HomeMy Public PortalAboutPlanning Board -- 2013-03-13 Minutes °0����
Brewster Planning Board
ew er r 2198 Main Street
o� "°•�� Brewster,Massachusetts 02631-1898
(508)896-3701 ext.1233
=Fro FAX(508)896-8089
*y .....nd`/{<
yHoominIOI0400
Approved:4-24-13 BREWSTER TOWN CLERK
Vote:5-0-1,Hoag abstains
TOWN OF BREWSTER PLANNING BOARD '13 MAY 9 3:05Pn
Regular MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday March 13, 2013 at 6:30 pm
Brewster Town Office Building
Chairman Scott Collum convened the Planning Board meeting at 6:30 pm in the Brewster Town Office Building with members: Rick Judd,
Jason Klump,John Leaning,John McMullen,and Elizabeth Taylor present.
Absent:William Hoag
Other Attendees:Town Planner,Sue Leven
Keith Fernandes,J.M.O'Reilly and Associates, Inc.
Peter Soule,Soule Engineering
Peter Johnson, BCT
Ed Lewis,Selectman
Stan Godwin, Packet Galleries
Jim Foley,Selectman
Bud Noyes,JT's Seafood
Marie Jainchill, Elbert Ulshoeffer, Lucas Dinwiddie from Halycon Farm, Bob Meyer from COC
Documents:031313_A Signs, Parking, Bed&Breakfast,Special Event Venue by-law amendment final drafts
Collum read the Recording or Taping Notification:
As required by the Open Meeting Law we are informing you that the Town will be audio and video taping this public meeting. In
addition,if anyone else intends to audio or video tape this meeting they are required to inform the chair."
6:30 pm Planning Discussion
ANR#2013-05 Applicant: Helen Baldwin, represented by J.M O'Reilly and Associates, Inc.
Located on 86 Earthbound Cartway, Map 13, Lot 2(formerly Map 37, Lot 38-3)
The purpose of this plan is to subdivide the existing 5.27 acre lot into 3 individual lots.
Keith Fernandes from J.M O'Reilly and Associates was present. He summarized the ANR for the Board.
There is frontage along the existing road and the lots conform to zoning.
Board Comments:
Collum asked about Lot#2 and the 150 feet.Where does it come from?
Fernandes approached the Board and pointed out the information on the plan to Collum.
Judd asked about depth and frontage. He asked for further clarification.
Fernandes explained you have to have 100 feet of frontage.They discussed further.
Judd made a Motion to endorse ANR 2013-05, Helen Baldwin,86 Earthbound Cartway, Map 13, Lot 2, Klump Second,All Aye,
yek 6-0.The Board signed the Mylar and two copies of the ANR plan.
ANR#2013-07 Applicant: Elizabeth G.Taylor,Trustee, Run Hill Road Land Trust,represented by Peter Soule,Soule Land Surveying,
Located on 245 Run Hill Road, Map 45, Lot 6(formerly Map 35, Lot 63-1)
The purpose of this plan is to create an unbuildable parcel to be conveyed to the Brewster Conservation Trust.
Page 1 of 7
PB Minutes 3-13-13.docx
+'S
Taylor recused herself from the meeting. Peter Soule was present and summarized for the Board.Taylor would be retaining lot#3
and combining with parcel B.This will create an unbuildable lot#4 to be conveyed to the Brewster Conservation Trust.
Board Comments:
Judd asked about parcel B, being separate.
Soule explained this is a land court plan,(Mylar),and has to go to Boston for filing. Lot 3 and lot 4 are registered. Lot B is
unregistered but recorded. Lot B will be added to lot 3.Total area will exceed 100k square ft. See(note#4)reaches minimum lot size
McMullen made a Motion to endorse ANR#2013-07, :Elizabeth G.Taylor,Trustee, Run Hill Road Land Trust,located on 245 Run Hill
Road,Map 45, Lot 6, Leaning Second,All Aye,yQjg 5-0.
The Board signed the Mylar and two copies of the plan.
Taylor rejoined the meeting.
At 6:45 pm,the Board took a few minutes to review the updated by-law drafts and a letter from Town Counsel before the public
hearing at 7:00 pm.They also reviewed the minutes.
7:00 pm Pbbl)c Hearing
Collum read the legal.
Proposed Town Meeting Articles:The Public Hearing will be held for consideration of Zoning By-law amendments to be submitted as
three separate Articles on the Town of Brewster's Annual Town Meeting Warrant.The proposed Zoning By-law amendments are as
follows:
ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT—SIGNS
ARTICLE NO.22:To see if the Town will vote to amend Chapter 179 of the Brewster Town Code,Article VI,Signs, by deleting the
existing text and replacing it with new text.
Summary
This article is a complete reworking of the regulations governing signs in Brewster.There are several main differences from the
current by-law:
1.Signs are regulated by use, not by the zoning district where the use is located
2. Instead of limiting the number of signs someone has,a certain amount of square footage is permitted per business, and the
business can use that square footage for whatever combination of signs works best for them.
3.We have attempted to make the by-law clearer,easier to understand,easier to follow,and more business friendly.
It is important to note that businesses located within the Old King's Highway Historic District are still subject to review and approval
for all proposed signage, regardless of what this proposed by-law permits.
Board Comments:
The final draft includes comments from Town Counsel.
Leaning asked about definitions. Leven explained underlined text represents changes from the last work session. Judd asked about
off premise signs, 179-20.6. He asked about the OAB.Outdoor Advertising Bureau. Leven emailed the OAB and asked about signs on
other properties and if there is,another permit involved. Leven read the email and explained there is another permit. Leven
recommended leaving the language as-is.
Public Comments:
Marie Jainchill has been working with Leven since the summer.She asked about why the Board is changing the by-laws.She was
concerned about"A"frame signs.She was confused as to whether they are allowed.She had an A frame sign made and found out it
was not legal.She commended Leven. "A"frames have been helpful to her business. She has property on Route 6A with a studio
out back.She was excited about the proposed by-laws and hopes the Board approves.
Stan Godwin owns Packet Galleries on 311 Stony Brook Road. He was one of the first galleries to come from the by-law amendment
for art galleries in the RM zone.Godwin state the new proposal might not work well for all businesses. He is located off Route 6A. He
explained it is difficult to get people to your business from Route 6A. He put a small sign on Route 6A and Stony Brook Road.He
believes that ladder board signs may need to be expanded. He thinks they should be at all or most major cross roads in town.He
feels that he does not have the same access to a ladder sign.He believes he is being treated differently. He provided the Board with
Page 2 of 7
PB Minutes 3-13-13.docx
some history regarding signage on Stony Brook Road and A.P. Newcomb Road. He noted the town of Dennis has done a good job
with ladder signs. He was in favor of a system to handle ladder signs.There are several home businesses and the gristmill nearby.He
suggested a ladder sign on the intersection of Route 6A and Stony Brook Road. He believes there is no allowance for seasonal off
premise signs. His gallery is a May-October business.
Collum explained that the Board came to an impasse with ladder signs.The Board decided to keep ladder signs as is and take up
within a year.The Board decided to push forward with the other changes.Collum acknowledged that ladder signs are a big issue. He
was not aware of the seasonal off premise signs issue but was in favor of intersection signs.
Leven sent email to the Outdoor Advertising Board and received a response very quickly.She explained the differences between
layouts for off premise signs on Route 6A.
Godwin was not aware that the Board was discussing signs. He expressed concern that Brewster does not have a good system for
notifying people of agendas.
Godwin asked how we get people off Route 6A to other businesses. He is not convinced the sign by-law amendments are ready for
Town Meeting. McMullen explained they have been working with the Chamber of Commerce(COC)for a long time. He added the
Board would address ladder signs later.Godwin agreed this version is an improvement.
Collum acknowledged that it is hard to keep track of all the meeting agendas.
Taylor asked Godwin to work with the Board for fall Town Meeting. He agreed.
Taylor acknowledged the problem of getting out information to the public.
Klump stated he appreciated the comments and asked if there was anything specific,that is not in the document that you want to
see. Godwin noted ladder signs. He explained he has struggled with the four square foot sign sizing requirements. He spent$400 for
a new sign. Klump asked if he had 30 square feet of signage. Godwin explained he is located in the RM historic zone.
Leven explained this by-law does not apply to businesses in the historic district. HDC can use the by-law as a guide, but this is not
the by-law HDC uses. Klump stated both by-laws apply but HDC has the final say.
Leaning added the revisions of the ladder signs are very complicated.The Town has privately and town owned ladder signs.The
Board is working with the Chamber of Commerce to take care of ladder signs. Leaning explained the Board is aware of the need for
review.They understand and sympathize with the businesses.The Board wants to do it properly.
Godwin asked about the effective date of by-law changes. Leven explained once the amendments are voted through at Town
Meeting you can utilize at your own risk until the Attorney General approves it It usually takes 90 days.
Elbert Ulshoeffer
178 Stony Brook Road
He wanted to offer some constructive criticism. He wanted the Board to recognize that the public hearing was always at the end of
the process. He understands the Board wants to move forward but has issues with the public hearing and the procedures. He added
in an hour you will vote. His submission has fifty-three edits. He reminded the Board that they have six months from the time the
Board of Selectmen refers the by-law to them. He added if you do not decide in 21 days that the BOS can take it to Town Meeting.
Ulshoeffer expressed concern as a citizen that it is superficial to expend energy explaining his edits knowing this will not be
considered. He stated the Boards' policies never consider the purpose of the public hearing. If the Board has valid concerns then it
should not go forward. Collum stated excellent point. He acknowledged it has been a long process. He added that people do not
have to wait for the public hearing to make suggestions.
Ulshoeffer will give his notes to Leven. He expressed concern that by changing the by-law you are changing the community
character.(by allowing 30 square feet per business)He read the scope and purpose, 179-18. He told they Board they are trying to
accommodate the business community.(No setbacks).
He read his issues.
• Celebratory banners 30 sq.ft—60 days
• Home product signs
Page 3 of 7
PB Minutes 3-13-13.docx
(All w/out permit)
• Municipal sign
• Redundancy of water dept signs
• Real Estate signs.9 sq.ft. no permit
(All temporary)
• Temporary counts towards total but no permit issued
• No means to quantify it
Collum stated these are valid points.
Ulshoeffer finds the by-law amendments to be very problematic.He expressed concern about grandfathering. 2 yrs. He stated if the
business closes,the sign could stay on the property for two years. Leven stated any sign could be grandfathered under 40A 6.
Ulshoeffer stated there is conflict of by-law,30 sq.ft. He acknowledged the Board has accommodated the business community but
felt the attempt was"helter skelter"within the community. He also has issues with window signs viewable by a public way and not
permits for the signs on the sidewalks. He believes this by-law will not enhance the character of the community. He shared an
example from 1978 where Provincetown changed their sign regulations and it destroyed the community character. He commended
their efforts but feel they have ignored the community character. He will not support this article at Town Meeting.
McMullen asked Ulshoeffer if he thinks what is on the books now is better than the proposed by-law amendments. Ulshoeffer
explained hoping HDC would be the gatekeeper is not the way to go. He added the public hearing should be well in advance of
taking the article to Town Meeting.
McMullen noted there are problems with the existing by-law.He explained the Board was not catering to the business community.
The Board is trying to improve the by-law and this is the first step in the process. Ladder signs will come later.
Leaning explained he agreed with many of Ulshoeffer's points. He reminded him there is no rule that prohibits him from
participating in the process earlier with the Board.The Board had discussed all these topics.
Bud Noyes
JT'S Seafood
Noyes commends the Board for their work. Noyes agreed with McMullen.The by-law may not be 100%perfect but it is a step in the
right direction and a huge improvement. He also agreed that Ulshoeffer had brought up some good points. Noyes spoke to John
Halvorson from the HDC and he said he would review on a case-by-case basis. He regulates the historic district of the town.
He added there is a safety issue with small signs.
Ed Lewis
Selectman
Lewis agreed with Noyes.The Board has done a great job and has taken the businesses and the Town into consideration. He noted
people could get on individual lists to receive agendas. In addition, comments are taken at all meetings.
Judd explained they have taken input and appreciate all comments.
Collum noted the comment about the water department sign has been mentioned several times.
Leven explained the Water Department and the Town Clerk's office put signs out for various reasons(usually water flushing and
elections).
Judd stated he appreciated the comment on setbacks.They do have line of sight rules. If outside of HDC, people have options.
Taylor asked Leven to scan Elbert's comments and distribute to the Board.
Leaning made a Motion to close public hearing for Article#21 Signs, Klump Second,All Aye,Vote 6-0.
Klump suggested removing the word"temporary"from the A-frame definition.The Board agreed.
McMullen made a Motion to recommend Article#21 Signs to Town Meeting as amended,Taylor Second,All Aye,Vote 6-0.
Page 4 of 7
PB Minutes 3-13-13.docx
ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT—OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING
ARTICLE NO.23:To see if the Town will vote to amend Chapter 179 of the Brewster Town Code,Article VII,Off Street Parking and
Loading,by deleting the existing section and replacing it with new text.
Summary
This revision includes the removal of specific parking and loading requirements in favor of recommendations to be included in a
policy to be adopted at a public hearing by the Planning Board.The revised by-law will include updated parking lot design
requirements and other changes to make the by-law easier to read and use.
Collum read the legal.
There were no Board or public comments.
Leaning made a Motion to close public hearing for Article#22,Off-Street Parking and Loading, McMullen Second,All Aye,Vote 6-0.
Klump made a Motion to recommend Article#22 Off-Street Parking and Loading to Town Meeting,Taylor Second,All Aye,Vote 6-0.
ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT—SPECIAL EVENT VENUE
ARTICLE NO.##:To see if the Town will vote to amend Chapter 179 of the Brewster Town Code,Table 1, Use Regulations,
Commercial,by inserting a new#15,and renumbering subsequent lines:
15.Designated Special Event Venue.
To be a permitted use in all zoning districts.
and to insert new definitions in Article I, §179-2 B as follows:
DESIGNATED SPECIAL EVENT VENUE—Any property that has received designation from the Board of Selectmen as a Special Event
Venue.
SPECIAL EVENT VENUE—A property, not specifically designed or permitted to be used for events such as parties or weddings,or
properties not expressly permitted to be rented for such occasions,or other events to be attended by the public.Such a venue is
required to receive designation by the Board of Selectmen.
or to take any other action relative thereto.
Summary
There have been several instances recently where establishments that are not permitted by zoning or other permitting process to
host events,for example:public gatherings on private property associated with town-wide events such as Brewster for the Holidays,
or individual events such as weddings held at local businesses or private homes rented for that purpose,have been prohibited from
doing so.In some cases these properties have been hosting events for some time, not realizing that it was not permitted by zoning
or other regulations.Once it was determined that these events were taking place and were prohibited by zoning,it was impossible
to allow them to continue. Rather than create a zoning by-law to govern these events,it was decided to initiate a designation
process for these venues through the Board of Selectmen.The additions proposed above will remove any possible conflicts with
existing zoning.
Collum read the legal.
Board Comments:
Judd asked what if BOS deny the applicant.
Leven gave a brief summary of the discussion with Town Counsel.Counsel had issues with this.There are varieties of opportunities
for BOS to license things.The decision was made to license SE venue.Combine designated SE venue and SE venue definition.She
read the new definition.A denial of a license can be appealed through court.A denial of a process cannot be appealed.Right now
zoning does not acknowledge this use. It would be decided through a licensing process.
Judd commented on"similar non recurring events"and asked for Klump's opinion.
Klump suggested,"frequent events but not limited to..." Remove"and similar non recurring events." Leven agreed.
Leaning commented on the last page of letter from Town Counsel, recommended changing permitting to"S"
Leven explained only make"S"if it is not a license through the BOS. Collum suggested adding"licensed"special event to the title.
Page 5 of 7
PB Minutes 3-13-13.docx
Public Comments:
Jim Foley,Selectman and Liaision to Brewster Chamber of Commerce.
Foley has some issues with the article. He has not heard of any zoning article that involves the BOS. He expressed concern about:
1)Reoccurring events potentially bothering neighbors and are not zoned for it. Example, Museum of Natural History
2)Candleberry Inn hosting fundraisers and in a RM zone. He provided a summary of what the Inn has done to meet food
requirements.They have spent a considerable amount of money on improvements to the kitchen.They do not have the necessary
permits to accommodate the public. Foley asked if serving tea and scones is going to upset the system. He provided information
regarding the neighbors.The Inn is surrounded by churches,auto repair,and other businesses. He felt this is an opportunity to help
the community and the zoning is too restrictive. Foley is not in favor of forms, mailings,permits,etc.These are small functions of
approximately 12 people. He believes this is over reach by local government. He is in favor of making life easier for local inns to do
business.
Collum asked if they cannot make this work. Regulate case-by-case basis?
McMullen does not agree with the article. He questioned the Planning Board's involvement. Collum explained it is a simple permit
through BOS. Leven added it is a distinction between BOS/zoning and BOH regulations. BOH regulates anyone who serves food.
Candleberry wanted to be able to serve dinners before and that requires a commercial kitchen. It has nothing to do with this article.
The Planning Board does not have that authority.
Leven explained further.What this does is 1)protects neighbors who have expectation of use and what is permitted 2)Victor Staley
looking at B&B single family home or home and commerce,something to govern that 3)function outside of business scope.
Looking at this,even if BOS have licensing process,they will get to a point where Victor Staley will say that the use is not recognized
by zoning and cannot be permitted.
The process and forms are to give people direction and maybe an opportunity to vet things differently.This is not just about B&B.
There are other types of businesses involved.This article accommodates uses and business owners plus property owners without
putting neighborhoods and abutters at risk.
Collum stated it benefit businesses and protects neighborhoods.
Foley asked Leven for explanation regarding it not being an allowed use. Leven explained the use is not recognized by zoning. Foley
expressed concern for the B&B's. Foley and Leven discussed further.There are nine B&B's in Town.
Judd stated unless this is included in zoning,the activity should not happen.The process goes beyond our scope.
Leven addressed Foley—the process looks at a property based on septic,parking,lot size, bathrooms,etc.,and would determine the
type and size of event that could be accommodated on the property. It gives people an opportunity to expand their business and do
special events.She shared example of a large event that is not properly permitted. The only choice now is no one does anything.
Foley asked if they could permit by right.
Collum questioned how you protect the neighbors.
Taylor stated it allows a venue to do something they do not normally do.i.e.,farmer's market example(farm to table events)
Lewis joined Foley at the table and explained if today it is not zoned,they cannot do it.The intent is a clear path to be licensed by
the BOS.The Planning Board is trying to create an avenue that zoning today prohibits. Lewis thinks this is a good first step.
Collum added that it protects the neighbors.
McMullen—asked about private parties. Leven explained for commerce only. Judd and Klump discussed holding a wedding at a
private residence.This does not apply. Leven explained the property has to be a business.Truro and Chatham have issues with this.
(large homes used for special events). She asked the Board to keep in mind this by-law amendment is for use in zoning. It would
remove the impediment through zoning.
Klump asked about a new license for each event. Leven confirmed yes for each event. Leven explained the proposed process and
provided an example.
Peter Johnson
909 Stony Brook Road
Page 6 of 7
PB Minutes 3-13-13.docx
Johnson spoke in support of teas at the Candleberry Inn and farm to table dinners at Halcyon Farm. He suggested making the
permitting process as simple as possible. He also was suggesting adding it to use table if possible. Keep in mind,BOS meetings are
long as-is.
McMullen stated this is a licensed special event venue.This is not zoning. Leven explained zoning is involved so that it is recognized
in all districts.The licensing process goes through the BOS.
Lucas Dinwiddie
3195 Main Street
Dinwiddie explained this by-law amendment removes a roadblock in town to pursue a special event. He stated it is not about B&B's,
Farms,etc. It gives people in the town more rights and freedoms.The Planning Board is the governing body to help this happen.
Dinwiddie owns a small farm on Route 6A. He is interested in doing farm to table dinners for a limited number of guests. He tried to
pursue before.
Bob Meyer
Chamber of Commerce
Meyer asked some questions about the events. Do people need approval each time? Leven provided an example of tea for the
historical society, May,August,October,#people,cars,food,etc. When you get designation,you can also submit applications and
get them permitted at the same time. Leven and Meyer discussed the process further.A draft of the process is available.
Meyer likes idea of being approved for the activity but not for certain dates. It is a work in progress.
Judd reminded the Board to stay focused on the use being allowed.
Klump made a Motion,to close the public hearing for Article#23,Special Event Venue,Judd Second,All Aye,Vote 6-0.
Taylor made a Motion to recommend Article#23,Special Event Venue to Town Meeting as amended, Leaning Second, Five Aye,One
No,Mktg 5-1-0. McMullen was opposed.
Review minutes of 1-23-13
Klump made a Motion to approve the minutes of 1-23-13 as written,Taylor Second,All Aye,Vote 5-0-1. McMullen abstains
Topics the Chair did not reasonably anticipate
B&B by-law amendment—Part of the updated by-law amendments distributed at the meeting. Public hearing is 3-27-13.
The B&B definition changed last year. Leven explained that B&B needs to be in the use table. Lodging house does not usually have
the homeowner on the property.She recommends putting it into the Use table with the same districts as lodging house.
Taylor, B&B from an Inn. BOH? No zoning. Leven and Taylor discussed. Collum stated the owner has to live on the property. Leven
read the definition. Klump asked about Captain Freeman House. Lodging house. Judd suggested discussing at the next meeting.
Foley explained the B&B's goes as "Inn" vs. Lodging House. Leven and Foley discussed differences. Historical definitions? Foley
wanted to make sure the new wording does not harm existing businesses. New wording has been there for a year,it is just not in the
use table.
Taylor asked about an ethics quiz.The Planning Department has not been notified of an ethics quiz.
McMullen made a Motion to adjourn, Klump Second,All Aye,Vote 6-0.
The meeting ended at 9:00 pm.
The next regular meeting is 3-27-13 @ 6:30 pm.
Respectful! submitted,
AL
William Hoag, Planning Board Cle Kelly Moore,Senill Dept.Assistant-Planning
Page 7 • 7
PB Minutes 3-13-13.docx