Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutPlanning Board -- 2015-03-25 Minutes Brewster Plannb-ig Board WgT° ��rnrw 2198 Main Street of a„ Fp- Brewster,Massachusetts 02631-1898 {508}896-3701 ext.1233 o y= FAX(508)896-8o89 Approved:5/13/15 Vote:5-0-0 TOWN OF BREWSTER PLANNING BOARD / Regular MEETING MINUTES Wednesday March 25, 2015 at 6:30 Pm Brewster Town Office Building Chairman Judd convened the Planning Board meeting at 6:30 pm in the Brewster Town Office Building with members: Nick deRuyter, Jason Klump, Elizabeth Taylor,Scott Collum,William Hoag,and John Leaning present. Other attendees:Sue Leven, Chris Miller, Pat Hughes, HWG—Anne Kitchell and Grace Cambareri,Andrew Singer, Esq., David Reid, Esq, Chris Kananga. Documents: 032515_A 42015-1,Summary of Reasoning Document,Andrew Singer, Esq. 032515 B#2015-1 Letter from Town Counsel to Sue Leven 032515_C#2015-1 Letters from Building Commissioner,Victor Staley 032515 D 2015-1 New letter from David Reid, Esq. 3/23/15 032515_E Letter from Bob Perry to Board,3/25/15 032515 F PowerPoint Presentation from Horsley Witten Group re: Breakwater#2015-03 Site Plan Review 032515 G Letter dated 1/17/14 to Coastal Committee—Submitted by Bob Perry re: 2015-03 032515_H Letter from La Tanzi Spaulding& Landreth,cc: Brent Maugel re: 2015-03,distributed to Board 3/25 The Chair read the Recording Notification: "As required by the Open Meeting Law we are informing you that the Town will be videotaping 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." 0 3o M tl nihg Discussion ' - Informal Discussion—Andrew Hutton and a representative from J.M.O'Reilly and Associates, Inc. re: Proposed Subdivision Application,49 Old Freeman's Way, Map 85, Lot 112,formerly Map 42, Lot 9, in the CH Zoning District. Keith Fernandes from J.M. O'Reilly&Associates presented a summary of the project to the Board.Andrew Hutton was present. They proposed creating a subdivision to create a CH lot. It was unclear as to whether the road is private, public or both.They met with Sue Leven and discussed creating a paper road.They would be seeking waivers to not construct a road.They asked the Board for comments. Board Comments: • Leaning had no comment. • Collum asked about the updated plan submitted. He reviewed the cul de sac and frontage requirements with Hutton and Ferndandes • Klump asked about a variance.This option was discussed further. • Hoag visited the site and stated he was not opposed to the subdivision.The CH lot would be very close to the intersection and seemed concerning.The curb cut would be addressed with an application. • Judd thought the 120 feet separation between the existing driveways could be a concern, but noted it would be addressed in site plan review • deRuyter had no comment. • Taylor expressed concern about the intersection. She noted that police comments would be required. In addition,the property is in a Zone 11.The applicant would have to go to Water Quality Review Committee. + Judd noted he was not familiar with the process of giving back land to a private way. He was not in favor of granting an easement. He expressed concern for the abutters. Page 1 of 8 Kelly Moore,Senior Department Assistant,PB Minutes 3-25-15.docx Video available—bttp:11ec4.cc1ce44e2ad • Leaning agreed with Judd and had questions and concerns about access to the CH lot. o Fernandes gave the Allard building across the street as an example. It is a CH use. • Judd noted the applicant could have shared driveways o Fernandes noted that Staff Review and Site Plan Review would be next steps. 6:45pm ANR#2015-07—Pleasant Bay Nursing Center Limited Partnership,383 S.Orleans Rd, Map 143, Lot 13,formerly Map 45,Lot 66 (portion of), in the RM Zoning District. Represented by Phil Scholomiti PLS,of Ryder and Wilcox, Inc.The purpose of the ANR is to divide Parcel B, Book 620 Page 61 into two buildable lots. Judd read the description from the agenda. Phil Scholomiti was present for the applicant from Ryder and Wilcox, Inc. Scholomiti summarized for the Board.Two lots would be created. 81-486,000 sq.ft, B2-62,800 sq. ft. Both have 150 ft. frontage. Both lots meet the zoning requirements for the Town. Board Comments: • Taylor asked why they are doing an ANR.Scholomiti stated it relates to the existing business. • deRuyter had no comment. • Hoag asked about Lot B2, sinking down. No wetlands. • Klump asked if he reviewed the parking setbacks. (Yes) • Collum was in favor of the ANR. + Leaning had no comment • Judd stated a discharge permit in a Zone II would be required.Scholomiti will follow up with Leven.Judd was in favor of the ANR. deRuyter made a Motion to endorse ANR#2015-07, Klump Second,All Aye,Vote 7-0-0. The Board signed the Mylar and paper copies. The Board approved the minutes of 2/4/15.7-0-0. :©o 1 PM:Public Hearing 7 Site Plan Review Special Permit:#2015-01—Applicant:Gloriae Dei Artes Foundation, Inc. Owner:William S. Kanaga and Christopher W. Kanaga,Trustees, Representative:Andrew L.Singer, Esq.,for property located at 36 Southern Eagle Cartway,Assessors' Map 138, Lot 43,formerly Map 30, Lot 18 in the RM and RR zoning Districts. Continued from March 11,2015 Judd introduced the Board and read the legal ad. Andrew Singer, Esq. represented the applicant,Chris Kanaga.The architect,engineer and landscape architect were present in the audience.(Andrew Maio,Tim Brady, and Theresa Sprague) Singer reviewed his summary of reasoning(noted above in the document list)and referenced an updated packet of photos distributed to the Board and included in the Board's packet. Singer asked the Board to have a discussion regarding: 1) Does the building to the north qualify as a community facility? 2)The protected educational use Singer read from MA 40A, Chapter 3,educational purposes. He submitted three copies of case law,Tufts College vs. City of Medford. He also read from the case. He noted these are the same standards addressed by the Planning Board in 2008. Singer referenced both letters from Victor Staley and Town Counsel. He reviewed aerial photos. Singer noted the following as he continued presenting his summary of reasoning. • No residents in close proximity to the proposed building, neighbor to north is 250 feet away + Setbacks will be met + Existing vehicle tracks will be relocated • They meet the standards of Article 12 of the zoning by-law • The project is not detrimental to the neighborhood,Town,or public. • There is nothing in the wetland buffers • Mixed use is suitable on this site Page 2 of 8 Kelly Moore,Senior Department Assistant,PB Minutes 3-25-15.docx Video available—http:llec4.ccfce44e2ad • They are in line with Chapter 40A,Chapter 3,Town Counsel's letter and Victor Staley's 3/20 letter. • They have been in front of Conservation Commission. *4/7 meeting—they will vote on the landscape plan,order of conditions • They are removing green houses * Singer referenced the landscape plan--screening for bike trail and nearest residence • They are not in the Old Kings Highway district • There will be no disturbance to the neighborhood • They will protect sound—submitted architectural wall sample, layer of quiet rock which is used in acoustical recording sound rooms • Parking photos were reviewed—21 in front, more in back • Practice may take place weekday evenings and Saturdays—5 to 6 cards on site during typical rehearsal • No adverse effects on water • Singer reviewed the site plan review standards, roof drainage, referenced Staley's letter, and noted bathrooms are now in the building plans • They are updating all septic systems • Building height will comply with by-law • Staley was not comfortable that the applicant meets the definition of community facility. He has referred to the Board. If Board agrees then the applicant can have the increase in height if they provide setbacks. • Singer reviewed the by-law and use table—if not a community facility,will Board allow building as proposed. He referenced the Tufts case. He reviewed the community facility definition. He referenced table#1. • Staley's concern is that the building is not open to the public. • Singer continued with site plan review standards o No exterior lighting(down lit back lights) o Proposed motion sensors,angled towards path o Dirt road will be widened, low amount of traffic o Fencing to allow for wildlife to get through • Singer asked the Board to make findings: 1)Community facility 2)40A Chapter 3,and 3)Standards Site Plan Review,Special Permit Board Comments: • Judd confirmed the hours—Page 5,#9,occasional weekday nights 7:30-9:30pm • Hoag had a concern about it being a community facility. He inquired about the formal education o Singer referenced the Town Counsel 3/24 letter and the letter he sent to Staley 3/2 re:use • Klump asked about limits for an educational use as far as number of structures allowed o Singer explained they are not without limit, reasonable accommodation. Ref:Tufts case o Singer noted it is reasonable accommodation over the Dover Exception,if community facility—then the project complies with the by-law. If not then they are asking for the Board to look at 1)height, 2)principal buildings • Klump asked if they would rent out the building. o Chris Kanaga explained it is for formal education and building of the sets. Not open to the public o Kanaga stated the kids have been let down by the school system due to cuts.The band competes at a national level every year and performs at local high schools.Auditions are required to join the band. • Klump does not question the educational use just the operation as a community facility. He asked why they could not use the other building on the property. o Singer noted the regulation does not have to nullify the use,can have other uses.The tenant is separate from the applicant. He referenced the Belmont Steeple case. • Collum asked the Board to decide if it is a community facility. He agreed with the educational use. He suggested a condition to be used only for education. • Leaning noted the permit is complicated and he feels conflicted. He was not sure if a community facility. o Singer added there is 215 feet corner to corner to the nearest house • Leaning expressed concern about the soundproofing. o Singer stated that the building as proposed includes soundproofing. It could be addressed. • The Board discussed a noise condition,heights of other buildings, community facility,and screening. o Theresa Sprague noted berms provide good sound buffering,9 white pine have been planted,and Additional screening includes virburnum, holly and other layers of screening. Existing pines will grow. Page 3 of 8 Kelly Moore,Senior Department Assistant,PB Minutes 3-25-15.docx Video available—http:/1ec4.cc1ce44e2ad o Singer read the community facility definition. It does not need to be open to the public. It services the community. • deRuyter stated it fits the definition • Klump and Singer discussed a few examples of a community facility and the Dover amendment. + Klump and Taylor did not think it met the community facility definition • The Board discussed performances, history of the site,height limits o Singer suggested there are 2 ways to go through the by-law. 1)Accept as community facility and 2) Use is a protected use. if do not allow building, make a finding re: height and principal structures.They are replacing structures with a structure. It is reasonable accommodation. • Taylor questioned the need for additional height.Singer noted it is because of the ground water.They discussed further. • Taylor was not in favor of community facility. • Judd asked what they could do for the community. o Kanaga explained using the schools is very difficult because of scheduling. it is difficult to find practice space.The students teach music in the schools. • Judd was not in favor of community facility. He understands the height. Noise is a big concern. • Leaning expressed concern about the 3/20 correspondence to David Reid from Victor Staley. He read from Staley's letter. He questioned why the Board has to approve the building for educational use. • Leven explained that even though it is an educational use the zoning by-law applies. "reasonable regulation" o Board has the right to approve at a greater height. + Leaning does not consider the use to be an educational use. • Klump suggested the Board decide restriction on the number of buildings on the lot vs.the Dover Amendment. Re: Educational use—Board decide protection of the use over rides the number of buildings on the lot. • Hoag asked if more comments received from the departments since 1/7. (No) • Leven reminded the Board that the septic system would be reviewed by the Board of Health. Public Comments: • David Reid, Esq.representing Paul Lucier of 40 Skaket Way o Submitted two letters, 1/9 and 3/23 o Main floor area is over 8,000 square feet. Basement has 9-foot ceilings and bump out. o 16,000 gross floor area—why not a mandatory DRI referral? • Singer stated existing building is 7,720 square feet, new building is 16,000 square feet,the difference does not require a DRI o Reid noted this is a complex proposal. Re:Site Plan Review—Why is there not a full plan of the site?Parking? Development of area?This is not a full Site Plan Review. o Parking has not been shown on the plan o 1989 Variance granted, expired o 4,000 square foot garage building, no inclusion of parking.Where is the parking? o Lighting is 30 feet above ground,difficult to control the light o Re: Noise.Quiet rock is effective.There are 2 glass panels and 5 skylights that are not going to be blocked by quiet rock o Re:building height—Roof 58',grade front east side 22',(36), 34'tall a rear,36'at front. If community facility it does not qualify with the formula.They need a variance. o Reid read the community facility definition. He stated the public benefit seems incidental. o Reid was not clear on the use of the building.4,000 square foot area, band has 100 members, hard to believe only used by 25 children at one time. o Re:Special Permit—1)lawfully construct building 2)became non conforming because of by-law change o They are not eligible to ask for a special permit o Re:site plan approval—rest of site should be consistent with the by-law. Look at the full site.Garage was built less than 50 feet from the wetland/coastal bank. Paraclette Press building in 1989, RM zone—educational use allowed but not on this lot o The ANR plan applies no other use.46.5 feet of frontage, not lawful,only a single family home o Proposed building is not a conforming building G Reid suggested the use was not in harmony with the by-law,district,or neighborhood. No adequate parking or circulation. o 2 low buildings(greenhouses)are being replaced. Large building substantially detrimental. Page 4 of 8 Kelly Moore,Senior Department Assistant,PB Minutes 3-25-15.docx Video available—http://ecq.cc[ce44e2ad 0 10 feet and 4 feet from other buildings,extreme congestion o Little buildable land o Not consistent with the intent of the by-law 0 other issues—past approvals, Board should not add to it, bad history of compliance. o Reid suggested the Board should deal with what they have first. o This is not a community facility and not and not entitled to special permit and site plan review. o Re: Dover Amendment—Reference his letter. Building is still subject to the by-law o Reid asked the Board to deny the application. o Reid submitted a letter from Bob Perry dated 3/25/15 • Kari Hoffman,Old Bog Road,Several questions for the applicant and the Board o Is the building leased to an organization?(yes,ground lease with the owner) o Educational facility—as use o Will it continue to be used as an educational use for the life of the building?(will come back if it changes) o Hoffman thinks it will change the character of the area and is not in favor of the project o She questioned it being an educational facility for children and standards and guidelines from the State that must be met. (all construction goes through the building department and state code) ■ Singer noted it is not a school. They added bathrooms, originally available in other building. o Hoffmann expressed concern about noise since percussion sound will travel. • Paul Lucier,Skaket Way o He was concerned about the plans and the plastic panels. He is not in favor of the project. He was concerned about sound and the 1,000 square feet of windows. *End of public Comment *Singer noted that it is a residential zone and referenced the 2nd aerial photograph. Other than the Lucier property,you can only see industrial buildings to the east. Board Comments: • There was some discussion about the neighborhood uses and it was noted that the Fire Department has no concerns about the building. Leven added that she spoke to Chief Moran and he is waiting to hear from the state and the building may need to be sprinkled. • Hoag reminded the Board that even though there are CH use buildings nearby,a recent vote at town meeting failed to change the zoning to CH. • Collum questioned if the greenhouses were legal. o Singer stated there is an agricultural use from 1977 and there is Conservation Commission approval. • Collum requested a letter from the Cape Cod Commission. o Singer noted it is not a mandatory requirement o Leven reviewed the upcoming calendar with the Chair and asked the Board what they need going forward. ■ Applicant should provide a full site plan showing parking and uses ■ Information on the windows ■ Justification for height and height calculation • Letter from the Cape Cod Commission ■ Setbacks to building ■ Any compliance issues on the site{Ask Victor Staley) ■ Circulation pattern, back parking Frontage 45' (Ask Victor Staley)define pre-existing non-conforming status(Victor Staley) ■ 2008 Conservation Commission Order of Conditions ■ The Board requested Staley be at the next meeting. ■ More information on why this building and this location • Hoag expressed concern about the noise. He asked if they had an engineer. Beyond the walls, how will they prevent noise from leaving the site?The Board and Leven discussed possible sound testing and the existence locally of any buildings using quiet rock. Taylor requested specifications on Quiet Rock,windows,doors, skylights and parking information. • Leaning agreed with Taylor's concerns. He questioned the past uses.Are they consistent with zoning?Leven will get an accounting of the permits for the applicant. • 2:30:58,The Board took a five-minute break. Page 5 of 8 Kelly Moore,Senior department Assistant,PB Minutes 3-25-15.docx Video available—http:l/ec4.cc/ce44C2ad • Site Plan Review Special Permit:#2015-03—Applicant and Owner:Town of Brewster, for property located at 0 Breakwater Road(Breakwater Landing),Assessors' Map 58, Lot 37,formerly Map 4, Lot 55 in the RM Zoning District. The applicant is proposing the retreat of the existing parking lot via pavement removal and restoration of area to natural dune system;providing storm water management for remaining parking lot using green infrastructure;and replacing lost parking by constructing a spillover parking lot.Continued from March 11,2015 The Chair read the legal ad.Chris Miller represented the Town.Anne Kitchell and Grace Camberari were present from Horsley Witten Group. Kitchell reviewed a brief PowerPoint presentation to bring the Board up to date.The presentation included a project overview and input from other Town Boards. Board Comments: • Leaning attended both Conservation Commission meetings. He asked the applicant about the dunes. o Chris Miller explained the dunes area further. It is a "no build area" • Leaning stated the alternatives have been analyzed and that he will support the project. However, he noted he does not like using open space for parking. He spoke to Charlie Sumner about shuttle parking and realized that a shuttle service may flood people to the Breakwater Beach.This should be avoided. • Taylor agreed with Leaning.She expressed concern about handicap spaces with cross hatch space.She was also concerned about wheel chair access.Taylor had a discussion with HWG.The handicap spaces do have a cross hatched area on one side and a shared access path. • Collum believes the plan looks to the future. He explained that access to Town landings is important.The parking area is useful and not a detriment to the neighborhood. He was in favor of stormwater and minimizing access.This plan meets the requirements and he will support the project. • deRuyter agreed the plan meets the Board's requirements. He understands there has been public push back however, he believes this plan will deal with mitigating erosion, the Town needs this parking area and he looks forward to enjoying the unknown park area with his children.The park is for the Town not just the neighborhood. • Hoag stated the plan meets site plan review but he has concerns about the parking. Hoag asked if the Board could condition the permit without the additional parking. • Klump agreed with Hoag, Klump does not support the project. He stated it is the wrong design,there was not a proper process, and it is detrimental to the neighborhood. If the Board denies,the Town will not appeal because of the cost to appeal. • Judd attended the Conservation Commission meetings and the Board of Selectmen meetings.Judd faults the process, not the project. He feels there should have been more inclusion and opportunity for outreach and discussion before the site plan review permit. He acknowledged that Town Counsel weighed in on the Cist property and he was not crazy about the parking but thinks it makes sense.The new parking may enhance the park. Storm water has been addressed. He has no conditions to suggest and will support the project. o Leven read from Article 12, 179-65,Site Plan Review,(c) ...if meets requirements,the Board shall approve....if the use is allowed by right... • Klump noted that the use is an open question. Klump stated, "we can do whatever we want,"the Town will not appeal. *There was a disagreement between Leven and Klump regarding speaking for other Boards, like the Board of Selectmen and Town Administrator. • Judd asked about maintenance of the swale,bioretention and benchmarks. o Chris Miller explained beach nourishment with sand.The final Conservation Commission conditions are not yet out. • Judd asked about the paths on the plan. a Miller explained they are areas without vegetation and footpaths. It is a Town policy to stay out of the dunes. o Leven pointed out the areas on the map labeled lawn and landscape areas.They have been identified as encroachment on Town land. Miller and Leven discussed further. • Leaning asked about sand lost and replacement o Miller explained coastal dune maintenance to the Board. • Judd noted the Board has received 28 letters.8 in favor, 20 opposed.Of the 20 opposed, 14 are from the neighborhood and 6 are from outside the neighborhood. Page 6 of 8 Kelly Moore,Senior Department Assistant,PB Minutes 3-25-15.docx Video available—http:/Iec4.cc/ce44e2ad Public Comments, • `Judd noted that discussion of the Consodine Ditch is off limits • Don..._., Poole, 3904 Main Street spoke in favor of the project.The project meets the requirements and has been approved by the Conservation Commission. He addressed remarks made by Klump earlier in the meeting. Poole stated that they"cannot do whatever you want"and noted this was derelict duty and arrogant. He suggested Klump be removed from the Board. • Bob Perry. Engineer hired by a neighborhood group. Perry was not in favor of the project. He noted that some think less parking is okay. He agrees that the process was lacking. He thinks the plan is looking a little bit too far into the future. In winter of 2013/2014 Horsley Witten Group formulated a plan. He questioned the erosion rate of two feet a year at Breakwater Beach. He believes there has been a lot of exaggeration during the process.The neighbors should have been included in the process earlier. He does not agree with the 120 feet of pavement retreat since it would be a 250-year loss. He was in favor of no change to the entrance and slightly less parking. o Leven noted that 19 sites were reviewed in Town including behind Town Hall and Breakwater Beach by the Town and Horsley Witten Group.There was a write up of the site visits with suggestions shared with the Comprehensive Water Planning Committee.The top 3 or 4 received a 10%design by Horsley Witten Group. These designs were considered storm water projects. • Klump expressed concern with how Leven spoke to Mr. Perry. He suggested if the Town Planner has the Town's agenda then she should sit with the applicant. • Judd explained the Planner should give a chronological review • Bob Perry distributed a letter from 1/17/14 re:a retreat project brought to the Coastal Committee. He distributed copies to the Board. • Chris Powicki, 2042 Main Street—Powicki spoke against the project. He was in favor of the Hoag condition. He does not like the parking area on the hill and was concerned about the effects on the rural and historic character of the neighborhood. He noted the Board of Selectmen has driven this process with the award of a grant moving the project further. Powicki was not in favor of the planning process. • Art Bennett,59 Crosby Lane—Bennett spoke against the project. He expressed concern about public access, Leaning and Klump's comments,and a flawed planning process. He was in favor of shuttling people from satellite parking lots to the beaches. He suggested Spruce Hill Beach. He was not in favor of taking away green space. He suggested the Board look further into the planning process. • Jon Lamb, 154 Crosby Lane—Lamb spoke against the project. He noted the following: o Planning Board represents the citizens not the Town administration o Planning Board could make a stand and say so o The process got off to the wrong start and it could be catastrophic going forward. a He suggested the Board send it back for conceptual planning because of the lousy process o He was concerned about the expenses. • Pat Hughes, Selectman,377 Tubman Road o Hughes addressed the suggested condition of no additional parking ■ Maintaining parking was not the driving force of the BOS. ■ They want to protect the few public access points ■ At Paines Creek,they could not keep parking at the edge near the beach ■ Public access is a high priority—Open Space Plan and a recent public survey ■ BOS support the project ■ Hughes read the 2/23/15 letter from Town Counsel. The Cist property is Town property. ■ She suggested to continue utilizing as a beach park and public beach and not to condition ■ Hughes encouraged the Board to approve the Site Plan Review and not condition or limiting the additional parking. • Brent Maugel,Tides Court resident o Distributed copies of a letter to the Board, Not in favor of the project o Why is this being done at all? Erosion still .5 foot a year. o He does not think that the area of construction near park will enhance the park o As an architect for 30 years, he criticized the one sided process o Requests for an alternative plan have not been taken seriously o He applauded people who say this might not be the right thing to do—Re: permitted use • Mark-Farber,97 Governor Prence Road Page 7 of 8 Kelly Moore,Senior Department Assistant,PB Minutes 3-25-15.docx Video available—httprf1ec4.cc/ce44e2ad o If the Town did not have parkland,where would they put the additional parking?This was asked at the first Conservation Commission meeting and never answered. o Bob Ford of the Brewster Chowder House has offered his parking lot,which is%mile from the Beach. No one from the Town has contacted him. o He expressed concern about devaluation of property. o He asked the Board to think about the potential damage to the neighbors.This will change the character of the street. Klump made a Motion to close the public hearing,deRuyter Second, (discussion) • Taylor noted the whole parcel is a park,which was given to the Town for municipal purposes, it is not conservation land. if they make the lot wider, it will encroach on habitat. They would be taking lawn area and lawn area is not habitat.Spruce Hill is conservation land. Expanding parking is not allowed. • Taylor added we should work with that we have.Surveys indicate that people want more beach access. Beaches bring people to the Town.Shuttles will possibly bring too many people to the beach.She supports the project and suggested additional benches near the additional parking lot. All Aye,Vote 7-0-0. Conditions: • Hoag proposed a condition not to expand the parking into the second area. He was in favor of the project but asked the Board for comment. o Collum—Not in favor of removing 26 spaces.This is not overly detrimental to the neighborhood. Collum agreed with Taylor, o deRuyter agreed with Callum o Taylor noted this would not be in front of the Board if not for the additional parking o Judd—focus on parking,dune,and lighting • Hoag will not present the-condition. o Klump had no comment. o Leaning stated support for Hoag's condition. Leaning and Chris Miller discussed average rate of erosion. Miller explained it varies over time and the frequency of storms. 1951-1994 2.03 feet a year. o Klump noted.56 is average. o Miller stated that changing climate is predicting rapid erosion in this area. o Leaning expressed concern about the amount of retreat but did not continue since the public hearing was closed. o Klump confirmed the Board needs(5)votes for the Site Plan Review, motion may not carry. o Hoag withdrew the condition. o Klump made a Motion to approve with the condition of not expanding 26 spaces to the south, Leaning Second,Vote 2 Aye,4 No, Hoag abstain.The motion did not carry. o deRuyter made a Motion to approve#2015-03....further discussion, no Second. • Board discussed conditions o Judd was concerned about signage and line of site,deRuyter and Collum agreed. ■ Miller—Small lot,signage will be reviewed by the Police. o Taylor asked about storm water conditions. ■ Leven reminded the Board that nothing regarding stormwater has been presented.Approval should be made based on the plan. o Taylor suggested a new landscaping condition. It plantings do not survive, replace them within one growing season. • Leaning made a Motion to approve#2015-03 Site Pian Review,0 Breakwater Road, Map 58, Lot 37 in the RM Zoning District,with the following conditions: 1) Review signage with Police, 2)Replace landscaping that dies with in one growing season,deRuyter Second,6 Aye, 1 No(Klump),Vote 6-1-0. Klump asked the Board if they would attend the Government Study Committee 3/26. Most members had a scheduling conflict. Leven expressed concern that only one member would represent the Board at the meeting. The Board discussed further. Topics the Chair id not reasonably anticipate-None Next Plann g and Meeting Date:4/8/15 Leaning m e oti adjourn,deRuyter Second,All Aye,Vote 7-0-0.The meeting ended at 11:00 pm. Respec y bmi ed, c deRuyter, Planning Board Clerk Page 8 of 8 Kelly Moore,Senior Department Assistant,PO Minutes 3-25-15.docx Video available—http:1Jec4.cc fce44ezad