Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutZoning Board of Appeals -- 2007-06-12 MinutesDate approved 07-24-07 Vote 4-0-0 TOWN OF BREWSTER ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Meeting Minutes June 12, 2007 Chairman Harvey Freeman called the meeting to order at 7;00 PM. Members- present were; Harvey Freeman, Philip Jackson, Arthur Stewart, Paul Kearney, and John Nixon. Also present were Dick Heaton, MHP Consultant and Michael Giggey NEW BUSINESS 07-08 Mark Zippo (White Rock Commons), 157 South Orleans Road. Map 52 Lots 31-1 and 33- 1. The Applicant seeks a Comprehensive Permit under MGL 406, sections 20-23 and 760 CMR 30.00 and 31.00. The proposal includes re-subdividing the land into two parcels to include 24 single-family dwelling units under condominium form of ownership on new Lot 1 and one relocated house on new Lot 2. Present for Applicant: Andrew Singer-Attorney, Mark Zippo-applicant, Robert Fitrgerald- Engineer, Laura Shufelt-Economic Consultant. Present from the Town: Mark O'Brien, Director of the Captains Golf Course and Victor Staley, Building Commissioner This hearing was advertised in the Cape Codder on Friday, June 1, and June 8, 2007 as required. The Chairman asked Mr. Singer if he would like to make any comments of updates since our last meeting. Mr. Singer-provided an update between all parties and specifically noted the nitrogen reduction seemed to be the biggest concern. The issue was how to take care of the nitrogen in the most economic and environmentally friendly way possible. Originally, the applicant was looking to include 24 single-family dwelling units under condominium form of ownership. The Town requested additional processing to remove the nitrogen. However, it was determined that this additional treatment would require on-going maintenance which would be a complex and expensive under taking. The upkeep for ongoing maintenance would make the price of the proposed units unfeasible. The Town requested that they break the treatment into 2 phases. The first phase would put the load at 19 mg/I the second phase would bring it down to 10 mg/I. Preliminary conversations have occurred between parties to try to come up with an affordable way to address this issue. Mr. Singer presented an alternative approach as follows. 1) Increase the number of units to 29. 2) Designate 8 units as affordable with the remaining lots being sold at market rate 3) Look at other Town owned properties and see if there was a way to reduce nitrogen levels. 4) Mr. Zippo would provide $50,000 to the Town to be used for nitrogen removal at another Town owned site. The alternative site might be the Captains Golf Course. ZBA Minutes 6-12-07 Page 1 of 5 The net result of the alternative would be that Mr. Zippo would have enough units to make this development economical. The Town would have 8 affordable units and the overall nitrogen levels would be below the requested amount. Mike Giggey presented a spreadsheet that outlined the estimated loads (see attached). The Developer's first proposal would put the Ib/yr at 497; the Town's counter proposal would put the number at 410. If you were to look at adding the Single stage Bioclere at the golf course and keeping the just 24 units the Ib/yr would be 374 (36 below the Town's request/ 97 below the applicant's original proposal). If you add the single stage Bioclere at the golf course and add 5 units then the total would be 400 ib/yr (10 still below the Town's request). Mr. Singer reiterated that if the net profit exceeded 15% then that would be donated to the affordable housing fund. Also, they would like to request that the $50,000 permit fee money be redirected into the affordable housing fund and not go into the building/permitting fund. Mr. Staley pointed out that all funds go into a general fund. Mr. Heaton felt that there would be a trade off of 29 units for an off site satellite treatment facility. He instructed the Board that they needed to decide if this revised preliminary proposal made sense then the applicant could go forward or if the Board felt that it didn't make sense then they should notify the applicant. Mr. Heaton felt that it was the Town's goal to reduce nitrogen into the Bay. A 2 stage system appears to be very expensive and may not be appropriate here. So, the applicant wanted to see if there were other ways to address the nitrogen reduction. My Heaton thought the applicant's proposal was very creative. The applicant would pay all the cost and the Town would have the benefit of reducing the nitrogen in the Bay. Stewart: Is the Golf Course septic in the watershed district? Giggey: yes and the further the septic is away from the Bay the better. This proposal would delay the nitrogen from getting into the Bay because it physically takes longer to get there. Mr. Giggey wanted to point out that the spreadsheet he prepared may not be exact but is a good estimate. Stewart: Thought that Brewster was only responsible for 5-10% of the Bay issue. Mr. Stewart wanted to know what a reduction of 97 Ib/yr really meant and if it was significant. Giggey: Approximately, 100,000 Ibs are currently going into the Bay and every reduction no matter how small makes a difference. There are a large number of sources going into the Bay and they all need to be reduced. Staley: Informed us that Brewster was actually responsible for 13%. Stewart: At some point the state is going to require aclean-up and won't Brewster have to do something bigger in the end? Giggey: Soon, the state will require a 50% reduction and they will need to determine how they are going to divide up the cost and the responsibility. O'Brien: Where do all these numbers come from? Giggey: When preparing the spreadsheet, Mr. Giggey assumed the Title 5 numbers were applicable. Freeman: Does the Golf Course have any numbers that could be provided on water? ZBA Minutes 6-12-07 Page 2 of 5 O'Brien: Yes Singer: Harwich has passed a new by-law that would become a requirement for any loads over 2,000 lbs. The development would be required to have a treatment plan. Mr. Singer continued with another option. The applicant could plan to just proceed with the development with Title 5 then take the money for the treatment and use that toward a future facility. This would help for along-term solution. Giggey: The idea of building along-term fund to address a treatment solution is something he is recommending to other towns. Mr. Giggey thought the idea is something that should be considered. His concern related to how far along the Town was in the process and was it too soon to be thinking of a facility. ]ackson: If the proposed development were to install a Title 5 system then could they retrofit a Bioclere stage? Is the engineering possible? Giggey: No Kearney: Wanted to know if the golf course had bought into this proposal? Freeman: This is the golf courses first hearing of the proposal. Singer: Felt this preliminary proposal was awin/win for all. If the development had to incorporate the 2 stage Bioclere process it would not be economically feasible. The yearly maintenance cost for the second stage is estimated at $30,000 and that would make this project to be difficult. Mr. Singer, felt that the Board did not need to tie this proposal into a specific site at this point. Freeman: Has the developer looked at the Housing Authority? Singer: Apparently there are 6-7 systems spread out all over which are old and would cost a lot of money to fix. To tie into the Housing Authority would be unfeasible. Staley: On behalf of the Water Quality Review Committee, they are very concerned about Zone 2 and would be very interested in learning/hearing more about the off site treatment solution. Giggey: Reiterated that you don't have to make determinations about a specific site now. The funds would not be available until the developer sells units. Freeman: How do you make long range determination on what funds are available and when at this point. Zippo: Mr. Zippo suggested and the Town would receive the funding when the 15th unit is sold. At that point, the developer would make $50,000 available. O'Brien: Wanted to point out that the golf courses septic system is under the parking lot and he wanted to know who would pay for the maintenance. Also, he wasn't sure how this treatment process would work when the course is over a mile away. Singer: This treatment is an add-on and is not tied to the proposed development. Freeman: Pointed out that this treatment could be anywhere as long as it is in the watershed. Stewart: If we look at this proposal then aren't we starting back at the beginning. We have increased the number of units and then we would need to get all the departments to review, advertise and notify abutters. Heaton: Didn't think we were back at the beginning. ZBA Minutes 6-12-07 Page 3 of 5 Stewart: Wanted to make sure that we are going down the right path and not working out of line. Singer: We have been having discussions with the DPW and the Fire Dept and he felt it shouldn't take that long. Kearney: Felt the abutters needed to be notified. Freeman: Due to the increase in density, they would have to get other boards opinions and they would have to notify abutters. Heaton: Other towns have increased density and haven't had to restart the clock. Zippo: He thought the big issue was the nitrogen reduction. They have developed a proposal to address this issue and now it looks like he would have to start over. Heaton: Recommended going through the agenda and determine who would need to see this revised proposal. ]ackson: Mr. Jackson liked the idea but didn't think we were back to square one. Freeman: If the Board thinks this is something we should pursue then we need to notify the applicant, advertise the revised project at 29 units and notify the abutters. Singer: They have estimated it will cost them approximately $50,000 to get to the 2"d stage of the Bioclere request. What about waiving the permit fee or putting the permit fee into a fund to take care of the Level 2 and keep to the original number of units. All these delays are costing the developer money. So he suggests staying with the original proposal and moving the funds. ]ackson: Thought it would be great symbolism if we were perceived as forward thinking and looking at ways to reduce the nitrogen load at the golf course. It would look great to the community. Giggey: Somewhere along the line it was determined that $50,000 could remove 87 Ib of nitrogen. Nixon: He thought the main loss would be that the fees don't go directly to the Town but they would go for mitigation at a future date. If it is ok to move funds then he liked the idea. Zippo: The applicant has already given: 15% cap on profits, increased number of state mandated affordable units and $50,000 to go toward nitrogen reduction. Freeman: Asked the Board their opinions. Kearney -felt 29 units were acceptable; Stewart- if the fees can be moved for nitrogen reduction then ok; Jackson - He thought having funds available for nitrogen reduction (the Town looking green) then it was great and very appealing; Freeman -thought it would be counterproductive if they moved forward on 29 units. However, he liked the 24 units with setting aside $50,000. Jackson motioned to approve 24 single-family dwelling units under condominium form of ownership and relocated house with 7 deeded affordable units and the applicant would set aside $50,000 to go toward the nitrogen reduction in the Pleasant Bay Watershed District. Second: Stewart. All voted AYE. ZBA Minutes 6-12-07 Page 4 of 5 Freeman: Reviewed May 21 letter from Victor Staley. The Board waived all 6 items listed on the letter. In addition, Mr. Singer recommended waiving the following: 179.34; 179.35; 179.35.2; 179.36; 179.51; 179.63; and 179.67 because these by-laws all pertain to multi-family dwellings. Motion by Jackson to provide waivers as noted above. Second: Kearney. Vote: all AYE Singer: Also, mentioned that they may want to add a waiver for a Gazebo, a mailbox area and an accessory building structure (i.e. shed). Heaton: Moved to review the short form of open issues -status June il, 2007 document. Most conditions have been met except for the following notes: I. A. #5 not practical to connect single family home to wastewater treatment system I. A. # 7 -avoids NStar easement to this is off the table I. A. #10- Mr. Giggey is working on a wastewater design basis stamped by an engineer - Mr. Heaton would like this to be complete in order to approve II. A. Planning Board has provided input and is concerned about density and septic issues II. B. #7 -fees will be waived and moved to the mitigation fund II. C. #10 -Take out the following sentence. "The Bioclere system is recognized by the Department of Environmental Protection as capable of reducing effluent total nitrogen concentration by approximately 50%. II. E. reword- Reinstall the fence and replace as necessary along correct property line per specifications of the BHA. II. B. 4 Units will handicapped visitable and at least one will be affordable. II. C. There was a request for two additional affordable units -The applicant will designate 7 units only II. D. Waive Town fees of $50,000 in lieu a payment of $50,000 for off site mitigation V. A. Date of Costs and Revenues -needs to be revised given the current market V. D. Appraisal of Land - MA housing has done an appraisal on property which will be provided Freeman: Asked for an additional $5,000 to fund the Town's consultant fees. Mr. Zippo agreed to forward the funds. Freeman: Motioned to continue this hearing to July 24. Second: Stewart. Vote: All AYE 90~ Llb til d L0. } ~i , i >4~~?~8 ZBA Minutes 6-12-07 Page 5 of 5 Respectfully submitted,