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