Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutPlanning Board -- 2008-03-12 Minutes~\\\\\\\\111Ri1E II~1JS%/~i////i//i ~~~~Q4 ~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ e~~~Q%%' ~..OQ q~ ~ .- i (, ~ ~ U pr D p , to _ - =~~' 1111111111 1111141111\ //~~////////////! a R~ 9 a~ ~\1\\\\\~\\\\\\\\`~ Date Approved with modifications: April 23, 2008 VOTE: 5-0-0 Brewster Planning Board 2198 Main Street Brewster, Massachusetts 02631-1898 (508) 896-3701 ext. 133 FAX (508) 896-8089 TOWN OF BREWSTER MINUTES OF PLANNING BOARD REGULAR MEETING Wednesday March 12, 2008 7:00 P.M. Brewster Town Office Building Chairman Henchy convened the Planning Board meeting at 7:00 pm in the Brewster Town Office Building with members Taylor, Tubman, Pierce, and Bugle. Chairman Henchy opened the hearings March 12, 2008 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. LEGAL HEARING for Special Permit #2008-04. Applicant: Peter & Sharleen Soule -Located at 103 Vesper Pond Drive, Assessors' Map 31; Parcel 107. Proposal to allow a medium scale wind energy turbine. Total Height of the proposed WET is 113.6 feet. The applicant, Peter Soule, presented his application for a proposed 113.6 foot medium scale wind energy turbine as an accessory use to a single family home. Mr. Soule would like to generate approximately 101NV in order to save oil, save gas and reduce his carbon footprint. In order for a turbine to be most effective it needs to be above the tree line by 30 feet or more. Mr. Soule had determined the location of the turbine on his site plan to be the most effective location. In addition, he noted that the design of the proposed turbine is rather unique in that it has the ability to tilt down for repair, maintenance or excessive winds. When the tower is down the maximum height is 26 feet. The tower will be light grey and does not require any special lighting. As expected because of the medium scale of this proposed energy turbine, Mr. Soule presented a list of requested waivers. Mr. Henchy read in the following comments were from other Town Boards or Departments. D.P.W. -DPW has no concerns on this matter. FIRE - did not receive input. B.O.H. - no comments. HDC- signed off. WATER - no comments POLICE - no comments Planning Board Meeting Page 1 of 6 03-12-08 There were several letters in support of the turbine that were read into the minutes. Letters of support were received from the following: 1. Forrest R. Snider, 62 Bay View Drive 2. Gary & Valerie Brooke, 84 Bay View Drive 3. Ann Dextraze, 97 Bayview Drive 4. Gregory & Candice Kelly, 87 Cranberry Lane 5. William Whitaker, 135 Vesper Pond Drive 6. Alternative Energy Committee, Jillian Douglass In addition, a letter opposing the turbine was received from Jay Davis at 5 Deerpath Circle via Federal Express on March 12 with instructions not to open until the hearing. It was read in its entirety into the hearing. Mr. Soule was given a chance to respond to the points outlined in the letter as outlined below. 1. The proposed WET is an eyesore and needs to be reviewed by the ZBA -RESPONSE: that is in the eye of the beholder. The Planning Board is the grantor of this special permit. 2. Sonic Vibration/Noise Pollution -RESPONSE: Mr. Soule disagreed. The exact same turbine already exists in Bourne and it can not be heard. 3. Dynamic visual intrusion caused by "disco" like reflections -RESPONSE: The proposed turbine is considered a small generator and this "flicker intrusion" doesn't happen with this size. It may happen with a larger scale turbine. 4. Unjustifiable uptime of less than 6 weeks/year -RESPONSE: The design of the proposed turbine does not require a lot of maintenance/repair/downtime. It is Mr. Soule's intent to have the turbine up and running the majority of the time. 5. Financial uncertainty of the owner -RESPONSE: Mr. Soule had to disagree and stated that they will maintain the turbine. 6. Personally Mr. Davis is against public subsidies for private WETS -RESPONSE: not Mr. Soule's issue 7. No Storing of electricity for a stand alone WET -RESPONSE: Mr. Soule plans to pump surplus electrical power into the NStar grid. 8. Depress Property Values -RESPONSE: Mr. Soule has not seen that documented. Mr. Henchy opened the floor to the Board. Ms. Pierce, Ms. Taylor and Mr. Bugle all concurred with Mr. Soule's responses. Mr. Henchy then opened the floor to the public. Mr. Paul Davis of 63 Cranberry Lane was against the turbine. He felt he didn't want this in his backyard and felt the turbine would affect the wildlife. He further asked why waivers were being requested and he was very concerned about the waiver on the bond. Mr. Peter Owen an abutter was against the turbine. He felt very strongly that the turbine will decrease the property values. In addition, he disagreed with the sight plans that showed he would not see the project. Mr. Norman Adams, an abutter had no objections. Ms. Jillian Douglass from the Alternative Energy Committee submitted a letter of support and felt the waivers were consistent with the size of the proposed turbine. Mr. Henchy informed the audience that allowing Wind Energy Turbines in the Town of Brewster was permitted by the 2007 Fall Town Meeting and approved by the voters. If people were so against this bylaw they should have spoken up at Town Meeting. Mr. Henchy also informed the audience that the Planning Board was currently involved in developing rules and regulations for the turbines. It has become apparent to the Board that some of the rules pertain only to large scale turbines and are not appropriate for medium scale turbines. That is why the Board is considering the waivers requested. An Abutter, mentioned that if the Board waives the Bond and Mr. Soule does not take care of the turbine then who pays? Mr. Henchy: Mr. Soule will have insurance and the Board will discuss the bond waiver. Planning Board Meeting Page 2 of 6 03-12-08 Ms. Owen was concerned that it appears Mr. Soule doesn't maintain his existing property so why would this be different? And further, if he has already begun this process then why were they all there today? Mr. Henchy: Mr. Soule secured a building permit and started this process with the building department prior to the bylaw being passed. He then stopped after the building permit was withdrawn because the bylaw was in the works. Now Mr. Soule is trying to following the process the Planning Board/Town has adopted. If anyone is unhappy with this decision then they may appeal. Peter Johnson, 909 Stony Brook Road, not an abutter but a concerned townsperson, stated he was in support of the turbine. Dan Seecore, an abutter was against. Mr. Henchy asked if anyone else had any input. No response. Pierce motioned to close the hearing to the public. Second by Tubman. All Aye. Mr. Henchy read through the requested waivers and asked the Board to vote on each request. The waivers and votes are as follows: 1. Setback from adjacent property lines and fall zone outside property lines: -The proposed turbine location allows for 52.5 feet from property line. Both abutting parties have submitted letters of support and have allowed the "fall zone" to reach portions of their properties. VOTE: 5-0 2. Lighting: not applicable - The Federal Aviation Administration does not require lighting on structures 200 feet or under. 3. Signage: - Locus is identified by house number. VOTE: 5-0 4. Historic Districts: not applicable as verified by the Mass. Historical Commission. The confirmation satisfies this requirement outlined in the rules and regulations. - Project is not in the Old King's Highway Historic District. 5. Noise: The analysis requirement, as outlined in the rules in regulations, was waived. - The WET and equipment shall not generate noise in excess of 10db above preconstruction ambient sound levels at ground level at the property line. If a noise complaint is received then the required testing outlined in the regulations may be required. VOTE: 5-0 6. Rare and Protected Species: not applicable as confirmed by Amanda at the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) - No rare and protected species are located in this area. 7. Color Board: the requirement for a color board was waived. - tower will be galvanized steel of anon-reflective light grey color. VOTE: 5-0 8. Balloon or Crane Test: not applicable as this is a LWET requirement only 9. Bond: the requirement for a bond was waived. The Board voted to reserve the right to register a lien against the property if the turbine is considered abandoned by the Building Inspector or it it has reached the end of its useful life. VOTE: 5-0. Taylor motioned to approve the application with waivers as approved and have the Planning Board Clerk draft a Special Permit Decision to be reviewed on March 26, 2008. Second by Pierce. LEGAL HEARING -Modification of Special Permit #2005-07. Applicant: James McGinnis, Cathy McGinnis, Todd Hoyt d/b/a Bayside Seafood -Located at 2740 Main Street, Assessors' Map 14; Parcel 61-1. Proposal to allow for the sale of beer (malt) and wine for off-premises consumption through the acquisition of a wine & malt package store license. Present for applicant: Cathy McGinnis, Todd Hoyt and Duanne Landreth Planning Board Meeting Page 3 of 6 03-12-08 Landreth: Mr. Landreth provided an overview of the Bayside Seafood business history. The reason for this request was that the owners have been receiving requests from their customers for a one stop shop. The customer's would like to pick up their fish and a bottle of wine at the same time. If the business was allowed to have a package store license then the owners could accommodate this need thus reducing the traffic (trips) on 6A. Mr. Landreth referenced page 6 on the initial decision. Here it stated that a liquor license could not be given in conjunction with the food unless the owner came back before the Planning Board. However, this was not a condition of the decision and therefore feels there is some confusion. Further, when the owners brought this before the selectman in 2006, they were instructed to first go to the Planning Board. Mr. Landreth stated that the owners have been in business for 2 years and they felt this is a complimentary use. They would dedicate 200 square feet to the beer/wine sales. Mr. Landreth submitted a plan showing where the liquor would be displayed and stored. The owners would hang signs for the public to know that -alcohol must be consumed off premises. He stated that Ferretti's and the Village Market currently do this. He stated that the major issue for the planning board would/should be traffic and parking. Both of these issues would not be changed by allowing this modification. The owners have seen that on only 2 occasions was the parking lot full. Otherwise there is ample parking and traffic numbers would not increase because it is still their customers. They didn't feel that people would go to Bayside only to purchase liquor. This modification would help the owners to survive in this difficult economy. Further, Mr. Landreth requested: 1. That the Planning Board strike the reference on page 6 of the decision - "No liquor license will be applied for." 2. The Planning Board report to the Selectman that the license was approved. Henchy: Opened the floor to the Board. Taylor: was not happy with another modification and felt it would increase traffic Landreth: Stated that customers are requesting this product and he did not believe this would increase traffic beyond what was originally accounted for. Tubman: No comments Pierce: Wanted to know where the indoor seating was shown on the plan. McGinnis: pointed out the seating and noted that the indoor seating has been well received by their customers. Henchy: Asked if the applicant had a common victualers license? McGinnis: Was not sure what that license was and if they had it? Landreth: If they did not have it they would be happy to comply -the applicant was unaware that it was needed for the indoor seating. Henchy: Asked Mr. Landreth if he was aware of any other establishments that have served food with a beer/wine and package store license? Landreth: Noted in E. Orleans there was a pizza business that also had sold beer/wine. However, this business is now giving up the beer/wine license and going to serve Pizza only. Henchy: Was concerned if it was legal to hold both a food license and beer/wine. He recommended that the Board hold off on making a decision until they were in receipt of Legal advice. Planning Board Meeting Page 4 of 6 03-12-08 Landreth: reiterated the E. Orleans business and felt this request was not in violation of the law. Mr. Landreth had no objection to a continuance but would like to keep the clock moving. Henchy: read a letter from an abutter, Eric Barber. Mr. Barber was concerned with the traffic study and deliveries. McGinnis: Confirmed that all deliveries are in box trucks - A larger truck would not fit under the power lines. Taylor: Motioned to continue hearing. Second by Pierce. All Aye McGinnis: Noted that due to the pending birth of her child she would not be available to meet until April 23. Landreth: Was prepared to work with the Board on the timing due to this delay. Other Business: 1. Terri Talbot - Archie's Cartway, Map 38, lot 85 -Due to a hardship, Ms. Talbot submitted a request to extend the building timeframe for the lot. A brief discussion occurred. Bugle motioned to extend the timeframe. Second by Pierce. Vote: 5-0-0 2. Public Hearing: The Public Hearing will be held for consideration of the Zoning Bylaw to be submitted as an Article on the Town of Brewster's Spring Town Meeting Warrant on May 5, 2008. The complete text for the proposed modification to the Zoning Bylaw amendment is as follows: To see if the Town of Brewster will vote to amend the Code of the Town of Brewster, Massachusetts, Chapter 179 (The Zoning Bylaw), by DELETING Note #3 from Table 2 -Area Regulations in Section 179-17 and renumbering the other notes to reflect the deletion of Note 3. Note 3: A corner lot shall have a minimum street yards with depths required which shall be the same as the required front yard depths for the adjoining lots. This change is necessary to eliminate a conflict in the zoning bylaw. The Definitions Section 179-2 states: LOT LINE, FRONT -The property line dividing a lot from a street right -of-way. On a corner lot, the owner shall designate one (1) street line as the "front lot line." Henchy: Read in the change as requested by legal counsel and then opened the floor to the Board/Public. No comments. Pierce motioned to close to public input. Second by Bugle. All AYE Bugle motioned to endorse and forward this article with the suggested changes to the Selectman. Second by Taylor. All AYE. 3. Review the draft Decision for the Merchant "cluster" subdivision. It was determined that a decision did not need to be filed for a preliminary modification application. Planning Board Meeting Page 5 of 6 03-12-08 4. Meeting Minutes Review: Pierce motioned to approve with modification minutes from January 9, 2008. VOTE: 5-0-0 Bugle motioned to approve with modifications minutes from January 23, 2008 VOTE 5-0-0 Bugle motioned to adjourn. Tubman seconded. All AYE Respectfully submitted, ~ ` l ~~ Marjorie Pi rce/Clerk Ja~lnne ~ci/Administrative Clerk Second by Taylor. Second by Pierce. l ? 1 LH 6Z ,ldW B0. ~s Planning Board Meeting Page 6 of 6 03-12-08