Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutPlanning Board -- 2010-07-14 Minutes~~ ~~ ~~r N~~ 3u - arD= O rN= -;`'y-` / //////////// / / I / 1 11 11111 I I l 1111111 11 11 ~ \ \\\0~~~~\ Date Approved: 10/13/10 ,; ~ ~ ~,~ ,.._. ca a..~ Brewster Pl~n~ing Board ~; 2198 Maxtt' Street a Brewster, Massachusetts 02631-1898 (508) 896-3701 ext. 133 FAX (508) 896-8089 TOWN OF BREWSTER MINUTES OF PLANNING BOARD REGULAR MEETING Wednesday, July 14, 2010 at 6:30 P.M. Brewster Town Office Building Chairman Taylor convened the Planning Board meeting at 6:30 pm in the Brewster Town Office Building with members Bugle, McMullen, Barnard, Kuzman, Collum and Leaning. Absent: Also Present: Sue Leven, Town Planner, Greg Levasseur, Jim Foley, Charlie Sumner, Peter Johnson Other Business: 6:30 pm - 7:00 pm Preliminary discussion: 2010 Planning goals; review draft zoning articles for Fall Town Meeting 4 proposed housekeeping articles for the Fall Town Meeting -Leven reviewed the following 1. One Family accessory apartments definition -deleting language that should not have been included in the draft. 2. Political signs -you can not limit the size of a political size -this proposal corrects the bylaw 3. Planned Residential Development: corrects the reference to the Cape Cod Commission 4. Manufacturing -addresses the height of a fence -keeps the height under 6 feet so that it isn't considered a structure and need to meet setbacks (an 8 foot fence could require a variance) Felt that the way it was written could open up to allow someone to put up only a 3 foot fence - a revision was suggested. Leven would modify and bring it back to the Board to review. She would also check with the Building Commissioner to see what constitutes height. McMullen requested that we determine what the purpose of the height was when the bylaw was originally written. Leaning felt that the Board would review when the application was before the Board. Planning Board Meeting Page 1 of 13 07-14-10 Sumner: if you look at the whole Commerce Park - it is all owned by the town. There are different businesses -they town leases land to the businesses out there through a land lease. It has never gone through a subdivision. Mr. Sumner feels that they own all the land. Clearly Plan B is all owned by the town -the only area is where the balls land at the driving range. Leven: the Plans show an area - is that all under the ownership of the Town? Levasseur: Yes they have a legal agreement with the business owners. Barnard: when you leased the property you gave up control of the land? Leven: to some degree -the town has rights and can change the lease. Levasseur: they have met with Colson and have heard back but the question is on the communication tower out there -they have not had any response from the tower owner. That could be a challenge. 1. Public recreation area?? -what was the intent and is there any leeway. How much is at the Board's discretion -how much can they push the envelope? They would like to get some feedback and see where they are. Bugle: there is a legal remedy? -send the owners of the tower a certified letter McMullen: not really sure about why we put that in there -maybe this gives us a chance to modify. Felt you could go through the process -but the Town should follow the same requirements as any other commercial entity. What ever we agree on. Leaning: did Mr. Colson have any reaction? Levasseur: no negative conversation -seeing as the fall zone was a distance from his building. No problem with amending the terms of the lease if necessary. Leaning: confirmed that the only fall zone impact is on the corner of the driving range Sumner: could take a look at the area and see if it can be adjusted. But the question is really on the whole public recreation area Collum: if the public isn't allowed to access the area then doesn't see it as a problem. Leaning: It sounds like the Board is in agreement but the question is that the bylaw leaves some question - we need to modify. Taylor: could give a waiver from the Cape Cod Commission Levasseur: in the regulations Section 5.6 filing requirements - a balloon or crane test 30 days before -doesn't say how long it needs to be visible. Any guidance??? Taylor: If they want to get started then go ahead and the Board will try figure out these issues and get back to them. Planning Board Meeting Page 3 of 13 07-14-10 Evans: feels that some of the modifications to the parking area will help to address the traffic flow. Also, they will be watching to ensure that the changes are adhered to. Taylor: Read in the letter from the fire department -all the items listed have been addressed in the plan. Kuzman: Have they determined the occupancy size of the building Leven: once the change of use is requested through the building department then the Building Commissioner will establish the occupancy. You could condition if the parking is negatively impacting the area then the Board can request the applicant to return. Evans: according to the bylaw -they are in line with the zoning requirements Bugle: Questions: whether the use being employed on the property and the character of the town; do you have a 501 C? Yes; are you affiliated with AA? No; what is the percentage of the attendees there from a court order or as a volunteer? A small percentage. Leven: this hearing is not about the use -the use is protected. Bugle: this is not the ZBA Leven: 40A section 3 trumps local regulations because they have an exemption on the educational/religious use Bugle: Was concerned that this use was not appropriate for a residential community and felt the Board had some leeway. Leven: would recommend if the Board is requesting to go in this direction then she would ask for an opinion from Town Counsel. Leaning: what Board determined that this is a suitable use? Leven: the Board of appeals (ZBA) decided that it is a not for profit educational use. The issue is does this Board then have the right to make a decision contradictory to ZBA's decision. Bugle: for the audience -Victor turned them down to begin with and that is what required them to go to ZBA. Leven: Apparently, it was not clear to everyone at the time that they were not for profit until they went to the ZBA. Leaning: The only way the Board can challenge the use on the application is for it to be required to question Chapter 40A through the State. He would not want to go there. Planning Board Meeting Page 5 of 13 07-14-10 Kuzman: If we can limit the number of cars then it would help to reduce the number of people/traffic and the accidents. Limit the Plan as presented with the handicap but avoid the overflow parking around back Bugle: Endorses the idea but just thinks it is the wrong location. McMullen: Any idea on what is happening with the other buildings? No, they only lease the gift shop. We are making a decision on 1/5 piece of the property -can the owner do anything with the remaining balance of the land. Murphy, they have a 5 year lease on the property. The highest and best use of the property - we are deciding that this piece of property is only for their use and no other use for the property. Evans: This property could be affordable housing -you could get 24 units here and then you could have a much larger concern. Murphy: this was the only facility that they found that could address their needs. Taylor: what would the Board like to do? Leven: if you only provide 36 spaces there is no guarantee that only 36 people will come - you are sort of shooting yourself in the foot -the reason you requested the additional spaces was to address the parking issues. This is not an event that you buy tickets for - this is an open meeting. When you look at the COPD bylaw it was written to protect the development in the area it is not to address the use. The Board has to make a decision at some point. The bottom line is to make this better -limiting the number of spaces doesn't do that. Leaning: concerned that we are "writing" a blank check - if we add spaces then it opens the door to more traffic. This is in a residential neighborhood and it is an allowed use attempting to regulate the use of the property to make it less obtrusive to the abutters. Murphy: The parking lot size is not the driver for the number of people. If there are extra seats then the people will come -the size of the building is really the driver to the number of people attending. Evans: the capacity of the building is 63 people. He has done the review and feels that 63 is within their right. Taylor: the plan actually shows 43 spaces Leven: noted that if the Board wants to continue then it is ok and Building Commissioner can not go after the applicant because the Board is delaying. Taylor: requested that Leven draft a listing of the conditions, check with counsel regarding the educational use (quasi public groups); check with legal to see if the Board can limit the number of attendees. Planning Board Meeting Page 7 of 13 07-14-10 ~ ~/ Leven: the NHSEP -has seen another subdivision go through significant changes after they went through the process -The applicant agreed to get moving if the Board was comfortable with plan Ojala: reviewed the nitrogen information -the spreadsheet was taken from the Commission - he reviewed the numbers which were rather simple based on the input. Leven: Based on 9 lots with 3 bedrooms per lot - Ojala stated that one of the lots could be 4 bedrooms but it would only add a fraction to calculations. She would ask the Commission to review the figures. Kuzman: any further comments from the Board Barnard: when we set the plans out for department did the fire department review the plan based on the open plan or the grid plan? Fire Department could come back and recommend a shorter cul-de-sac Idman: the cluster subdivision would be preferred because the road length is shorter Barnard: this project is the DCPC area and this Board needs to be concerned about the water quality . The 25 foot road is too large - it causes larger drains; In Barnstable you can change the width of the road. Thinks the Board should be doing this. Bugle: what is the current width? Ojala: 22 feet width Bugle: most of the subdivisions we have done recently are 18 feet. Ojala: concerned about the plowing -any waivers then DPW won't plow -don't want to jeopardize that. Idman: the market for this subdivision is for the average Joe and doesn't want to price it out of the market by adding a treatment and asking them to plow. Could we ask DPW to make any adjustments? The developer is not in a huge rush and would be ok with continuing. Bugle: Felt DPW could make an adjustment with an 18 foot road. Collura: agreed Leven: will ask DPW about an 18 foot with a 1 foot berms Kuzman: any further comments from the Board Planning Board Meeting 07-14-10 Page 9 of 13 CONTINUED Application for Endorsement of Plan Believed not to Require Approval - ANR#2010-07 Applicant: Dennis W. & Elaine F. Dugan -Property is located off of Great Fields Road and shown on Assessors' Map 35; Parcel 7-2. The purpose of this plan is to create a 40,650 +/- square foot lot from the existing 13 +/- acre property owned by the Dugans for conveyance purposes only. Applicant: requested a continuance to 9/8/10 Bugle: motioned to continue to 9/8/10. Seconded by Barnard. Vote: All Aye LEGAL HEARING for- Personal Wireless Services Communication Facilities Special Permit #2010-15. Applicant: WOMR 92.1 FM; Owner: SBA Towers II, LLC. -Property Located at 4053 Main Street; Assessors' Map 30; Parcel 18. Proposal to remove the existing triangular antenna mounting frame at the 280' level and replace it with a 10' long antenna Present: John Nelson, Station Manager; James Paul Ludwig, Board of Directors Nelson: Provided an overview -they are a non profit and having been working on this project for a number of years. Will be 91.3 under the call letters WFMR if they get the repeater. Taylor: Opened to Board Barnard: Anything going on at the Base - no; the triangle is at 280 and will stay the same height. Taylor: Read in the department review summary sheet. Opened to the public. No comments. Bugle: motion to close the public hearing. Seconded by Barnard. Vote: All Aye McMullen: Motion to approve the application and draft a favorable decision to be reviewed at the next meeting. Seconded by Bugle. Vote; All Aye- 7-0-0. LEGAL HEARING -Corridor Overlay Protection District - COPD #2010-16 Applicant: EI Guapos Taqueria; Owner: Kyle Parker -Property is 239 Underpass Road and shown on Assessors' Map 27; Parcel 2003. The applicant proposes expand the parking area adding approximately 6parking spaces. Present: Kyle Parker, Parker: Provided an overview of the application. When they renovated the building, they worked with Brad from the building department and he didn't feel this was a significant change that required any further review. They are providing parking only for employees not for additional patrons. Planning Board Meeting Page 11 of 13 07-14-10 ,. Action Items Case #/Reference Action Who Due Date Revise Sign Review existing Sign bylaw Board and Target Fall Town B law Planner Meetin COPD#2010-09: 2. Post larger signs regarding Applicant 1. Revised plan due Club Dry Dock policies on June 30, 2010 3. Light on Pole 2. Hearing Continued to July 28, 2010 COPD#2010-09: 1. Site Visit (meeting times Board 1. Board is invited - Club Dry Dock lam, noon, 5pm, 6 or 7:30 pm) not a requirement 2. Planner to attend Trustee 2. Revised plan due meeting on June 30, 2010 3. Submit revised parking plan to Police/Fire Def. Sub.#2010- 3. Address items in Article XI; Applicant 1. Information due 13 Section 56-B-11 and 57-A by July 7, 2010 Copelas (off (Water Quality) 2. Hearing Freemans Way) 5. Contact NHESP Continued to July 28, 2010 COPD #2010-12 Decision to be signed and filed Elizabeth/ By June 16, 2010 Ba side Seafood with the Town Clerk Ja anne Proposed Zoning Any Suggestions Board By June 17 in order Changes to be discussed at the next PB meetin . McMullen: Motioned to adjourn at 10:15 pm. Seconded by Barnard. All Aye. Respectfully submitted, John~Leaning/Clerk J anne ci/Senior Department Assistant Planning Board Meeting Page 13 of 13 07-14-10 Proposed modification to zoning map near Tower Hill Circle. When the area was re- zoned asmall section of Route 137 and Tower Hill Circle was left CH even though the majority of the area is residential. If this change is made it would make 13 conforming lots and 1non-conforming lots. The zoning in this area was an issue recently at a Board of Appeals hearing. Taylor opened for questions from the Board. Leaning, the property in question is how many lots? Leven: approx. 14. Taylor, if we make this adjustment and then cause one lot to be non-conforming then what would happen to that property owner - would they have to go to ZBA to obtain a variance and if we did this could the Board waive any additional costs incurred to the one property owner because the town would have caused this issue. Bugle, something came up awhile ago on a preexisting nonconforming - to changes to the structure but if they changed the footprint then they need to go to ZBA. Leven, if the town took some of your property for a road you might be able to argue that the owners could obtain avariance/special permit because the town is creating the hardship. If this moves forward then the abutters would be notified when there was a public hearing. Leven would write up a draft and present to the Board. Notes on Underpass Road: Leven distributed an overview of the uses on the road. She noted that she has plans to walk up and down the road to take a closer look at all the uses. She has noticed some differences for the actual use and what it is classified in the town records. She has been making notes and letting the assessor's office know. For example there are 3 lots that are considered an industrial use and they are in a CH zone - how? Leven will review further and present the information back to the Board. 7:00 pm Informal Discussion: Wind Turbines Present: Greg Levasseur, Ed Lewis, Charlie Sumner Levasseur: the Town and Cape and Vineyard Electric Cooperative have been having discussion about turbines in the Commerce Park area. Plan A and Plan B; Plan A looks like it meets the guidelines; Plan B the fall zone is in question. Plan B - a good part of the fall zone is over the Towns driving range -the bylaw says the fall zone can not fall in a public recreation area? Is there any latitude. Second is in relation to the set back; Section I -pre application review with the Planning Board and the Cape Cod Commission; the bylaw also says that Municipal projects are exempt from this regulation -what regulation is this speaking about. Leven: If the fall zone is on the property line -then you have to adjust by ANR. From what she has understands it doesn't exempt the Town. Taylor: since it is only in the rules and regs then do we have to have public hearing? Leven: the town is not exempt from the bylaw but they do have some latitude on the rules and regulations. Planning Board Meeting Page 2 of 13 07-14-10 Sumner: if you look at the whole Commerce Park - it is all owned by the town. There are different businesses -they town leases land to the businesses out there through a land lease. It has never gone through a subdivision. Mr. Sumner feels that they own all the land. Clearly Plan B is all owned by the town -the only area is where the balls land at the driving range. Leven: the Plans show an area - is that all under the ownership of the Town? Levasseur: Yes they have a legal agreement with the business owners. Barnard: when you leased the property you gave up control of the land? Leven: to some degree -the town has rights and can change the lease. Levasseur: they have met with Colson and have heard back but the question is on the communication tower out there -they have not had any response from the tower owner. That could be a challenge. 1. Public recreation area?? -what was the intent and is there any leeway. How much is at the Board's discretion -how much can they push the envelope? They would like to get some feedback and see where they are. Bugle: there is a legal remedy? -send the owners of the tower a certified letter McMullen: not really sure about why we put that in there -maybe this gives us a chance to modify. Felt you could go through the process -but the Town should follow the same requirements as any other commercial entity. What ever we agree on. Leaning: did Mr. Colson have any reaction? Levasseur: no negative conversation -seeing as the fall zone was a distance from his building. No problem with amending the terms of the lease if necessary. Leaning: confirmed that the only fall zone impact is on the corner of the driving range Sumner: could take a look at the area and see if it can be adjusted. But the question is really on the whole public recreation area Collum: if the public isn't allowed to access the area then doesn't see it as a problem. Leaning: It sounds like the Board is in agreement but the question is that the bylaw leaves some question - we need to modify. Taylor: could give a waiver from the Cape Cod Commission Levasseur: in the regulations Section 5.6 filing requirements - a balloon or crane test 30 days before -doesn't say how long it needs to be visible. Any guidance??? Taylor: If they want to get started then go ahead and the Board will try figure out these issues and get back to them. Planning Board Meeting Page 3 of 13 07-14-10 CONTINUED LEGAL HEARING -Corridor Overlay Protection District - COPD #2010-09 Applicant: Robert Evans, A & E Architects, Inc./Club Dry Dock -Owner: New England Fire Museum -Property is 1439 Main Street and shown on Assessors' Map 24; Parcel 1. The applicant purposes to change of use: gift shop to meeting house, add handicapped parking spaces (2) to rear of building and handicapped ramp. Present: Evans, Murphy Taylor: Did anyone go to the trustees meeting? Leven attended the prior month. Evans: Met with Leven and got the dimensions right on the plan, designated the fire lane and the future overflow parking and provided a buffer on the set backs. Murphy: Discussed the meeting with the neighbors and trustees; mailed out a notice to 13 neighbors. Ms. Leven and several neighbors attended. They were there to address all their concerns; traffic flow, smoking, noise. They have been trying to curtail any issues. Taylor: anew sign posted inside the building? Murphy: No, just the same signs. However, they have added several non-smoking signs; and they have instructed the chair at each meeting to inform the attendees that there is no smoking on the premises and to be courteous. Taylor: Have you addressed the light on the street pole? Murphy: We have a call into the NStar but haven't heard back. Taylor: plan ok with Ms. Leven? Leven: the changes requested were made. Another thing that happened at the Trustees' meeting was that they provided a listing of all trustees to audience members and requested the neighbors to keep a log of any issues. She stated that it was great that a statement is made at each meeting but it may not be in the Planning Board's realm to condition what goes on inside the building. Leven: walked the site with Evans -they talked about adding a garbage can on the corner -question about adding a Rhododendron between on the property line to add to the screening. Barnard: Parking lot attendant? How is that being addressed? Leven: Need to be careful about requiring the applicant to hire people. Murphy: They have not had any police issues since their last meeting. He also noted that several of the police calls were for the alarm going off in the other buildings on the site. It was not for the "meeting house". Planning Board Meeting Page 4 of 13 07-14-10 . Evans: feels that some of the modifications to the parking area will help to address the traffic flow. Also, they will be watching to ensure that the changes are adhered to. Taylor: Read in the letter from the fire department -all the items listed have been addressed in the plan. Kuzman: Have they determined the occupancy size of the building Leven: once the change of use is requested through the building department then the Building Commissioner will establish the occupancy. You could condition if the parking is negatively impacting the area then the Board can request the applicant to return. Evans: according to the bylaw -they are in line with the zoning requirements Bugle: Questions: whether the use being employed on the property and the character of the town; do you have a 501 C? Yes; are you affiliated with AA? No; what is the percentage of the attendees there from a court order or as a volunteer? A small percentage. Leven: this hearing is not about the use -the use is protected. Bugle: this is not the ZBA Leven: 40A section 3 trumps local regulations because they have an exemption on the educational/religious use Bugle: Was concerned that this use was not appropriate for a residential community and felt the Board had some leeway. Leven: would recommend if the Board is requesting to go in this direction then she would ask for an opinion from Town Counsel. Leaning: what Board determined that this is a suitable use? Leven: the Board of appeals (ZBA) decided that it is a not for profit educational use. The issue is does this Board then have the right to make a decision contradictory to ZBA's decision. Bugle: for the audience -Victor turned them down to begin with and that is what required them to go to ZBA. Leven: Apparently, it was not clear to everyone at the time that they were not for profit until they went to the ZBA. Leaning: The only way the Board can challenge the use on the application is for it to be required to question Chapter 40A through the State. He would not want to go there. Planning Board Meeting Page 5 of 13 07-14-10 Bugle: would like to see a legal opinion Taylor: any support form others? McMullen: has some real problems with this use but they relate to traffic -has some sympathy but not willing to go that far. Kuzman: would like to see this use in a more isolated area but not willing to purse at this point. Taylor: No further comments from the Board. Dugan (abutter): poor sight distance on 6A -causing accidents on the road. Last plan showed 40 parking spaces -now we are at 46 spaces and we have additional spaces with parking over Title 5 areas that are not designed to have vehicles driving over them along with handicap and potential overflow. There are 2 sides of the property with wetlands; and we now have 53 marked out parking spaces -concerned that we are over taxing this property. He suggested that it stay at the 36 spaces with the 2 handicap spaces. The additional spots are allowing more attendees and the opportunity for more accidents. The people fly into the lot and it is a dangerous situation. Would like to see it at 36 spaces only. Evans: the 46 spaces are all the spaces -that is the absolute max. They were directed to add spaces by the Board to avoid the parking down the middle of the lot and avoid parking on 6A. They will put up signs to avoid driving over the septic. Dugan: Would again request that they keep it at 36 +2 handicap -and review in 6 months. This is a residential area and would like to keep it quiet. Levasseur: Brought forward a comment the BOS received at the citizen's forum potion of their meeting: A citizen questioned why it took so long to get the permits. Noted that when zoning was brought forward it was written and approved with the intent to protect the integrity of the appearance of the neighborhood and protect the character of the town. Leaning: questioned if there was a way to put a cap on the size to ensure the character of the neighborhood Collum: Was on a site visit last night. He drove in last night at 7pm and drove right around back. He parked up in the handicapped area and saw the neighbor's children playing on their jungle gym. He would encourage the board to provide screening. To go along with John if we don't need the additional parking then take it away. Barnard: nothing within 100 foot setback, correct? No Planning Board Meeting Page 6 of 13 07-14-10 Kuzman: If we can limit the number of cars then it would help to reduce the number of people/traffic and the accidents. Limit the Plan as presented with the handicap but avoid the overflow parking around back Bugle: Endorses the idea but just thinks it is the wrong location. McMullen: Any idea on what is happening with the other buildings? No, they only lease the gift shop. We are making a decision on 1/5 piece of the property -can the owner do anything with the remaining balance of the land. Murphy, they have a 5 year lease on the property. The highest and best use of the property - we are deciding that this piece of property is only for their use and no other use for the property. Evans: This property could be affordable housing -you could get 24 units here and then you could have a much larger concern. Murphy: this was the only facility that they found that could address their needs. Taylor: what would the Board like to do? Leven: if you only provide 36 spaces there is no guarantee that only 36 people will come - you are sort of shooting yourself in the foot -the reason you requested the additional spaces was to address the parking issues. This is not an event that you buy tickets for - this is an open meeting. When you look at the COPD bylaw it was written to protect the development in the area it is not to address the use. The Board has to make a decision at some point. The bottom line is to make this better -limiting the number of spaces doesn't do that. Leaning: concerned that we are "writing" a blank check - if we add spaces then it opens the door to more traffic. This is in a residential neighborhood and it is an allowed use attempting to regulate the use of the property to make it less obtrusive to the abutters. Murphy: The parking lot size is not the driver for the number of people. If there are extra seats then the people will come -the size of the building is really the driver to the number of people attending. Evans: the capacity of the building is 63 people. He has done the review and feels that 63 is within their right. Taylor: the plan actually shows 43 spaces Leven: noted that if the Board wants to continue then it is ok and Building Commissioner can not go after the applicant because the Board is delaying. Taylor: requested that Leven draft a listing of the conditions, check with counsel regarding the educational use (quasi public groups); check with legal to see if the Board can limit the number of attendees. Planning Board Meeting Page 7 of 13 07-14-10 McMullen: would like to see the board get a vote Taylor: the board could do that they usually motion to draft a decision and the take the vote on the application at the next meeting. Kuzman: Motion to draft a decision with the conditions to be reviewed at the next meeting. Seconded by Barnard. Discussion: Kuzman: is there any way to do crowd control? Murphy: the limited number of seats usually sets the number of people. VOTE: 4-0-3 (Leaning, Collum, Bugle) Barnard: Motioned to continue to July 28th. Seconded by Kuzman. VOTE: 5-0-2 (Collum, Leaning) CONTINUED LEGAL HEARING -Definitive Subdivision #2010-13 Applicant: Peter Copelas -Property is located on vacant wooded land south of Freeman's way, east of William Maker Way, west of Cove Road and shown on Assessors' Map 42; Parcels 66 & 67 and on Map 47; Parcel 37. The purpose of this application is to subdivide the current 3 lots into 9 lots. Taylor: Recused herself and left the room Kuzman convened the meeting as Acting Chair. Asked the applicant to provide an update. Present: Jon Idman and Dan Ojala Ojala: the center line was marked last week -thought it would be unobtrusive in nature to the neighbor; the landscape plan was submitted today -showing shade along the way - a stone wall; a ground light at the entrance in place of the street light; read more carefully the fire department comments; would be ok without the island and they don't want to inhibit the turn around; nitrogen calculations were distributed to the Board tonight; the report shows a 2.9ppm lower calculation well below the limit of 5ppm; Package treatment plant -didn't feel there was a way to increase the performance over the proposed on-site Title 5 systems: a treatment facility estimated to cost approx. $200,000 -costs for individual Title 5 is around $90,000. Things the Board should be aware of with a package treatment plant: there is a carbon footprint with a treatment facility and the effluent is concentrated in one area. Mr. Ojala felt he had addressed the concerns of the Board. They will file with Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program but it isn't necessary until ground is broken. The owner will do all the inspections at their cost. Kuzman: The town did receive a legal opinion the bottom line is that the Board does not make a determination on the ownership. The street light is eliminated -aground up light shining up on the subdivision sign. The landscape stamp - ok. The nitrogen loading? Leven would like to have the information reviewed. Planning Board Meeting Page 8 of 13 07-14-10 Leven: the NHSEP -has seen another subdivision go through significant changes after they went through the process -The applicant agreed to get moving if the Board was comfortable with plan Ojala: reviewed the nitrogen information -the spreadsheet was taken from the Commission - he reviewed the numbers which were rather simple based on the input. Leven: Based on 9 lots with 3 bedrooms per lot - Ojala stated that one of the lots could be 4 bedrooms but it would only add a fraction to calculations. She would ask the Commission to review the figures. Kuzman: any further comments from the Board Barnard: when we set the plans out for department did the fire department review the plan based on the open plan or the grid plan? Fire Department could come back and recommend a shorter cul-de-sac Idman: the cluster subdivision would be preferred because the road length is shorter Barnard: this project is the DCPC area and this Board needs to be concerned about the water quality . The 25 foot road is too large - it causes larger drains; In Barnstable you can change the width of the road. Thinks the Board should be doing this. Bugle: what is the current width? Ojala: 22 feet width Bugle: most of the subdivisions we have done recently are 18 feet. Ojala: concerned about the plowing -any waivers then DPW won't plow -don't want to jeopardize that. Idman: the market for this subdivision is for the average Joe and doesn't want to price it out of the market by adding a treatment and asking them to plow. Could we ask DPW to make any adjustments? The developer is not in a huge rush and would be ok with continuing. Bugle: Felt DPW could make an adjustment with an 18 foot road. Collum: agreed Leven: will ask DPW about an 18 foot with a 1 foot berms Kuzman: any further comments from the Board Planning Board Meeting 07-14-10 Page 9 of 13 Walker -William Maker way: reference the letter from Town Counsel -the letter does state that the Board could request confirmation of the ownership. One of the deeds references that land was convened by a person who is never listed on any other deeds. Leven: the Board can ask for whatever they want Walker: Doesn't the Board want to know where did Mr. Eldridge get the title? Idman: a title could have been received in a trust or through other means. Walker: but if the Board is making a decision based on the grid subdivision and one of the lots isn't owned by Mr. Copelas then how can you decide the open plan. Kuzman: Does any Board member have any questions? Bugle: Deeds have all been submitted. Kuzman: any further comments from the public Walker: On August 20, the VFW Pavilion was deferred because of the DCPC wasn't that a concern? Bugle: it could not be acted on because the DCPC existed -VFW came before the Board once the DCPC expired they came before the Board and the Board approved the application. Walker: since this is such concern in the area should it be refered to the Cape Cod Commission? Barnard: One thing we haven't done is send it through the WQRC and let them review. Leven: In truth, they don't have the authority to review because it is single family homes. Kuzman: read in the letter submitted from Richard Davenport, 123 William Maker Way. Any other comments. McMullen: motioned to close the public comment. Seconded by Barnard. McMullen: draft a favorable decision contingent on a favorable review of the nitrogen calculations. Seconded by Bugle. McMullen: Motion to close the public hearing. Seconded by Bugle. Withdrawn. Bugle: Motion to continue to the next meeting July 28. Seconded by Collum. Vote: All aye. Bugle: Motion to draft a favorable decision. Seconded by McMullen. Vote: All Aye Planning Board Meeting Page 10 of 13 07-14-10 CONTINUED Application for Endorsement of Plan Believed not to Require Approval - ANR#2010-07 Applicant: Dennis W. & Elaine F. Dugan -Property is located off of Great Fields Road and shown on Assessors' Map 35; Parcel 7-2. The purpose of this plan is to create a 40,650 +/- square foot lot from the existing 13 +/- acre property owned by the Dugans for conveyance purposes only. Applicant: requested a continuance to 9/8/10 Bugle: motioned to continue to 9/8/10. Seconded by Barnard. Vote: All Aye LEGAL HEARING for- Personal Wireless Services Communication Facilities Special Permit #2010-15. Applicant: WOMR 92.1 FM; Owner: SBA Towers II, LLC. -Property Located at 4053 Main Street; Assessors' Map 30; Parcel 18. Proposal to remove the existing triangular antenna mounting frame at the 280' level and replace it with a 10' long antenna Present: John Nelson, Station Manager; James Paul Ludwig, Board of Directors Nelson: Provided an overview -they are a non profit and having been working on this project for a number of years. Will be 91.3 under the call letters WFMR if they get the repeater. Taylor: Opened to Board Barnard: Anything going on at the Base - no; the triangle is at 280 and will stay the same height. Taylor: Read in the department review summary sheet. Opened to the public. No comments. Bugle: motion to close the public hearing. Seconded by Barnard. Vote: All Aye McMullen: Motion to approve the application and draft a favorable decision to be reviewed at the next meeting. Seconded by Bugle. Vote; All Aye- 7-0-0. LEGAL HEARING -Corridor Overlay Protection District - COPD #2010-16 Applicant: EI Guapos Taqueria; Owner: Kyle Parker -Property is 239 Underpass Road and shown on Assessors' Map 27; Parcel 2003. The applicant proposes expand the parking area adding approximately 6parking spaces. Present: Kyle Parker, Parker: Provided an overview of the application. When they renovated the building, they worked with Brad from the building department and he didn't feel this was a significant change that required any further review. They are providing parking only for employees not for additional patrons. Planning Board Meeting Page 11 of 13 07-14-10 4 , Barnard: How is the parking delineated? And isn't this already done? Parker: Yes and the parking is very clearly marked. Collum: thinks the additional parking is good for the location. Leaning: no comments Barnard: no Kuzman: no Bugle: no McMullen: no Taylor: read through the department reviews. Parker: they are in compliance with regard to the signs -are we allowed to have A-frame signs? Taylor: Read in the letter from abutter. Taylor: Opened to public comment. No comments Bugle: Motioned to close the public hearing. Seconded by Kuzman. All Aye Bugle: Motioned to approve the application and draft a favorable decision to be reviewed at the next meeting. Seconded by McMullen. Discussion: condition that those additional spaces being used for employees only. Vote: All Aye 7-0-0 Other Business -continued: - Review Meeting Minutes: May 26, June 9 and June 23, 2010 Barnard: Motioned to approve the minutes as written. Seconded by McMullen VOTE: All Aye 7-0-0 Harrison Hill: Selectmen are working with Bill Munroe in relation to the condition of the roads - would the Board agree to allow counsel to call the bond -discuss at next meeting Definitions -please review and provide the comments at the next meeting. Planning Board Meeting Page 12 of 13 07-14-10 ~. Action Items Case #/Reference Action Who Due Date Revise Sign Review existing Sign bylaw Board and Target Fall Town B law Planner Meetin COPD#2010-09: 2. Post larger signs regarding Applicant 1. Revised plan due Club Dry Dock policies on June 30, 2010 3. Light on Pole 2. Hearing Continued to July 28, 2010 COPD#2010-09: 1. Site Visit (meeting times Board 1. Board is invited - Club Dry Dock lam, noon, 5pm, 6 or 7:30 pm) not a requirement 2. Planner to attend Trustee 2. Revised plan due meeting on June 30, 2010 3. Submit revised parking plan to Police/Fire Def. Sub.#2010- 3. Address items in Article XI; Applicant 1. Information due 13 Section 56-B-11 and 57-A by July 7, 2010 Copelas (off (Water Quality) 2. Hearing Freemans Way) 5. Contact NHESP Continued to July 28, 2010 COPD #2010-12 Decision to be signed and filed Elizabeth/ By June 16, 2010 Ba side Seafood with the Town Clerk Ja anne Proposed Zoning Any Suggestions Board By June 17 in order Changes to be discussed at the next PB meetin . McMullen: Motioned to adjourn at 10:15 pm. Seconded by Barnard. All Aye. Respectfully submitted, Planning Board Meeting Page 13 of 13 07-14-10 J anne ci/Senior Department Assistant