HomeMy Public PortalAboutPlanning Board -- 2007-05-23 Minutes\\~~~~`f~F~E w ~'~~~~'
i> fi ~
C u az N
r. - -~
,~ _ ~ ; ~ ~`
/~~~/////i Ff B R~ 0 Rti a~ O~~\O\\\\`\\
Date Approved with modifications: July 11, 2007
7-0-0
Brewster Planning Board
2198 Main Street
Brewster, Massachusetts 02631-1898
(508) 896-3701
FAX (508) 896-8089
TOWN OF BREWSTER MINUTES OF PLANNING BOARD
Wednesday May 23, 2007 7:00 P.M.
Brewster Town Office Building
Chairman Henchy convened the Planning Board meeting at 7:OOPM in the Brewster Town Office Building with
members Taylor, Pierce, Bugle, Cabezas, Tubman and McMullen.
Reorganization of the Planning Board: Due to the Town Election held on May 22, 2007, the Planning Board began this
meeting with a reorganization as follows:
1. Chairman: Pierce moved to have Henchy remain as Chairman. McMullen second. All in Favor.
2. Vice-Chairman: Taylor moved to have McMullen as Vice-Chairman. Tubman second. All in Favor.
3. Clerk: Taylor moved to have Pierce remain as Clerk. Tubman second. All in Favor.
Minutes of the March 28, 2007 meeting were approved as written.
Minutes of April 25, 2007 meeting were approved with modification.
Pierce left the meeting.
LEGAL HEARING
Modification to CORRIDOR OVERLAY PROTECTION DISTRICT - #COPD 2007-05 -ApplicantlOwner; Bennett 8~
O'Reilly/McGinnis - to eliminate the residential apartment portion of the original project and to seek a
reduction in the required number of parking spaces. Located 2750 Main Street, Assessor's Map 14, Parcel 61.
Present for the Applicant- John O'Reilly, Bennett 8~ O'Reilly.
Sitting on the hearing were members: Henchy, Taylor, Tubman, McMullen and Cabezas. Bugle recused himself.
Chairman Henchy opened the hearing May 23, 2007 by reading the legal advertisement and making the applicant and
parties in interest aware of their rights to appeal as required under Chapter 40A, Section 17. He stated that during the
hearing any member of the Board or interested party could direct questions through the Chairman to a speaker relating
to the proposal.
O'Reilly- Reviewed with the Planning Board the application as presented. The proposed modification would keep the
parking spaces at 10 feet wide and 20 feet deep and would reduce the number of parking spaces available.
Taylor -Would like to request that if people park on the street or on the grass then the appticant/owner would need to
come back before the Planning Board.
O'Reilly -Felt that if parking became an issue the applicant would be willing to return to the Planning Board.
There were no other comments from the Planning Board and no comments from the audience.
Planning Board Meeting Page 1 of 5
05-23-07
Taylor -Motion was made to draft a decision incorporating the following: if people are parking on the street or if they
are parking outside of the designated areas shown on the plan then the Applicant/Ownershatl reappear before the
Planning Board. The final vote would be decided at the next meeting. Second -Tubman. All in favor -Aye
Legal Hearing -Subdivision Plan #2007-10 -Applicant/Owner; Cape Cod Engineering/Jay Merchant -
Proposed subdivision "Newcomb Knolls" -Definitive plan submitted for 16 conventional lots -Located off
A.P. Newcomb Road on Assessors' Map 36, Parcels 1 ~ 5.
Sitting on the hearing were members: Henchy, Taylor, Tubman, Cabezas, McMullen and Bugle.
Present for the Applicant/Owner: Robert Perry, Cape Cod Engineering; Paul Sweetser, Professional Land
Surveyor/Jay Merchant, Owner
Robert Perry presented and briefly reviewed the application. Mr. Perry requested 3 waivers as follows:
1) A waiver is requested for the provision of Article IV Section 290-11 B. (2). The terminus of Abby Road has not
been provided with easements or additional land area to access adjacent undeveloped land. Subsequent re-
division of the lots in that corner of the parcel may provide an adequate width route to undeveloped land. Also,
the cut-de-sac terminus of Audrey Land lies approximately 170 ft. from the layout of Rocky Hill Road, a
subdivision to the southwest of locus, instead of the 300 ft. minimum. Since the proposed water main cross-
connection was intended to meet Rocky Hill Rd., the reduced offset distance for the cut-de-sac did not appear
to cause harm to any interests and brought the water main to a reasonably close proximity to Rocky Hill Rd.
where it can then traverse along the property separating tot 10 & 11. In addition, the water line would run
parallel to NStar's existing easement.
2) A waiver is requested from the provision of Article IV, Section 290-11 C. Table 2, requiring a 450 ft. minor
street sight stopping distance. Currently, the proposed crest curve has a sight stopping distance of 273 ft. The
applicant felt that the 273 ft. distance is appropriate for the roadway given the terrain and geometry that will not
encourage nor support high speeds.
3) A waiver is requested from the provision of Article IV, Section 290-11 K Streetlights. The applicant believes
the imposition of a streetlight at the new road intersection with AP Newcomb Rd. will adversely affect the
neighborhood character. In addition the intersection of AP Newcomb and Dillingham road has no streetlight
and there are no problems reported.
The Planning Board felt it would be best to outline this agreement and the conditions in a covenant.
Bill Henchy read off the Department Reviews: The proposed subdivision was reviewed by the following departments:
Board of Health, Building Dept., Police Dept., Conservation Comm., Dept. of Public Works, Water Dept., Fire Dept.,
and Historic District Comm.
BOH - signed off, no comments
DPW -Memo was read and the following questions answered:
1. Drainage- What is proposed to contain storm water for the developed parcels? Perry stated that 4
sets of basins were planned with individual dry wells. This system should be adequate.
2. Drainage- Will slope easements be required for the grades in this area as the slope will extend to
adjacent parcels? No slope easements were planned
3. Drainage -How will the drainage system be maintained? Perry/Merchant agreed to establish a
Homeowners Association upfront. The association would be responsible for maintenance.
4. Roadway Maintenance and Repair -How will the access road be maintained? Homeowners
Association
5. Snow & Ice Removal -Will snow and ice removal services be required of DPW? Yes, as with all other
private roads in the town.
6. Access -all access shall be off proposed roadways - No access from AP Newcomb or Rocky Hill
Road -This needs to be part of the Covenant
Planning Board Meeting Page 2 of 5
05-23-07
7. #12 from Bersin's memo -was unclear and needed clarification
BUILDING -Henchy read Building Dept. memo:
1. Will there be a deeded restriction prohibiting Lots #1, 3 & 4 from driveway access via AP Newcomb Rd.
and Lot # 10 from driveway access via Rocky Hill Rd? No Access and a deed restriction should be
included. The restriction should also mention that Lot # 10 needs to keep the placement of a
driveway away from Rocky Hill area
2. It is unclear to me with the plans that I have received to determine the property line separation between
Lots 7 & 8 and Lots 10 & 11 -The lines were clarified and noted
WATER -Henchy read Water Dept. letter:
1. The water main as proposed on Plan, does not show as connecting through the easement to Rocky Hill
Road -The revised plans will show the easement
2. The easement requested between Lot 13 and 14 is not shown on plans -The revised plan will show
the easement
POLICE - No Comments were submitted
FIRE -Henchy read the Fire Dept. review:
1. The Fire Dept. requested connection of Audrey Way with Rocky Hill Road -for safety issue. -Perry
stated that the Fire Dept. may have emergency access through the NStar easement, it was
agreed that there would be no access through Rocky Hill Road.
2. Radius for cul-de-sacs to be verified at 50 ft. minimum. -The plan will be revised to include
CONS. COM. -There are no wetlands on this property, but lots 8 & 9 may be within 100 feet of wetland resource
areas (old bog) on adjacent property. A filing for any grading that is proposed for the 100 foot Buffer Zone must be
submitted to the Commission - OK
HDC- signed off - no comments
PLANNING BOARD COMMENTS:
Taylor
1. It would be great if they could gate off the power line easement. It would help to keep out the ATV
traffic -Perry felt that could be implemented
2. Discussed building envelopes -Perry felt the land was too variable and didn't feel that they could
specify what each residence lot could look like at this time. Perhaps it could be outlined in the
association by-laws to specify either no clear cutting or only a percentage of trees from a lot could be
removed.
3. Are Lots 4, 5, 6, 7 & 11 lower costs because of the power lines? Yes
4. Please be sure to make sure Homeowners are notified of the clear cutting done by NStar on the
easement
5. Homeowners Assoc. should also mention that the homeowners need to limit the number of
pesticides/fertilizers used on the lots
6. The proposed subdivision contains old stonewalls -Taylor would like to have it written into the
covenant that the stonewall must remain in place and may not be removed -Perry felt they would be
able to adjust one lot so that the stonewall ran along as the property line.
7. Would a subdivision sign with light focused on the sign be installed? Perry, they hadn't planned a sign
but if it was necessary they could and the homeowners association would maintain the area.
Bugle: Was concerned with the access of Lot 4 and there was discussion around the potential of having Lot 4
access through AP Newcomb -this was denied.
Cabezas: agreed with Taylor on gating the easement
Tubman: no comments
Planning Board Meeting Page 3 of 5
05-23-07
McMullen - is a topographical plan available? -Yes -Perry reviewed the terrain of each lot and discussed the pros
and cons of each lot. Perry noted that there are no steep slopes within the subdivision. McMullen felt that a speed
of 35 mph would be fast and he can't even see a resident going more than 20 mph for this subdivision. McMullen
felt that a street light would be necessary for safety and especially because of the church traffic. Perry said they
would put in a light if needed on their side of the street.
Public Comment:
Douglass: an abutter, made several points as follows:
1. She felt that a street light was not needed on AP Newcomb -Douglass mentioned that 3 nights a week
the church leaves their lights on. In addition, a light exists at Dillingham which gives off significant light for
the roadway
2. Wanted to know what the sight distance was from Abby Rd. to AP Newcomb? 273 ft.
3. Also, she wanted to know the sign distance from Abby Rd. at AP Newcomb and Satuket? This was
undetermined
4. Douglass felt having an Association would be beneficial
5. Douglass was very concerned about tree clearing and wanted assistance from the developer to ensure
that as many trees as possible would remain in order to keep with the character of the neighborhood
6. Would the sub-division be serviced by gas? Perry said yes
7. Regarding ATVs, Douglass would be receptive to anything that can be done to reduce this activity
8. Douglass requested to see the study on how many vehicles per day this sub-division would generate? -
A study had not been done -however, Perry felt that with 16 lots it would generate 32 peak hour trips.
Douglass would like to know the per day overall numbers. Perry did not have this information
9. How many bedrooms? Perry estimated 3-4 bedrooms per home. He also reiterated that he didn't think
there was a better place for asub-division without serious impact on the town.
Ritchie - an abutter from Rocky Hill Rd. -She wanted to know if the water pressure would be affected. Perry
thought the water pressure would be improved. Ritchie also wanted to ensure that there would be no access
through Rocky Hill Rd. Ritchie further stated that the easement is maintained by the electric company and she
requested a gate to be put in and the electric company has done that. Perry assured Ritchie that they had no rights
to access through Rocky Hill and they were not looking for any access.
Smith - an abutter, wanted to know the anticipated start date? Perry too early to put a specific date.
Henchy noted no further comments from attendees. He stated that the Planning Board liked the plan and would like
to ask for a continuance to address some of the issues discussed at this meeting. Perry agreed.
Motion was made by McMullen to continue to next meeting. Second by Taylor.
Approved by all.
INFORMAL DISCUSSION
1. Letter from Zisson and Veara regarding Matthews (Wood Duck Plan) v. Planning Board of the Town of
Brewster
Henchy -informed the Planning Board that the Board's decision to deny the Matthews' subdivision plan
had been verified by Zisson and Veara and now was being appealed by Matthews.
2. Brief discussion around the letter submitted from the Building Commissioner regarding JT's request to
erect a "changeable-copy sign". The Commissioner denied the applicant's request.
3. Performance Bonds -based on a request by the Town Accountant a preliminary discussion occurred regarding
outstanding bonds. It was determined that further research/inspections would be required.
4. Letter from Will Ladd, Map 37, lot 17-2; Mr. Ladd submitted a letter regarding a potential horse/barn on their
neighbors property (Map 37, lot 17-3). It was Mr. Ladd's understanding that a barn was going to be built that would
Planning Board Meeting Page 4 of 5
05-23-07
house 10-15 show horses. Mr. Ladd contended that the lot was not large enough fro that many horses, he was
concerned with the removal of the manure and finally the traffic ramifications on the road. The Planning Board felt
that a barn of this size on less than 2 acres would require a submission to COPD. Also, this stable would change
the character of the area and may have an impact on the groundwater. It was agreed that the Building Dept. should
be notified of Mr. Ladd's concern.
Additional Business:
1. Stranahan Property -Jason Condit present and wanted to discuss this Property off of Pine Hill Dr. It was Mr.
Condit's impression that a subdivision was approved and going to happen. He was very concerned that he was not
notified and wanted to know why abutters were not notified of a decision on the land.
Henchy- informed Mr. Condit that they have had only an informal discussion on this property. To have a legally
binding/valid decision the Planning Board must advertise and notify the abutters.
Taylor -was not happy that a preliminary discussion was held and that abutters were not notified. Ms. Taylor felt that
decisions were made and that the Slade's may be proceeding based on the previous Planning Board meeting.
Henchy -felt any informal discussion was not binding because there was no public notice, but in the future to have an
informal hearing the applicant must submit the required $50 and we must notify the abutters.
2. Development Plan Review Committee -Flaherty -preliminary discussion regarding a proposed three bay
commercial building with an attached 560 SF apartment.
Henchy -would like to see shingles or siding on all sides and there should be no outside parking in the front. Current
plans show parking in front and that doesn't conform to by-law
McMullen -would like all comments emailed to him and he will pass along to the DPRC.
Motion -Bugle to adjourn
Second -McMullen
Vote 6-0-0
Respectfully submitted,
I ` - ''~
Marjorie Pi rce/Clerk
J nne S i/Administrative Clerk
o n
(d7
C
r"' x°
N
y w
~ ~.
IV
lIl
Planning Board Meeting Page 5 of 5
05-23-07