The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal AboutPlanning Board -- 2008-08-13 Minutes\ \\O~~~u~~ R ExW 3 j'rrOi/~/// O~tc E aA~~+ Aye ~ ~x a~ ar a 3 "" /~~~/ ~C RPOR AS E~ ~~\\\ //r////i.. EQ- f 9 ~ ti 8~...~~\Q~~~ Date Approved with modification: September 24, 2008 Vote: 7-0-0 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 and WORK SESSION Wednesday, August 13, 2008 at 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, McMullen, Bugle, Tubman and Robert Barnard. Regular Meeting LEGAL HEARING #2008-14- Modification of Special Permit #2002-10. Applicant: Robert A. and Eugenia Harrington- Located at 40 Bay Pine Lane, Assessors' Map 1; Parcel 13- 1. Proposal to use a cottage on their property as a bunkhouse or similar structure (with kitchen facilities removed) as accessory to a new single-family dwelling recently built on the property 8/13 APPLICANT REQUESTED A CONTINUANCE TO SEPTEMBER 10, 2008 Bugle: Motioned to continue to September 10, 2008. Seconded by Barnard. All Aye Added Agenda Item -Informal Discussion: Don Baker; would like to confirm that Assessors Parcel 86, Map 34 has frontage on Proprietors Cartway. Present for discussion: Don Baker Baker: Explained that Mr. Romme had been given a Special Permit for his lot and has named the road, Proprietors Cartway and therefore felt since this property was between these two lots it should have frontage on the Cartway. Henchy: noted that the lots size was 1.67 acres. Baker: The lot was created back in 1857 and could provide documentation if necessary. Henchy: Noted that Mr. Baker's lot was ok'd with the prior date and therefore he was able to build his home. Taylor: asked what the status was for 86-1? Baker: that is a totally separate lot and will not have frontage. Bugle: What is the approx. length of the frontage for lot 86? Planning Board Meeting Page 1 of 4 08-13-08 Baker: 180 feet Baker: Prior to Proprietors Cartway the lot was considered un-build able but now that the way is named Mr. Baker felt that it should be a build able lot because it has frontage on a recognized cartway. Taylor: When did the Dirt Road bylaw come into play? (1988) and is the way up to Town Standards? How many acres does Mr. Romme have? Romme (an abutter): noted that his lot (49) had 10 acres. Taylor: Why doesn't this go to the ZBA? She felt that if the Board made a decision on this issue then it was going to come back and get them. Baker: Section 179.26 addresses the dirt road bylaw. However this lot preceded this section and the road existed and is now officially named. Would like to have a decision? Bugle: The Board can't make an official vote because this is an informal discussion. He would like to have a legal opinion and receive input from the building commissioner. Baker: Wondered if this was a step that all homeowners had to go through and felt this didn't have to be a formal review. Taylor: Questioned what the dirt road bylaw covered because this lot doesn't have access or frontage. Baker: the lot has frontage and the dirt road bylaw doesn't cover this lot (pre-existing). Henchy: recommended that Mr. Baker write a letter to the Planning Board outlining the issue and then the Board would address formally. Romme, Diane: noted that the road dated back to 1821 and said the verification was submitted with their application. Baker: Agreed to write a letter. APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED - ANR #2008-15 - Applicant/Owner: Patricia A. Walker and John & Vilma Sweezey; Location of property: 0 and 395 Stony Brook Road, Assessors' Map 22, parcels 97 and 46. Purpose of ANR is to exchange lots 3 and 1. Present: Chet Lay, Surveyor Lay: Reviewed the application and the plan and noted that parcel 1 and parcel 3 will be exchanged. McMullen: motioned to endorse the ANR. Seconded by Taylor. All Aye. Other Business: - Review/Approve Minutes for: 1. June 5 -Taylor motioned to approve. Seconded by Barnard. All Aye 2. June 11 -Taylor motioned to approve with modifications. Seconded by Tubman. All Aye. Planning Board Meeting Page 2 of 4 08-13-08 Work Session 7:30 PM -Review and discuss the proposed Sand & Gravel Operations draft bylaw with local Sand & Gravel Business owners Present for session: Mayo, Grover, Merchant, Paul Daniels, Antonarelli, Steve Daniels Henchy: Opened the session and asked the operators for their input on the proposed bylaw. P. Daniels: the bylaw mentions 1000 yard removal and wondered if that included septic - if so then would they need to obtain a special permit for these systems? S. Daniels: the bylaw doesn't address stock piling materials and that is a big part of their operation. Antonarelli: the stock piling should address mining new soil versus virgin material Taylor: Don't the DEP regulations address stock piling? Grover: yes, under DEP regulations it is allowable to bring in clean sand or gravel, stone, sand, mulch, clay, loam and sand S. Daniels: Is the Board trying to stop tree stump piling? Henchy: we are trying to control -these operations may be allowed with a special permit. Merchant: the bylaw notes 10 feet above ground water and the DEP only requires 4 feet. Also, why does the bylaw not allow future expansion? Taylor: The bylaw doesn't want to stop existing business but wants to control the expansion of the operation. Merchant: This proposed bylaw will not allow me to continue operations on an adjacent piece of property. Taylor: That is not what we intended. We wanted to prevent future new companies from starting an operation and allow existing business to operate with a special permit. McMullen: why do we need another regulation for a business when we have DEP and the Board of Health regulations already in place? Felt the big issue was enforcement or lack of enforcement. P. Daniels: So the bylaw will allow current operators on only the assigned site with expansion possibilities if the operators go through the permit process. Reiterated the fact that the BOH has rules and regulations in place and if the Town did its job then this shouldn't be an issue. Also, pointed out that everybody needs sand but no one wants it in their backyard. These operations can be done properly. S. Daniels: If the intent of the Town is to protect the groundwater then he would want to see a strict closure plan with definitive dates outlined. His operation has a "FAM" and they had to issue a bond that states they will do what they are suppose to do by a certain date. Taylor: Right now the Town has no guarantees and local regulations aren't being enforced and we can't rely on DEP. S. Daniels: His operation has a site assignment and a closure plan and if the Town decided they weren't doing what they should be then the Town could write acease/desist and fine them. Andy Grover: Felt the pits were looking better and the operators were taking steps in the right direction. He felt this bylaw would make it difficult for the operators to keep on the right path because they would need to be going through a whole new process. Planning Board Meeting Page 3 of 4 08-13-08 P. Daniels: noted that BOH can shut the business down, DEP is now fining the owners and actually the BOH is bringing them in because his business in not in compliance. So someone is starting to do theirjob. McMullen: Felt that adding a zoning bylaw is just another hurdle these operators need to go through and he was not in favor. Bugle: expressed his concern that the bylaw had holes and was inclined to agree with McMullen. Taylor: This is not a new zoning bylaw. It has been written to replace the existing Earth removal and Excavation (179.39). Based on the input received today it appears that this bylaw still needs some work. But the groundwater needs to be protected and she would like to continue with modifying this bylaw. Douglass: Felt the exchange was good and would also like to see the Planning Board continue with modifying this bylaw. She agreed to draft the key points of this discussion and send it to Jon Witten and Charlie Sumner. Barnard: If the intent of the bylaw is to stop expansion then he didn't think it was good. If the BOH is not doing theirjob then someone should do something. Henchy: Agreed to incorporate the appropriate comments. McMullen: Motioned to adjourn. Seconded by Tubman. All Aye. Respectfully submitted, rte,.,. ~L' M rjorie fierce/Clerk Ja ne i/Administrate a Clerk £ l: ~ d 9 l 1~0 80. t.. Planning Board Meeting Page 4 of 4 08-13-08