Noise
Ordinance is available. You know if we had to go elsewhere, this is a Village Business District.
The back part of the property is CH District and we would rather keep it here than go father back
on the property. This is the right place for it.
The Board agreed on the following as conditions
General
Planning Board Meeting Page 10 of 15 July 12, 2006
1. The Board of Health requested a septic system inspection and as a result, some work needs to
be completed on the system. This will need to be completed as a part of Planning Board
approval.
2. There shall be no open storage.
3. There shall be no construction or large vehicles parked in this lot.
4. The existing four-yard dumpster does not require screening, as long as it remains in the current
position, since it will be screened by the proposed fence.
5. Any additional dumpsters will need to be reviewed with the Planning Board.
6. Additional activity that isn't covered in the permit.
Traffic/Access
7. A second access road shall be created connecting the premises to Villages Drive, reducing traffic
congestion in the area and making the property more accessible for Police, Fire and Emergency
vehicles.
8. Twelve copies of an Access Road plan shall be submitted to the Planning Board, to allow the
exact location of the connecting drive to be reviewed.
9. The Planning Board will forward these plans to the Police and Fire Departments, the Building
Department and the DPW for their review and approval.
10. Said access road shall be started within six months after this Decision is filed and shall be
completed within nine months after the Decision is filed.
Parking
11. Parking spaces are to be delineated with cement bumpers.
12. Parking shall only occur within the delineated spaces.
Noise
13. The work hours for the garage are to be 7:OOAM- S:OOPM week days and 9:OOAM - S:OOPM
weekends.
14. During the week, noise will be kept to a minimum from 7-9 AM.
Landscaping
15. A Landscape Plan shall be provided. Indicating screening that will block abutters view of the
property.
Lighting
16. All lighting had to be shielded, directed downward.
17. There shall be no light trespass.
MOTION to Close the Hearing to Public Comment
Moved by Taylor, second by Remy
All in favor
Motion to Approve with Conditions
Moved by Taylor, Second by Remy
Roll Call Vote.
All "AYE".
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.
Present for this meeting: Henchy, Pierce, Tubman, Taylor, Remy
Bugle excused himself, since he had missed the prior hearing for this application.
Henchy -Read letter from Victor Staley into the record:
Planning Board Meeting Page 11 of 15 July 12, 2006
"July 7, 2006
Dear Mr. Allard,
This morning I met with the site engineer of record, Terry Ryder, at the property noted
above to discuss the uses you are proposing relative to the uses identified in Article 4 of
Table 1 of the Brewster Zoning Bylaws.
Mr. Ryder and I could not agree on how the shop/storage bay is classified within the
Table noted above. As you are aware, I have been requesting since at least April of this
year for you to specify the exact nature of the uses of the labeled shop/storage bay.
Verbally you have stated on June 28, 2006 at the Planning Board meeting that you hoped
that these bays would be used by tradespeople for storage of their equipment and
possibly some manufacturing. If this is as definitive as you are going to be, than I would
opine that this use is not allowed within the Commercial High Density Zoning District as
determined in Table 1 and also under Manufacturing. The use is not listed on Table 1 and
is therefore considered prohibited according to Section 10.
You have the right to petition the Board of Appeals for either a use variance or according
to Section 52 of the Brewster Zoning Bylaw or as an aggrieved person to have my
determination altered or overturned in accordance with Sections 8 and 15 of Mass
General Laws.
Victor Staley"
Henchy -This touches on a sensitive issue. I had occasion to go into one shop
On Underpass road and the gentlemen there wants to extend his property and
create a couple of bays which he can rent out to tradesmen, pretty much along the
lines that Mr. Allard has described it to Mr. Staley. There is a real need in this
Town for someplace where people can work. And I understand that all of those
nice buildings on Independence Way, if you go inside of them, they have been
sliced up a little bit and provide bays for people to work in. And this individual
that was telling me this, said that he was not trying to blow the whistle on
anybody, but he said things, like that are needed and necessary and on
Independence Way they are doing it all inside and it does not show and it is not
creating problems for anybody. And that has been my assessment of
Independence Way too.
I think, I had a session with Charlie with Sarah and Victor and we talked about changing some
Zoning Bylaws, adding some and making some necessary pruning on others. And I'd like to
suggest that maybe we put something like this on the agenda too. These bays, if someone wants
to get a whole building, build a building some of these areas in town require 40,000 SF for
commercial building. We have very little land in the Town zoned for anything of that nature and
we need people who can fix things and build things and what not.
McMullen - I think what this amounts to is our vision of what we see the town developing into, we
have Underpass Road. That is the only large commercially zoned area in town and we have
turned that into welding shops and contractor's yards and garages and everything we never
wanted to revert that into any sort of retail space or anything like this. I think we are just very,
very limited with commercial lands and, if this is the trend and this is what we want the Town to
be, just stick industrial type uses in commercial high density then that's the way we go, if it's not,
then I think this Board is going to have to make some serious decisions about what we want.
Henchy - I haven't seen much of a rush of retailers of that sort into the areas that are available
and it seems to me that people that want to be in business with some kind of retail, either try to
get into one of those strip malls over in Orleans near Staples or what not or near star market or
want to go down to Charlie Chamberlains
Planning Board Meeting Page 12 of 15 Juty 12, 2006
Allard- we have been coming to the Board for months now. We have come to an
agreement with Walter Butler, the owner of Millstone package store, to eliminate
his current entrance off of Millstone and to share a new entrance off of our lot.
Chief Koch, Chief Jones and DPW Superintendent Bob Bersin have all approved
this as a suitable solution to the problem.
Allard -1. Water Quality Review Committee: We have gone to the WQRC and
our plan was approved.
2. Parking: WQRC made recommendations that we use gravel on the majority of the
parking lot and that we eliminate some of the parking as it seems excess. Your
committee approved using blue stone on the entirety of our parking lot with the exception
of the apron that would connect into Mr. Butler's parking lot.
3. Landscape Plan: Submitted a landscaped plan and lighting plan that demonstrates
our intentions to make the building as aesthetically pleasing as possible.
Plans are to put in a privet hedge around the edges of the property to give neighboring
lots privacy and leave the back of the lot much as it is now. The front will be a landscaped
garden.
4. Lighting: Our lighting will be minimal and only where it is
required on the building and a small lamp post at the back of the parking lot.
5. Uses: We have already been before the Zoning Board of Appeals to change the
zoning of the lot itself from half residential and half commercial to a fully commercial lot.
The usage for the offices in the main building is defined under Number 13 "Miscellaneous
Business Offices and Services".
The sensitive portion of the building seems to be the three "shop/Storage bays" at the
rear of the building. As we have previously stated at other meetings, our intentions for the
space are to store materials directly related
to our business.
The three shop/storage bays at the rear of the building will be used as follows:
Bay 1: Building of kitchen cabinets, furniture, molding, etc.
Bay 2: Storage of small tools, e.g. ladders, compressors, saws etc.
Bay 3: Storage of excess job materials; e.g. shingles, windows,
wood, etc.
We have no intention of manufacturing anything for sale.
Allard -Victor Staley and members of the Planning Board have brought up concerns that the
intended use is not conforming under the Commercial High Density (C-H) Zoning District
and therefore have recommended that we go to the Zoning Board of Appeals and obtain
a variance for our intended use. If the Board sees this action as necessary, we would
like to propose that we be approved to go ahead with the construction of the building
under the conditions that we use the building under the uses already deemed acceptable
by the table of use regulations, and go before the Board of Appeals before we use it as
we had intended.
The Board briefly discussed the need for a traffic study.
Allard commented that the Town was doing the study and he did not need to.
Planning Board Meeting Page 13 of 15 July 12, 2006
Henchy -The Planning Board is unaware of any such traffic study being
undertaken. We will check into this.
Douglass: I have met with Steve and provided him with the ITE Trip Generation
Manual. The data is as follows:
"July 26, 2006
Case COPD 2006-06
Allard Custom Building -Commercial Office Building
(Map 42, Lot 14-102) at the intersection of Route 137 & Millstone Road
Estimation of Traffic Generation:
At the last Corridor Overlay Protection District hearing it was expressed that while the
Board did not want to require a full blown traffic study in relation to this application, more
clarification was desired in relation to the amount of traffic that the proposed development
could generate. I had suggested that the applicant could use the Institute of
Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual to verify whether his estimate of
anticipated vehicle trips per day was within the statistical average for similar types of
uses.
Mr. Allard came to our office today and we took the square footage of each proposed use
and used the Manual to come up with an approximation of what sort of cumulative traffic
could be expected as a result of the proposed development:
General Office Space
15' Floor = 2,282 SF
2nd FIOOr = 1,998 SF
4,280 SF Total
Based on the ITE Manual (3~d Edition) for "general office space under 100,000 GSF" the
Average Weekday Vehicle Trip End for that use is 17.7 trip ends per 1,000 square feet of
building area. The Manual notes a 50% independent variable and because Mr. Allard
anticipates only three clients in his development with less than 5 employees each, he felt
his development would fall on the lowest end of trip generation. If so, the 4,280 SF of low
volume office could be expected to generate about 30 trip ends.
Residential Space:
The 1,324 SF dwelling unit falls within the category of general apartment use. The
Average Weekday Vehicle Trip End for that use is 2.8 per person. A one bedroom
apartment could be expected to be occupied by 2 people and hence one could expect an
average trip rate of 6 for that use.
We could not find a use category for Mr. Allard's construction shop, but based on his
current operations and he as the only employee accessing the bays, he estimated that
his traffic generation would be similar to a single family residence or an average of 5
weekday vehicle trip ends per day.
This analysis would estimate the average traffic generation from the development
at 41 trip ends per day.
The Board discussed the information from the ITE Manual and decided that a
traffic study would not be required if the trips remained as indicated by the
Manual.
Allard - I also have agreed to further reduce the traffic to the site by having only
one person pick up the pay checks on Fridays, instead of each worker picking up
their own check.
Planning Board Meeting Page 14 of 15 July 12, 2006
Taylor-1 spoke to Bob Bersin, DPW Director, relative to proposed work enlarging/lengthening the
existing traffic island at Route 137 and Millstone Road. He indicated that this is still in the
visioning stage and no Chapter 90 funds have been requested, not is it part of the DPW
Capital plan for the Town. Therefore we can't count of this work to help mitigate traffic
congestion in this area, any time soon.
However, the applicant has agreed to restrict traffic on payday and has worked with Mr.
Butler of Millstone Liquors to share access to their sites, while closing Mr. Butler's
existing access on Millstone Road. This is an important traffic safety improvement and
should count as some form of traffic mitigation.
The applicant agreed to the following conditions:
1. No more than 41 trip ends per day
2. Ten (10) employees only
3. Only light pick-up trucks and cars will be allowed on the site.
4. Waiver of eleven (11) parking spaces
5. Steve Allard along with his architect daughter, Amanda, will be the sole occupants of the
offices at this time.
6. Two parking spaces which project beyond the front line of the building will be eliminated
from the parking located at the side of the building.
7. Any uses that conform to the restrictions for the Commercial High Density Zoning District
are allowed at this site.
8. When new tenants are considered, the applicant shall come back before the Planning
Board to make sure the new tenants conform to the District regulations.
9. Standard requirements of Chapter 179
MOTION to Continue to July 26 at 7:05PM and draft a permit in favor.
Motion by Taylor, Remy second. All voted Aye.
Review of FYI items
MOTION to Adjourn
MOVED by Taylor
SECOND by Bugle
All voted "AYE"
o m
Respectfully submitted, c
~. -
z
N
O~
Marjorie Pierce/Clerk
co
00
Marilyn Mooe Secre ary
Planning Board Meeting Page 15 of 15 July 12, 2006