Loading...
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