The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal AboutPlanning Board -- 2009-07-15 Minutes\\\\\\\\\~~\\\\\1111~1111E f+~llly,//~ir~/i//iii f*ir ~ •~4 /~i O ~f o 9~;R~ t V' Y _ : ~;~ y /'/~~/J~ AFC RPORF~E~~ ~~~``~. ~~''~///~~~ // I r r 111 f! 1 I I l 11111 t 1 11 \\\\\\\~~~~~\ Date Approved with modifications: October 28, 2009; Vote 6-0-0 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 Work Session Wednesday, July 15, 2009 at 6:30 P.M. Brewster Town Office Building Chairman Bugle convened the Planning Board work session at 6:30 pm in the Brewster Town Office Building with members Taylor, Pierce, McMullen, Barnard and Kuzman. Also Present: Sue Leven, Town Planner, citizens: Peter Johnson and Don Keeran Worksession: Review and Discuss proposed bylaws for Fall Town Meeting 1. Conservation Subdivision Leven: provided a brief overview of the proposed bylaw. Pierce: Questioned how this article would protect the water? Leven: The developer would not be required to develop the whole property in order to get frontage; density could be decreased and increase the septic requirements. Taylor: recommended that the name of the bylaw be changed. Pierce: This design is a by right bylaw. Are developers in support? Leven: From what she has heard the developers would support because it would require less time upfront, less roads, less utilities. McMullen: The benefit to applicants would be reduced fee and reduced hurdles. McMullen felt the requirements seemed vague. Barnard: Does this say that the "Conservation Subdivision" plan has to be the first option over the grid and cluster? Leven: A developer could still proceed with a grid subdivision but they would need to provide a good reason why the conservation subdivision was not a good idea. Pierce: Felt it was difficult to understand how the reduced number of lots was going to be a positive for the developer? Barnard: Suggested a sample showing how this design would work Planning Board Meeting Page 1 of 3 7-15-09 Kuzman: Agreed with Barnard and expressed concern for the developers. He wanted to know why it was good for them. Leven: The basic option is a starting point for the developer. If he/she wanted to acquire additional units there are bonus options available which would enable the developer to get very close to a number of lots allowed with a standard subdivision. In addition, the developer would be able to develop the lots with the most potential. This proposed bylaw would also allow the developer to have reduced upfront cost, less road, less frontage, less utilities and the sale price for a house could be the same or equal to a standard grid. Bugle: Given all these reasons, it looks like the proposed bylaw would be a benefit to developers. Keeran: Noted a study had been prepared by Mass. Homes that showed a cost reduction of 34% for the developer. Taylor: suggested some reordering of the items. Bugle: Did anyone have any idea the cost of a treatment facility? Leven: not really because it really depends of the number of units involved. Johnson: Supported the proposal because it is designed to protect our drinking water. Barnard: How many acres does this effect? Keeran: approximately 1,000 acres in the DCPC area. Barnard: Expressed concern over who was involved in the determination of the layout of the lots. He felt that it needed to be an objective process and not a subjective process. McMullen: Was concerned that this would add another layer. Brewster already has a bad reputation for restrictions. In addition, the more you limit the building then the less you have for taxes. Taylor: Actually this open the door and enables more lots to be buildable and a buildable lot generates more taxes than an unbuild able lot. McMullen: Felt this bylaw was too complex and should be reviewed further before it proceeds to Town Meeting. Taylor: Did not agree with McMullen, because the State has come in with requirements that require towns to reduce nitrogen in Pleasant Bay and this proposal would help. Johnson: Mentioned that he was holding a Public Forum at the Museum of Natural History to discuss this bylaw. Any and all members were invited. Leven: Noted that she would incorporate the changes and bring back to the Board. Planning Board Meeting Page 2 of 3 7-15-09 2. Scenic Roads Leven: Provided an overview of the bylaw. A lengthy discussion occurred. Pierce: Was concerned about the cutting of flowering plants and how that could be controlled. Barnard: Expressed concern that the utility companies felt the Shade Tree Act did not apply to them. NStar was out on Scenic roads and did a horrible job trimming -what they did was unacceptable. Leven: said she would check to see what regulations the companies needed to adhere too. Taylor: the state law would be incorporated into this bylaw and that would give the building commissioner enforcement authority. Bugle: The Board members felt it was important to define the process and have that outlined first. It was agreed to make modifications to the bylaw. In addition, the Board would like to invite NStar and Robert Bersin, Tree Warden in to the meeting on the 12th 3. Accessory Apartments Leven: provided a brief overview. Taylor: So the goal is to delete the other bylaw and add this proposal? Leven: This would put back the "in-law" capabilities into the Use Table and then the affordable apartment would be deleted. It was decided that due to the tight timeframe this proposed bylaw would need to wait until the spring. 4. Water Quality Review Protection -modifications A very brief discussion occurred. Ms. Taylor requested the DEP receive a copy of the change. Taylor: Motioned to adjourn. Seconded by Barnard. All Aye. Respectfully submitted, ~(.~t~c~~.-- f'/ YGt~-- Marjorie Pierce/Clerk Ja i/Adminis rative Clerk Planning Board Meeting Page 3 of 3 7-15-09