HomeMy Public PortalAboutPlanning Board -- 2014-04-30 Minutes Brewster Planning Board
2198 Main Street
9 !W .9
Brewster, Massachusetts 02631-1898
p*
(508) 896-3701 ext. 1233
2) brewplan @town.brewster.ma.us
_
'"4 ;lllll0'
p_Z _
f rt7
Approved: 5/28/14
Vote: 6-0-1 Collum abstains
TOWN OF BREWSTER PLANNING BOARD
Regular MEETING MINUTES ; :; --, 'r_
Wednesday April 30, 2014 at 6:00 pm
Brewster Town Office Building
Chairman William Hoag convened the Planning Board meeting at 6:05 pm in the Brewster Town Office Building
with members: John McMullen, Jason Klump, Rick Judd, John Leaning, and Elizabeth Taylor present.
John McMullen arrived at 6:30 pm.
Absent: Scott Collum, Sue Leven
Other attendees: John Demarest (Demarest Land Surveying), Russell and Jane Bassett, William Henchey,
Victor Staley, Joseph Teft, Conrad Schultz
Documents:
043014_A Letter from Peter Farber, Esquire re:ANR#2014-11, Russell and Jane Bassett
043014_B Letter from ICE regarding no representation available
043014_C Handout from Conrad Schultz
043014_D Letter from William Henchy(have not rcvd letter 6/2/14)
043014_E Letter from Victor Staley re: Signage
The Chairman 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."
6:00 pm Planning Discussion
1) ANR#2014-11, Bassett, Russell and Jane, Map 24, Lot 42, RM Zoning District, represented by John
Demarest of Demarest Land Surveying, Property is located on the south side of Satucket Road between
Canoe Pond Drive and Leland Road, the purpose of the ANR is to divide a single parcel of land with over three
times the required lot area into two panhandle lots with frontage of 30' or more on a public way.
Hoag read the ANR description. Demarest was present as well as Mr. and Mrs. Bassett. Demarest provided a
summary of the ANR. He reviewed the plan with the Board and answered questions. Demarest read the letter
from Peter Farber, Esq.
Board comments:
They discussed the shared driveway vs. a second curb cut on Satucket Road.
Judd questioned the access and if it is considered a right of way on the deed. He appreciated the well layed
out plan. Demarest was not sure regarding the deed but the lot will remain in the family. He discussed the
rights over the road with Judd. The entrance and exit will be the same.
Klump appreciated there being no extra curb cut on Satucket Road. He questioned the use of lots in the letter.
He asked for Staley's opinion on Farber's letter. Staley explained a legal opinion because of a 1990 letter from
the former Building Commissioner David Thyng to Mr. Bassett. The letter addressed having two residences on
one lot and addressed the issue of not enough frontage for a panhandle lot. Staley did some research and
realized Mr. Farber was on the Planning Board when the panhandle by-law was developed. He explained that
the Board could waive required frontage and the driveway access. Staley agreed with Klump regarding the
driveway access. In Staley's opinion, lots do not share a driveway unless the by-law states it. Sharing a
driveway can create complications. The BOA could review.
Page 1 of 4
PB Minutes 4-30-14.docx
The Board discussed the shared driveway/travelled way being the same exit and entrance. The applicant is still
considering the shared driveway. They also discussed cartways with Demarest.
Klump asked Staley if it was appropriate to weigh in before the Board of Appeals. (No) Staley reminded the
Board that they are acting on a decision not the access.
Klump made a Motion to endorse ANR#2014-11, Bassett, Russell and Jane, Map 24, Lot 42, Judd Second,
All Aye, Vote 5-0.
2) Waiver Site Plan Review#2014-14, Applicant: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Owner:
American Tower Corporation, 1147 Freemans Way, Map 131, Lot 1 in the Industrial Zoning District. To install
one antenna at 170 ft. mounting height on the existing telecommunications tower.
Hoag read the description and a letter received from ICE. There was no one present from ICE. They asked for
consideration without representation.
Klump made a Motion to grant the Waiver of Site Plan Review#2014-14, Applicant: U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, Owner: American Tower Corporation, 1147 Freemans Way, Map 131, Lot 1, Judd
Second, All Aye, Vote 5-0.
McMullen joined the meeting.
3) Marty Lucenti, Docks and Piers Citizen Petition, Town Meeting Article 5/5/14
Conrad Schultz, Millstone Village Homeowners Association was present. Lucenti was not present.
Hoag stated that the Board has already voted on this article and will not re-vote unless the Board convinces
him otherwise. Hoag stated that they have no questions and that the article is redundant. He also explained
that they are late to the process.
Schultz believes that there is no redundancy. He reviewed the dock permit process with Conservation. Then
the applicant goes to the State for a Chapter 91 permit. State asks for sign off from zoning. How does zoning
speak to this? Does it make sense to include in zoning? He explained that current zoning does not address this
process with dock permits. He believes it makes sense to incorporate this into zoning. This would have no
impact on current or conforming only non-conforming docks. He believes this is additional protection for the
ponds.
Klump stated that the goal is admirable but he told Lucenti the by-law is ineffectual. He suggested they write a
zoning dock regulation. Schultz stated he is on the Brewster Ponds Coalition Steering Committee. He believes
that that a regulation into zoning is a start.
ti
Hoag agreed with Klump. He read comments from Town Counsel. He expressed concern about shutting off
any new non-conforming docks. The problem is that a variance would be very difficult to get. Where does the
Building Commissioner's authority end? At the bank? He suggested they come back to discuss and bring
another article to fall town meeting.
Bill Henchey expressed concern about pond water quality and impaired ponds. He believes there is wide base
of support for this article and that it is important to take action now. He suggested an amendment to the article
at Town Meeting. He is interested in discussing variances again with the Board. He believes docks are
categorized as structures by state law.
Klump was in favor of improving water quality but asked how docks are the issue. Stormwater runoff, fertilizer
and septic systems are the issue. He was not if favor of limiting human recreation on the ponds.
Taylor stated that this article came to the Board too late in the process. She does not believe docks are
causing the problems with the ponds.
Page 2 of 4
PB Minutes 4-30-14.docx
Staley noted this would create an enforcement challenge. He acknowledged that other towns have something
included in zoning. He was open to further discussion. Taylor suggested looking at what the other towns are
doing.
Schultz discussed the human impacts on the ponds with Klump. He gave Wellfleet as an example of a town
implementing strict rules (set limits, restricting kayak racks and parking).
Leaning stated that the Board was not hostile towards protecting water quality at the ponds. He encouraged
more interaction with the ponds group. He wants to hear more about this topic.
Hoag encouraged Schultz to get detailed information (statistics) and come back for discussion. Judd asked for
more details. They suggested he come back in the fall.
4) Discussion with Victor Staley, Building Commissioner regarding home occupations and bakeries. He
requested a discussion with the Board. Staley addressed Section 37 regarding home occupations and the
exemption of bakeries. He read the definition. People come to him to discuss baking as a home occupation. He
explained the process. He asked for comments on the following:
• Thresholds
• Does the home occupation fit in a residential neighborhood?
{ • Board of Health, food permits, residential kitchen certification vs. a bakery
• Are his suggestions for moving forward a reasonable approach?
• Extract out residential kitchen and not consider it a bakery?
Staley gave the Board a few examples and discussed Board of Health issues. McMullen was concerned that if
people come into the home to purchase, it is not a home occupation. Staley shared a leather works example.
McMullen suggested coordination between Zoning and Board of Health.
Judd commented on various home occupations across the Cape and noted the Board of Health will look at
food handling, Zone II, discharges, etc. Each case is unique. Where does someone cross the threshold from a
home occupation to a commercial kitchen?
Joseph Teft addressed the Board. He is interested in baking vegan-baked goods in his home once a week for
sale at the Orleans Farmer's Market.
The Board discussed if his business is a bakery. They reviewed the current definition. They continued
discussing Board of Health issues with baking. Staley explained that the word "bakery" in the exceptions
paragraph is creating complications. Staley acknowledged that applicants would need to meet Board of Health
requirements as well as other Boards.
The Board discussed the impact home occupations have on neighbors and details of the bakery use. Judd
noted that people do the same type of business as home occupation, when they raise bees and make honey.
They discussed residential kitchens, jam kitchens, Hopkins House, and food preparation. *Home occupation is
on page 56 of 132 in the Zoning By-law (Chapter 179)
Taylor asked if it falls under food preparation. She stated this was a Board of Health issue. Staley is looking at
land use and impact on property and neighbors. Residential kitchen seems to fall under most people's concept
of home occupation. Leaning agreed with Taylor. A home occupation could turn into a real profitable business.
He stated this was not a big deal with the Planning Board. Judd suggested processing of foods for retail sale
(could include bakeries and jams).
Klump stated the use is in question. Staley wants to recognize this use (residential kitchen) as home
occupation. Is anything out of order if he extracts out residential kitchen instead of calling it a bakery. Does it
harm the intent of the by-law? Taylor asked about the jam kitchen at a house in Blueberry Pond. It did not
come to the Planning Board. Taylor asked if this is like catering.
Page 3 of 4
PB Minutes 4-30-14.docx
r
McMullen asked about business licenses. McMullen did not think Teft's business qualified as a business.
He suggested keeping zoning out of this if possible. Teft went to the Board of Health and then Staley.
`$ They discussed business licenses from the Town Clerk and Staley's review process to determine where
businesses fit. Should they amend the by-law?What was the original intent of the by-law? Staley did research
and it was not clear according to the minutes. They discussed making a change in the near future.
Hoag suggested adding something to the by-law. Leaning agreed.
Staley thanked the Board for their time. He referenced the sign by-law going to Town Meeting next week. He
stated if it passes, he would send letters to businesses to make the signs legal. They discussed the sign by-law
and ways to make the enforcement clear. Staley distributed a letter to the Board.
Taylor suggested that when members speak they use "through the chair..."
The Board reviewed the 3/31/14 minutes for approval. Leaning made a Motion to approve the minutes of
3/31/14 as written, Taylor Second, All Aye, Vote 6-0.
Topics the Chair did not reasonably anticipate - None
Judd made a Motion to adjourn, Taylor Second, All Aye, Vote 6-0. The meeting ended at 7:20 pm.
The next scheduled meeting is 5/14/14 @ 6:30 pm.
Respectfully su• itted,
/ A
'
Nick deRuyter, Planning Board Clerk
Kelly Moore,Senior Dept.Assistant-Planning
a ,
Page 4 of 4
PB Minutes 4-30-14.docx