HomeMy Public PortalAboutPlanning Board -- 2013-09-11 Minutes Brewster Planning Board
2198 Main Street
ol► , er
:4e° zv F9 Brewster,Massachusetts 02631-1898
(508)896-3701 ext.1233
_ FAX(508)896-8089
mop
Approved:10-9-13
Vote:5-0-1 Taylor abstain
TOWN OF BREWSTER PLANNING BOARD
Regular MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday September 11, 2013 at 7:oo pm
Brewster Town Office Building
Chairman William Hoag convened the Planning Board meeting at 7:00 pm in the Brewster Town Office Building with
members:John Leaning,Jason Klump, Scott Collum, Rick Judd,and John McMullen present.
Absent: Elizabeth Taylor
Other attendees:Sue Leven
Documents:091113_A Correspondence from Dr. Eten, Draft letter to Dr. Eten,and Email from an abutter
091113_B Signs Form
The Chair 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 he or she is required to inform the chair."
7:00 pm Planning Discussion
1)Discussion with Dr.John Eten regarding wind turbine located at 441 W H Besse Cartway
Hoag explained there has been a request from Dr. Eten to extend his deadline to 12/31/13.
Collum stated he was okay with the request.
Leanin expressed concern that this is dragging on too long. He was concerned for the abutters.
Judd stated he was in favor of Dr. Eten doing his own testing but he is looking for progress with the reports.
Leven referenced the email from Dr. Eten's daughter Danya and explained that they are having trouble getting
an engineer and the right winds.The turbine is not running and the Board has nothing to gain from setting
arbitrary deadlines. Leven suggested giving the extension.
Hoag read a letter from Danni Jesudowich,which requested no more extensions. She also requested that the turbine be
shut down and the special permit revoked.
Hoag stated that Dr. Eten has invested a lot of money in the turbine.At the time it was put up the neighbors were
supportive.The turbine has been shut down. He saw no reason not to extend.
Leaning asked for clarification regarding who sent the letter.
Judd asked for clarification about points in the letter and how soon the test will be.
Collum asked the Board if Dr. Eten should come in to discuss.
Judd and Leven discussed the parameters around testing and the times in the letter.
Hoag asked if Leven has been notified of the testing. Leven confirmed and told the Board she notifies the abutters.
McMullen made a Motion to extend the timeframe for testing to 12/31/13,Judd Second,All Aye,Vote 6-0.
2)Review Minutes from 8-7-13 and 8-14-13
Klump made a Motion to approve the minutes of 8-7-13 as written, McMullen Second,All Aye,Vote 6-0.
McMullen made a Motion to approve the minutes of 8-14-13 as written, Klump Second, (4) Aye,Vote 41-Q,1-J<•iouad ai2RM
Leaning abstained.
3)Discuss Sign by-law-Sign Size:
g Y g
Page 1 of 4 BREWSTER TOWN CLERK
PB Minutes 9-11-13.docx
McMullen questioned the 15 square feet in the residential areas. Hoag and McMullen discussed further.
McMullen stated that it includes primarily destination businesses so why the need for big signs?
Leven reminded the Board that some business people have come to the Board and asked for bigger signs in
residential zones.
McMullen noted that regarding a 10 foot setback, most businesses are in violation.
Collum agreed with McMullen and expressed concern about the setback.
The Board filled out the form regarding size preferences and Leven totaled.
There were 3 for#2, 1 for#3, and 2 for#4.
The Board discussed#2 vs.#4.They also talked about areas with signs no larger than 16 square feet. Residential zones
with a maximum of 10 square feet were discussed.
Klump stated that outside the residential zones and not including Old King's Highway there, is(I)and part of Underpass
Road.
*The Board went next to the public hearing and take up the sign discussion after the public hearing.
7:30 pm Public Hearing
Planning Board Policy on Off-street Parking and Loading—The Planning Board will be taking comment on a proposed
policy to guide development of off-street parking and loading areas.Copies of the proposed policy can be found on the
Town of Brewster website (www.town.brewster.ma.us)or through the Planning Department office
brewplan @town.brewster.ma.us or 508-896-3701 x1233.
Hoag read the legal description above.
Leven explained that this is the parking and loading table from the article that failed at town meeting.This
portion was removed and the Board decided to put forth as a guide.This is a starting point to discuss parking
options with the Board.
Judd agreed with the flexibility and the reserved parking area. He shared an example in Chatham (the Corner Store)that
has a need for land set aside for parking. He likes the policy.
Leven stated this is a guidance document.This document helps applicants get started.The Board negotiates
parking at Site Plan Review or Use Review.
Collum questioned the policy.
Leven explained it is just a guide and a point to start negotiating.
Judd referenced the Jones permit on Underpass Road. He stated the policy keeps areas rural.
Klump stated that reserved areas not paved and it is a good starting point.
McMullen stated that parking is supposed to be in the rear of the building. (in the by-law)
Leven explained that it is behind the building if possible.This policy is about number of spaces. It is tied into the
by-law. Leven read from the by-law.
Leven and McMullen discussed examples. It is part of Site Plan Review.
McMullen made a Motion to close the public hearing,Judd Second,All Aye,Vote 6-0.
The Board discussed Judd's idea.An applicant may ask for less parking and potential landscaping. It would be a hold area
for future parking expansion. The Board discussed adding a separate box,discussing on a case-by-case basis, limiting
parking, being more environmentally friendly,and postponing the vote.
Leven referred to Site Plan Review 179 66 D 2,the Planning Board and applicant can agree on a reserve area that
can be expanded if needed. Leven will make a note on the policy.
McMullen noted that restaurants are a problem in July and August only(parking)
Collum made a Motion to accept the Policy on Off-street Parking and Loading,as amended, Leaning Second,All Aye,
Vote 6-0
Signs Discussion,continued
The Board returned to discussing Hoag's suggestion.#2 vs.#4.
Collum asked if the Board is comfortable with two other signs not more than 6 square feet each.
Page 2 of 4
PB Minutes 9-11-13.docx
Judd commented that HDC is 12 square feet. He expressed concern regarding visual clutter and stated that appropriately
placed signs are more appropriate than large signs. 12 square feet should be a good starting point.
McMullen stated that the Foster Square sign is currently 16 square feet.
Klumo agreed with Judd in theory but only if HDC enforces a sunset clause.
Hoag referred to Elbert Ulshoeffer's comments at the last sign meeting. He explained that they could negotiate with
applicants. He believes HDC should decide for their district. He could go with 12 square feet plus two signs.
Leven noted that if the Board puts square footage into the by-law,the HDC could not approve a sign over that
amount. She asked the Board to consider small signs within big signs.She gave an example of JT's Seafood and
referred to subsidiary signs(open,close)and what size should be required. Use additional square footage
as see fit/
Judd added that HDC does not allow it, but it currently exists.
The Board discussed how HDC deals with signs and enforcement options.
Leven asked the Board to discuss the use of American flags as"open"signs.
There was a discussion about sign size of 12 square feet for the town with two extra signs.
McMullen was not in favor of 12 square feet. He likes 16-20 square feet.
McMullen and Leven discussed multi tenant businesses like Foster Square and Lemon Tree Shops.They are allowed
larger signs with spaces for each business in the plaza.
There was a discussion about maximum size.The Board members weighed in.
Collum 12 or 16 square feet
Judd 16 square feet(but prefers 12)
McMullen 16 square feet(except for multi tenant)
Leaning 16 square feet(but prefers 12)
Klump 16 square feet(in non-residential zones)
There was a discussion about 10 square feet in residential zones.
Judd 10 square feet
McMullen 8 square feet
Collum 8 square feet
Klump 8 square feet
Leaning 8 square feet
There was a discussion about the additional(2)signs allowed. (No larger than 6 square feet)
Collum Yes
In favor of(1)additional sign
Leaning Yes
Judd Yes, (minimize visual clutter)
Collum Yes
Hoag Yes
There was a discussion about the size of"Open"signs.
Hoag asked Leven to find out the standard size for such signs. (And Vacancy or No Vacancy Signs)
Collum suggested they might be 4" by 12" or 14" long
Leven shared an example of an Inn sign with a hanging vacancy sign. Is it part of the 16 square feet or extra?
Hoag brought up the idea of a Brewster banner sign rather than using the American flag to communicate the business is
open.This banner would be a chamber standard flag and would include a town image like for example,the gristmill. It
might spruce up the town.
Collum was concerned about visual clutter with an addition of a Brewster banner sign.
Page 3 of 4
PB Minutes 9-11-13.docx
The Board discussed using the American flag to signify"open"as tasteful or distasteful.
Leaning expressed concern about the amount of public education necessary to explain the Brewster banner/open sign.
He believes the use of an "open" or"shut" sign is fine.
McMullen asked for clarification about whether the sign is in a window or hanging.
Collum though it qualified as a secondary sign.
McMullen thought the vacancy sign should be treated like a real estate sign or a temporary sign.
Hoag and McMullen discussed further.
Klump asked the Board if the size of the secondary sign(s)should be determined by the setback.
How far from the road?
• Within 10 feet,6 square feet
• Within 10 to 25 feet, 12 square feet
• Within 25+feet, 20 square feet
Hoag thought this was complicated.
Judd stated he had to think about it.
McMullen agreed with Hoag.
Hoag read from the by-law regarding setbacks.They discussed further and shared examples.
Collum asked the Board if the Police Station and Fire Station should be allowed larger or illuminated signs.
Hoag and Judd stated it was a public safety issue.
Leven suggested a red or blue light at the top of the Police Station sign.
Collum asked if they should allow an exemption for a larger sign.
Leaning suggested signs in town strategically place that had arrows pointing to Fire and Police Station locations.
Leaning agreed with Leven.
Leaning asked the Board to consider adding Real Estate open house signage to the by-law. Currently there are no
provisions.
Leven will look into this. Leven explained that open house signs are off-premise signs.
The Board decided to discuss signs on 10/9/13 and to hold a public hearing for Signs on 10/16/13 at 7-8:30 pm.They will
discuss Sign size and ladder signs.A Sunset clause was discussed.A sunset clause is a way to bring non-conforming signs
into conformance.Judd stated that it would come into effect upon change of ownership.
The Board discussed ladder signs in other towns.
Topics the Chair did not reasonably anticipate—None.
Collum made a Motion to adjourn, McMullen Second,All Aye,Vote 6-0.The meeting ended at 9:00 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
td/
Ja. Klum Planning Board Clerk Kelly oore, for Dept.Assistant-Planning
Page 4 of 4
PB Minutes 9-11-13.docx