Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutPlanning Board -- 2009-12-02 MinutesO ~ o~ 9E,$tt2,. .2 ~ `",,"~ $, o a~ 3 x A 0 r N L~ ~.. F' Brewster Planning Board 2198 Main Street Brewster, Massachusetts 02631-1898 (508) 896-3701 ext. 133 FAX (508) 896-8089 Date Approved with modifications: Januaryl3, 2010; Vote: All Aye TOWN OF BREWSTER MINUTES OF PLANNING BOARD REGULAR MEETING Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 6:30 P.M. Brewster Town Office Building Chairman Bugle convened the Planning Board meeting at 6:30 pm in the Brewster Town Office Building with members Taylor, McMullen, Barnard, Kuzman and Tubman. Also Present: Victor Staley, Building Commissioner Chairman Bugle opened the hearing December 2, 2009 by reading the legal advertisements 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- COPD#2009-23. Applicant: Town of Brewster. -Property Located at 384 Underpass Road, Assessors' Map 26; Parcel 16-80. Construct an 11,900 square foot addition onto the existing Stony Brook Elementary School. The current building is 91,000 square feet. Present: Charlie Sumner, Town Administrator; Greg Levasseur, Selectman Levasseur: Provided an overview of the application and plans. An additional benefit to the Town is that 90% of the bus traffic will be diverted off Rte. 6A. The majority of the addition will be screened from view and not visible. Bugle: Read in the Department reviews for the record. Opened to the Board. Kuzman: School was designed for how many students? Levasseur: The original school was designed for 580 students. Then an addition was built to accommodate 650 students. Finally they added portables which allowed the school to house 780 students and it was at that point that they built Eddy. They are now looking to return all 500 students to Stony but need more space due to the educational requirements (special needs, IEP programs). These new programs didn't exist 10-15 years ago. Sumner: Class sizes have declined since the 80s. Taylor: what are you doing for HVAC? Levasseur: the new addition will be self sustained. Each room will have its own heat pump. The building will be a very energy efficient building with no impact on the existing structure. Planning Board Meeting Page 1 of 7 12-02-09 Taylor: Electric? Solar? Levasseur: The building and needs committee has looked into solar panels but they may not work the on addition because it will be blocked by the existing school. Electric is not the same as the old days when you thought utilizing electricity was an expensive source. Barnard: Parking -are the 194 spaces what is required by the bylaw? Are the parking lots at the entrance considered in the count and how will the tennis courts impact? Staley: Correct -the 194 spaces is what is required. Tennis courts traffic should not be an issue. McMullen: Will the driveway to the back area be paved? Has the drainage been considered? Levasseur: The pavement issue has not been decided. Drainage has been detailed in the plans so that there will not be any washouts. But the intent of the way is to allow for emergency vehicles only. McMullen: No more questions and thinks the Board should approve. Bugle: Noted the checklist had been submitted. Then opened to the public Able, an abutter: Questioned the technology proposed for the new heat pump system. Levasseur: Addressed the technology. Bugle: Any further comments - no comments were presented. McMullen: Motion that they draft a decision in favor of the application and review at the next meeting. Seconded by Taylor. All Aye. CONTUNED LEGAL HEARING for a Preliminary Plan #2009-22. Applicant/Owner: Peter Copelas, 135 Boston Street, Salem, MA 01970; Assessors' Map 42, Parcels 66, 67and Assessors' Map 47 Parcel 37. The proposed division will divide the three parcels into approximately nine residential house lots. Present: Dan Ojala, Down Cape Engineering, Inc. Bugle: Before you provide an overview would you please address the fact that Peter Copelas does have ownership for all three lots? Ojala: They have the deeds and he stated they have been assessed and pay taxes on the lots. There is one property line that may need to have an easement prepared. He will attest to the fact that they have the ownership of the land. Bugle: This is only a preliminary but in order for you to go to a definitive the Board would like to you to show that you have clear title to the lots. Ojala: What exactly would the Board be looking for? Bugle: The Board will check with Town Counsel and then get back to Mr.Ojala as to what would be required Ojala: Then provided an overview of the plan. The requirement is to show division, the lots, and drainage. He met with Sue Leven and reviewed the plan. Mr. Ojala felt that they have met the requirements of a preliminary plan. Planning Board Meeting Page 2 of 7 12-02-09 And would like to follow up with a definitive plan within 7 months. A preliminary plan for a cluster subdivision was shown and the owner may want to go with this approach. Mr. Copelas would review the options available. Bugle: Why have you not done an ANR on the lots? Ojala: did not feel it was necessary. Bugle: ANR would need to be done. Ojala: Felt the definitive plan would be ok. But if that is required he would be happy to do that. Bugle: You are in the area of the DCPC and have you considered approaching the development under the new NRPD bylaw guidelines? Opened to the Board. Taylor: Since this in the NRPD then you would only be able to have'/ the number of lots. Ojala: He looked at the guidelines and felt that with the bonuses he could get back up to the 9 lots. He would look at it more closely. Taylor: On the cluster plan, why are you showing open space around the lots? Ojala: keeps the buffer zone on the lot lines. Barnard: the green space would be part of the open space? Ojala: it would all be one big piece of open space that can be worked out. Bugle: No further questions from the Board. He read in a letter the Board received from Lester Murphy concerning possible boundary line issue. Then opened to the Public. No further comments. Bugle: Would like to continue to the next meeting in hopes that the title information can be cleared up. Ojala: Agreed and signed a continuance form. LEGAL HEARING for- Modification to Special Permit #2060-P. Applicant: Ocean Edge Resort L.P.- Property Located at 2907 Main Street, Assessors' Map 14; Parcel 1. Modification to site plan to add up to 137 parking spaces, clarification of front lawn tent usage, and clarification of project uses for consistency with practice and interpretation. Present: John Mostyn, Corporate Counsel -Corcoran Jennison; Bob Newman, Property Manager Mostyn: Provided a history on Ocean Edge and the process they have gone through with the Planning Board. He was here to discuss the following: parking, any noise issues and provides status update. He worked with Sue Leven closely on developing the application. He understands that the Board has received a letter from the abutting associations. They have been working with the association and they are all striving to make this resort a luxury resort and have been willing to work with the parties to come up with something that will work. Parking: 155 -158 new parking spaces are proposed. They were also looking at the 10 x 18 foot parking spaces as the Board had requested with the understanding that the Board would waive the 5 foot right of way requirement on the easement/property lines. The Landscape Architect: provided an overview of the parking and the proposed landscape. An additional parking layout document was submitted. Planning Board Meeting Page 3 of 7 12-02-09 Taylor: Did we decide that a parking space of 10 x 18 was ok? The regulations require 10 x 20. Mostyn: We thought the width was the important aspect and they would request a waiver on the length. A discussion regarding sizes of cars and the length occurred. Barnard: Ideally, the grassy islands at the end of each row could be longer and provide for more protection. Architect: He could revise to make longer. Barnard: The proposal shows more parking than necessary and adds more pervious materials. Do you really need all the parking? Mostyn: Ocean Edge would be comfortable with less parking but they had been requested to show the maximum number of spaces available. As it stands they have adequate parking but it has been unclear as to what exactly is required. Bugle: Is there a reason for adding that much parking? Mostyn: No, they want to make sure that everyone is comfortable with what is provided. They might want to just add the valet parking in the front and then see how that works. 94 valet spaces in the front they would really like to have. He would like to go back to the Property Manager and see what their real needs are. Bugle: Would request that Ocean Edge find out what exactly is required to operate the resort. Landscape Architect: Provided details about the valet parking area/payers and the landscape. Mostyn: Parking mitigation -they have 8 shuttles on site that move people around. The White house is now the site for check ins, employees have to park off site; the villages can't use the beach unless they pay more -reduces the traffic. Taylor: How do you handle pedestrian access? There aren't any sidewalks L/A: there is a sidewalk in front of the carriage House and there is a stairway through the conference center allowing access to the parking lots. There are no sidewalks. Mostyn: Sidewalks have not been an issue but they may consider adding in the Ocean Edge Association 1 area. They had speed bumps but received complaints from neighbors that it was making noise. Taylor: A further discussion regarding sidewalks occurred. Mr. Mostyn said they would evaluate and consider a way to keep people off the road. It is steep at one area and would need to work on. McMullen: You do have walkways to the beach - if you add 5 feet walkways will that be a distraction? Is safety really a problem? Mostyn: They have considered a restriction on the deliveries to the back area. They will give some thought to this issue. So they will work on the following: 1. Determine their real practical parking demand 2. Sidewalks all the way up or at the critical spots or some restrictions on the delivery trucks to the rear. Front Lawn Tent issue: A 1994 correspondence outlined that they tent allowance was only 5-7 events during a season- 3 days at a time and had to be a certain size. The problems they had; the size designated is no longer available - it takes longer than 3 days to put up the tent, hold the event and take down. Therefore this timeframe restriction causes them to eat into the actual number of events they are allowed; and they would like to look into allowing the tents outside the season. Ideally, they would like to book at least 5 days per event and establish some clarification on the season. Planning Board Meeting Page 4 of 7 12-02-09 Bugle: Any comments on the tents? Staley: What is the use of the tents? Newman: Weddings, meetings, conferences all music ends at 10pm. The shut down timeframe is a self imposed restriction. Staley: What about noise how do I enforce if there is a noise complaint? Just wants to make sure it is clear. McMullen: Do you need an entertainment license? Sumner: the Selectman issue the permit and would be in compliance with the Boards requirements. Bugle: Make sure that there is a noise/entertainment timeframe outlined in the Decision Transient Issue: Mr. Mostyn provided an overview of how they have been operating in regards to this issue. He acknowledged the current practice and would like to delete the three items listed in the original decision so that it would eliminate the confusion. Staley: The elimination of that wording would make it easier to enforce. Bugle: The Board would like to review and then see how it complies. Mostyn: In order to be viable they need the transient business. It helps them to sustain their existence. He knows that the Board received a letter concerning the Bay Pine Pavilion and traffic. This past season they haven't had any major issues. They have a self imposed shut down of 10 pm. They have hired an engineer to evaluate the noise issue and they utilized valet parking. The Terrace's music stops at 10. Taylor: Is the Pavillion now considered a permanent structure? Staley: it is a membrane structure - it is allowed and is required to be reviewed by an engineer every 5 years. It was in existence when he came into town and therefore he had to assume that it was legal and had a right to be there. Bugle: Read in the Department Reviews. He then read in the letters the Board received from abutters. Mr. Bugle noted the receipt of a letter from Ocean Edge 1 and Ocean Edge 2 Associations and referenced the fact that Ocean Edge was in receipt of the letter. He then summarized the letter and outlined the concerns. He then opened to the public. Michael Leon, President of Ocean Edge 1: He referenced that Doug Barker was also present. He has spoken with Mr. Mostyn and Mr. Newman. He highlighted some of the concerns: 27 homes at OE 1 and 23 homes in OE2 there is also a third condominium that is under the control of the resort. 1. Overlapping property lines with association lines. 2. The historical problems with interpreting the uses since 1982. 3. A homeowner purchased a property with the understanding that there was no transient usage. This understanding would allow the homeowner to think there would be a lower volume of traffic. In the mid 90's elements of the facility have changed causing more growth and more traffic. Which of course is good for the business but as a result there are more trucks traveling the way. 4. The Association felt the resort had maintained a great separation on the resort -keeping the residential area residential and the commercial area at the conference center. Most of the time the traffic hasn't been that bad. 5. Tonight there had been some conversations about putting in a sidewalk. The association would have some concerns about this because it would cause the residents to bare the burden of the increase in traffic by reducing their open area. Planning Board Meeting Page 5 of 7 12-02-09 6. Safety issues: Mr. Leon sited a possible safety issue of an accident occurring when a commercial truck entered the back area blocking the roadway. If this occurred then no emergency vehicles would be able to go through and a safety issue would arise. 7. The Bay Pine Pavilion was never outlined on original plans and they feel it should go away. They have had many noise complaints. They would be happy to answer any questions. Taylor: In the original plan how much open space was required? Mostyn: 20% was required but they have 60%. An adoption of the site plan is allowable. Bugle: Any other questions from the Board- no comments. Mr. Bugle asked that Ocean edge address the concerns discussed tonight from the association and determine their "real" parking requirements. The applicant agreed. McMullen: On the color documents Mr. Barker provided -Where is the truck headed? Barker: the truck is delivering to the back of the conference center. It shows that the turning radius is very tight. Why do the neighbors need to bare the cost of a poor design? Mostyn: They will look at all of this. Taylor: What is the required number or parking spaces for the resort? Staley: Need to have some clarification but agreed to make a determination on the required number of spaces based on the use. McMullen: Motioned to extend the temporary certificate of occupancy until February 1, 2010. Seconded by Kuzman. Vote: All Aye. Tubman: Motioned to continue the hearing until January 27, 2010 in order to allow Ocean Edge enough time to provide the requested information. Seconded by McMullen. Vote: All Aye. McMullen: Motion to modify the previous motion to extend the temporary certificate of occupancy to March 1, 2010. Seconded by Taylor. All Aye. Informal Discussion: Flaherty; Property located at 6 Independence Way, Assessors' Map 27, lot 2101-6. Two Minor Modifications to COPD #2007-11; change building color; accept final landscape design. Present: Kevin Flaherty Flaherty: Provided an overview of his request in order to get his final CO. 1. Noted a color change from the original plan. He switched manufacturers and the color installed was the closest he could come to the original. 2. Obtain a waiver on the original landscape plan and keep his landscape in its current state. Mr. Flaherty had some concerns with adding landscaping to the area above the septic system. Kuzman: Thought what Mr. Flaherty had done looked good and he was ok with his requests. Taylor: Expressed concern over the area looking like green pastures. A discussion regarding the changes occurred. Bugle: Ok with the color scheme and in the spring consider a few bushes/trees added. It was agreed to Draft a letter to Victor so that Mr. Flaherty can move forward. The letter should note the colors are ok and the landscape plan would be addressed in the Spring. Planning Board Meeting Page 6 of 7 12-02-09 Other Business: 1.2010 Planning Board Schedule - OK 2. Zoning Bylaw Effective Date: A brief discussion regarding when a Zoning Bylaw becomes effective. It was noted that Town Counsel has recommended that when a bylaw has been advertised it is in effect. The AG's office has said that it is up to each town. McMullen: Motioned to adjourn. Seconded by Tubman. All Aye. Respectfully submitted, A M~"rjorie Pi rce/Clerk Ja ne i ministrative Clerk Planning Board Meeting 12-02-09 Page 7 of 7