Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutPlanning Board -- 2010-12-15 Minutes o�Cr Brewster Planning Board F 2 ESQ GL1C.i "9 S 2198 Main Street C ;zoo; $ y= Brewster, Massachusetts 02631-1898 r =I{Tail__ _ (508)896-3701 ext. 133 — -s� FAX(508)896-8089 ////I N l!l 111 I 1 1101 1 N\ Approved:2/23/11 Vote 6-0-0 TOWN OF BREWSTER MINUTES OF PLANNING BOARD _ _ REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Wednesday December 15, 2010 at 6:30 pm Brewster Town Office Building _ Chairman Taylor convened the Planning Board meeting at 6:34 pm in the Brewster Town Office Building with members: Rick Kuzman, Bob Barnard, and John McMullen present. Absent: John Leaning, Scott Collum, Bob Bugle Also Present: Sue Leven, Don Keeran (Assistant Director, Association to Preserve Cape Cod &Brewster Resident) Peter Johnson (President Brewster Conservation Trust, Brewster Resident) Recording or Taping Notification "As required by the Open Meeting Law we are informing you that the Town will be audio taping this public meeting. In addition, if anyone else intends to either video or audio tape this meeting they are required to inform the chair." Planning Discussion: Leven: Form C-1 Application for Approval of Natural Resource Protection Design Plan Barnard: Type of Ownership? Under project description. What does ownership mean here? (Discussion of condos, apts., type of ownership) Leven: i.e. Davenport developments, maintain the land, people rent the homes. (A discussion continued regarding rentals and condominiums) Draft Rules and Regulations for NRPD Applications Barnard: # of Bedrooms? Continued discussion of forms of ownership Leven: Move rental to after private. Form for information mainly. Looking for use of overall development. Kuzman: Rental is not a form of ownership Taylor: "d"- Owner occupied and rented? Barnard: Type of Ownership might be wrong. Maybe"Type of Use." Kuzman: Rentals vs. Condominiums. When it changes from one to the other? Planning Board Meeting Page 1 of 8 PB Minutes 12-15-10 PB 121510_audiominutes Planning discussion, cont. Leven: It depends on original type of use. Taylor: "d"or"e"(review and answer each section as part of an application) Form C-1. Leven: The application and the draft go together in an application package. End of C-1, wording for rules and regs. Either we or you will tell the applicant what they are missing. Kuzman: Then an applicant is here unprepared taking up time. Leven: In a perfect world I will have reviewed the application first. McMullen: This application supplements Form C. Where is form C. Form C-1 is for NRPD. Leven: Separate applications, discussion about a definitive plan. Taylor: Questioning two separate applications. Definitive plan a cluster? Subdivision as a separate piece? Cluster, definitive plan approved first in the past. (Some discussion between Taylor and Leven Process, order, review) Definitive plan —still necessary. If doing this by right, then it goes directly to Victor and Board is not involved. Kuzman: I would add a reference line that this application is attached to by-laws. Look at one document and know the references. (rules and regulations) On the application too. Leven: Still see applicant for the definitive plan. (Addressing Taylor) Will add - Above the name— box to check by right or box for special permit. (PB reviews) (Leven explained further.) Taylor: Add in that the applicant needs to file a form "C". We will have to see another draft. Don Keeran draft comments? Keeran: When you get into conservation analysis, the second document that is where the real role of the planning board comes in. Reviewing how the cluster is set. I have no comments on the application. Leven: Rules and Regs. — 1st paragraph. What is the difference"by right"or"special permit?" Regulations and a process detailed enough so someone can do this on their own. Keeran: Subdivision plan always comes before the Board. (Discussion cont. with Keeran, Leven &Taylor) Leven: Conventional plan is not"by right". Keeran: "By right"would be seeking special circumstances, approvals. NRPD,just as you would process a regular subdivision plan. Barnard: An example, a road. If reviewing a definitive plan. NRPD — if subdivision rules and regs., standard says we need to have 11 ft. lanes in roads, someone comes in NRPD. We think you should put in a 16 ft. road. Would we have that opportunity? (Leven pointed out page 7, F.1 If they wanted a lesser road that would be a waiver and they would come to Board.) Planning Board Meeting Page 2 of 8 PB Minutes 12-15-10 PB 121510_audiominutes (Cont. discussion regarding subdivisions. Barnard and Leven.) Barnard: I have a problem with not seeing development projects. How are changes in the plan handled? Taylor: If they change it on the definitive, they would of done part of NRPD Keeran: Still hold hearing. Review of plan, public comments, rules and regs. Bylaws. "By right"does not mean ANR. Johnson: You circumvent some things but not the PB hearing. Early on, issues are raised. (to benefit the applicant) Leven: 179-71.1 It is there in the by-laws. Road width separate issue under rules and regs. Road width is a separate regulation. Barnard: It depends on the subdivision rules and regs being what we want them to be. Leven: The only time you would not go through this process is an ANR. Keeran: Cluster is a special permit, definitive is"by right", Follow rules and regs. Keeran and Leven —Cont. discussion about"by right", As long as you follow rules and regs. (Leven shared road example. Fix the rules and regulations.) Taylor: F. Circulation Systems. Shared driveways, narrow roads, reduce impervious surfaces? Barnard and Kuzman: Discussed Copelas recent subdivision. When can certain questions be addressed? Staff review? Leven: Road standards. This is all rules and regulations. Not town meeting. Cont. discussion regarding road standards, rules and regulations, parking regulations. Leven: Be careful with a large subdivision, 9 ft. lanes... Barnard: We would take the size of the subdivision into consideration Keeran: Road standards -- Can specify conditions for NRPD. Barnard and Kuzman: Rules and regulations is where it should be. Taylor: Subsection for rules and regs in NRPD? Leven: 290-10 section deals with definitive plans. Kuzman: Are you going to attempt a flowchart for an applicant, steps, process? What boards?What approvals? Leven: Yes, ongoing project. Kuzman: All rules and regulations changes in one spot. Make reference to. Barnard: Rules and Regs. we have not addressed, applicant, process, etc. Taylor: If we want flexibility with subdivisions, we must change it in the rules and regulations. Planning Board Meeting Page 3 of 8 PB Minutes 12-15-10 PB 121510 audiominutes Planning discussion,cont. Kuzman: During staff reviews can an applicant discuss the road widths? Leven: Bylaws, 290-11. It should say the Board has the right to waive road requirements... (Cont. discussion between Leven, Barnard, Kuzman Road widths.) Taylor: 290-10. Consider adding a statement, please be advised that the board encourages flexibility with road widths, with ## of lots. Standard design and structures. ? McMullen: Why have a regulation then? Road width. Barnard: Our regulation is for 18 ft. (for example) the Board should have flexibility. Johnson: Bob has a good idea. Sue has told you how to do it. Sue— How quickly can that be done? Leven: It has to be advertised, public hearing and then voted. I have language that addresses a lot of this. I have the code that I would like to use. (Taylor, Leven and Barnard —cont. discussion about road width and sidewalks, drainage on roads, minimizing impervious material) Barnard: Why do we have NRPD? Plenty of places in bylaw that talk about minimizing impervious materials. Keeran: NRPD, Road issues: Explanation. 80/20. Saving 80%.The width of road does not really matter. Taylor: Sue, come up with something for us to review. Leven: I suggest going through one page at a time Barnard: 16 plans? Leven: You now receive 11 x 17. Many copies leave the building. 16 are sufficient. 3 large sets. Option to do several large and the rest much smaller? Remove certified list of abutters because we provide this Barnard: Building department example. Usually other towns have the building dept. send out plans. For review. In other towns the depts. Share the plans. Contents, #18 —Consider Boulevards?A divided road. Leven: The point is that there should be access from two points. *(The Board reviewed the document page by page.) Barnard: Metrics? Provide a reason for the metrics. Why 15 acres, same as Shutesbury? Leven: It came from the original language from Shutesbury. (Discussion regarding why 15 acres and where did it come from — by the group) Keeran: Brewster soil maps. Leven: Will check. Super majority vote? Special permit is super majority. Road Layout paragraph (F) town's requirements for laying out of roads remove (since the Town is not not accepting the road) (Some discussion re: Design Impact Statement. Leven,Taylor, Barnard) Planning Board Meeting Page 4 of 8 PB Minutes 12-15-10 PB 121510 audiominutes Planning discussion, cont. Barnard: Interdisciplinary team of professionals? Leven: Need to hire people to produce what you need. (Someone who knows about roads, topography, etc.) Keeran: My assumption is that interdisciplinary team of professionals implies that they consult with one another. Barnard: Ok. Kuzman: DIS Form? Keeran: There are two. A form and a worksheet(DIS). Leven: Will check on the form Keeran: Good to know if any natural communities are present. Goal of natural heritage. State classification. Barnard: Top of page #5, septic systems not septic tanks. Taylor: When this comes in the whole application goes to conservation and each department? Leven: Yes. Taylor: Conservation and analysis, is there a form? Leven: Produced as a separate document. Revise #4, mid way page #6. Leven: Pre app discussions occur with me. They can voluntarily come to staff review, but not required. Taylor: Sue will make changes; add Don's changes and resend. Leven: Ok Taylor: Do we get aerial views? Can we get from Google Earth?Would this be useful? Design Factors: Barnard: Do we ask our conservation officers to flag wetlands? Do they go out? Leven: Conservation will look on their map. Wetlands should be on the plan. (Discussion of flagging of wetlands. Who does this? Other towns, etc.?) Taylor: Sue, make changes and redistribute. Kuzman: Reference to article #13 in the beginning of this document. So it points to the main document. Staff Review, Article 1 General Provisions, 83-1 Leven: This is required. Required for review, not subject to review. Required to seek. Obtain review? Leven will determine. Staff Review not Staff Plan Review Planning Board Meeting Page 5 of 8 PB Minutes 12-15-10 PB 121510 audiominutes Staff Review,Article 1 General Provisions, 83-1 Taylor: Add in (not all departments have representatives...ex. BOH) Violations and penalties? Leven will recheck. Zoning or town code? Kuzman: Subject to review? Required to review? Intent of the staff review... Leven: Required to seek. Or obtain Planner review? Taylor: Questioned BOH review. Board or committee member? Leven: If enforced by building commissioner, will talk to Victor. I will double check with Victor. This is town code. If enforced by building commissioner he has his own way of handling it. McMullen: Why have 83-3?Applicants face procedural denial instead of the current language. Leven: Change applications so there is a box, an applicant is required a signoff( ) Staff Review Barnard: Non binding staff review? Enforcement issues. Kuzman: Review is non binding. McMullen: Staff Plan Review. Why would you fine them? If they don't come before the board, the process stops. Taylor: Applicants to fail to submit to staff review face procedural denial of permits? Leven: Applicants failing to obtain staff review will be required to do so before seeking permit. This starts with informal designs. Back of napkins. A lot of what we see is hand drawn, aerial photograph with a { preliminary plan on it. Kuzman: Keep it a positive statement. Leven: We can rewrite the whole thing and send it to town meeting and it will be about one year and a half. The majority of towns who do this have similar requirements. (Kuzman and Taylor discussion, naming of review, etc.) Leven: Staff review process before anything else. 83-3. Leven & McMullen —We strongly encourage you to do x, y, z since the board will not review this until it is done. Keeran and Johnson left at 8:32 pm Leven: It can be handrawn or an aerial photograph. (Discussion about DBH and standard tree sizing with the group.) McMullen: Write out numbers or use fractions. Numbers stand out better. Leven: Please read all this before the next meeting. Send comments ahead of time if you like. Site plan review 6:30 pm next meeting 1/12/11 Planning Board Meeting Page 6 of 8 PB Minutes 12-15-10 PB 121510_audiominutes Other Business: 11/10/10 Meeting Minutes McMullen motion to accept minutes as corrected Kuzman second All Aye Next Meeting: Wednesday, 1/12/2011, CSG, CVEC &site plan review © 6:30 pm. McMullen: Motioned to adjourn at 8:39 pm. Kuzman, Second. All Aye. Respectfully submitted, ciL vtit BA,' Joh Leaning/Clerk Kelly Moore/Sr. D:•:rtment Assistant Planning Board Meeting Page 7 of 8 PB Minutes 12-15-10 PB 121510_audiominutes Action Items: As of 12/15/10 CASE#/REFERENCE ACTION OWNER DUE DATE #2010/19 First Parish Contact MT&S and Sue Leven Waiting for revised request revised plan plans for board review #2010/24 Burrows Approve a special Kelly Moore 1/12/11 permit and positive recommendation to include WQRC certificate from 1/21/11 and a copy of the contract. Rules and Regs. NRPD Send Board revised Sue Leven 1/12/11 applications versions of rules , regs. NRPD applications, include waiver provision Planning Board Check Brewster Soil Sue Leven 1/12/11 Meeting 12/15/10 Maps, (15 acres?) Rules and Regs. NRPD DIS Form Sue Leven 1/12/11 applications Add in Keeran's Sue Leven 1/12/11 comments re: natural communities, etc. Send Board revised Sue Leven 1/12/11 Staff Review, Article I, General Provisions, 83-1 Planning Board Meeting Page 8 of 8 PB Minutes 12-15-10 PB 121510_audiominutes