MINUTES MAY 16, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Sweitzer, Paul Hatch, Kevin Haley, Tara Hengeveld and Karen King.
The Planning Board reviewed and endorsed ANR plans for:
Woodridge Road, Mr. & Mrs. Harraghey.
Old Reed Road/Beebe Road, Northtree LLC
Lakeside Drive, Ms. Moran
Lower Hampden Road, Ms. Habel
The Board reviewed a plan of land on Hancock Road, submitted on behalf of Margaret Allard but denied endorsement because the rear lot line was not clearly delineated.
7:50 P.M. CONTINUATION OF A PUBLIC HEARING FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR BETHANY ROAD REALTY TRUST FOR A TRAILER MAINTENANCE BUILDING ON BETHANY ROAD.
Craig Sweitzer reconvened the hearing and gave a brief review of the site plan proposal. The Board is reviewing a proposed trailer maintenance building to be constructed on property owned by Bethany Road Realty Trust and leased by Lydall Corporation.
Vincent Campobasso was present representing the property owners Bethany Road Realty Trust. Mr. Campobasso stated future plans include another building to be constructed next to the existing building that Lydall currently leases across the street. He stated he did not know if those plans impacted what was currently under review. It has been evident during the course of the hearings for the trailer maintenance building that parking is an issue for both the Board and the neighbors and Lydall Transportation Department is now looking at ways to address that. They are exploring using the industrially zoned property on the other side of the street for trailer maintenance. Mr. Campobasso stated he would like to request a continuation of the site plan review for ninety (90) days to allow Lydall to
fully explore all of the options.
Craig Sweitzer stated to clarify this for everyone present the applicant is exploring another option to remove an existing cement block building located across the street on industrially zoned land. The applicant owns that property also and based on the plans developed by Lydall Transportation Dept. may withdraw the site plan currently under review and file a new site plan application.
Mr. Campobasso stated he could not stand before the Board and say with certainty that is what would happen but it is a possibility.
Craig Sweitzer stated he would entertain a motion to continue the public hearing for ninety (90) days at the request of the applicant Bethany Road Realty Trust.
Karen King so moved.
Tara Hengeveld seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion.
Tara Hengeveld stated she believed the plans outlined by Mr. Campobasso were significantly different from those under review. She stated she was not inclined to approve the extension but rather deny the project and let the applicant start from the beginning with a new plan.
Kevin Haley stated the hearings for this project have dragged on for months and he would approve a 90-day continuation but was not inclined to extend the hearings beyond that.
Paul Hatch stated irrespective of the Boards’ decision regarding a continuation of this hearing or a new site plan something must be done to address the buffer that has been removed between the property owned by the applicant and the residents on Beebe Road. The vegetation has been removed and the residents are exposed to the traffic and noise of trucks etc on Bethany Road. Mr. Hatch stated for that reason alone he would be in favor of granting a continuation for 90 days and put the applicant on notice that must be addressed.
Karen King stated she agreed with Paul Hatch. Mr. & Mrs. Hullihan have a pool and the privacy they enjoyed before the site was altered is gone and their back yard is totally exposed.
Craig Sweitzer stated he remembers the Board having lengthy discussion regarding a buffer.
Paul Hatch stated something must be done to replace the buffer that was there.
Chip Lapointe stated when the Zoning Board of Appeals issued a special permit for earth removal it addressed the erosion but not the buffer. The Board assumed the buffer would be taken care of under the site plan review.
Craig Sweitzer stated the loam and seed required by the Zoning Board and the buffer zone required by the Planning Board must be completed.
Craig Sweitzer called for the vote on the motion before the Board to approve a 90-day continuation.
Voting aye: Paul Hatch, Craig Sweitzer, Karen King and Kevin Haley.
Voting nay: Tara Hengeveld.
It was so voted by majority vote.
8:05 CONTINUATION OF A PUBLIC HEARING FOR A STORMWATER BYLAW
Craig Sweitzer reconvened the hearing for a new stormwater bylaw that regulates the discharge to the municipal separate storm sewer system. The issue causing the most discussion was the area or areas of Town that would be covered by the bylaw.
Paul Hatch stated the Town is in violation because Phase II of the Stormwater Management should already be in place. The area of Town involved would basically be the downtown area. Eventually all areas of the Town must be in compliance and the bylaw was written to address that. Phase III will be mandatory in two or three years and rather than go back in another couple of years and revisit this why not take care of it at one time? The bylaw for Monson was adapted from Federal regulations and affects any disturbance over one acre in area.
Craig Sweitzer stated for clarification the Town is required to have something in place for Phase II now and the proposed bylaw meets that. The new bylaw also encompasses Phase III that will be required to be in place in about 3 years.
Paul Hatch stated that was correct.
Karen King stated she remembered the Board discussing engineered plans for the outlying districts when two lots were side by side.
Paul Hatch stated if the lots fall under the Wetland Protection Act and a Notice of Intent is filed another filing with the Planning Board would not be required. A filing would be required with the Planning Board to address stormwater runoff if over an acre was disturbed and there were no wetland issues.
Karen King questioned if the lots on Bradway Road owned by Joe Dasco would have to file?
Chip Lapointe stated probably. Most of the problems with stormwater runoff occur in the rural area of Monson and not the downtown area. He stated for that reason he would like to have something in place that covers all of Monson.
Tara Hengeveld stated an issue that came up at the last meeting on the bylaw was if a landowner removed trees to plant hay the bylaw would apply.
Craig Sweitzer stated he brought up that issue to identify what he believed was a potential problem. He questioned how the members felt about moving forward with the Bylaw?
Kevin Haley stated he believed there would be no problem getting the required votes at Town Meeting to put the bylaw into effect for Phase II but was not confident the same would apply to Phase III.
Karen King agreed stating she believed if the voters understood that this was a federal requirement and Monson could lose certain types of funding if it did not comply with the Phase II requirement it would pass.
Craig Sweitzer stated he could see the need for a bylaw to address the rural areas and guessed Chip Lapointe saw the need more than most.
Karen King stated she thought that property owners were supposed to be retaining stormwater runoff on their own properties now.
Paul Hatch stated the difference is that at the moment it is self-regulatory. If the Town had a bylaw the Building Commissioner would not have to rely on voluntary cooperation. With this bylaw in place a property owner or developer must present a plan that shows what is proposed will not impact other peoples property.
Following discussion Karen King moved to continue the public hearing to July 18, 2006 at 8:00 P.M. to add language to the proposed bylaw that identifies the area of the Town the bylaw applies to.
Kevin Haley seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
Karen King left the room to avoid the appearance of a conflict.
8:20 PUBLIC HEARING FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR PAUL & DANELLE LAFLOWER, 64 MAIN STREET.
Craig Sweitzer convened the public hearing and read the legal notice as it appeared in the Republican Newspaper the weeks of May 1, & 8, 2006. The plan before the Board proposes to convert the existing bowling alley at 64 Main Street, Monson to an indoor skate park. The applicants propose to offer an indoor skate park, skate shop, paintball course, arcade games and pool tables in addition to having snack and drinks for purchase.
Paul & Danelle LaFlower made a presentation to the Board stating they intend to charge admission to the indoor skate park and if patrons leave the building they would have to pay another admission fee to re-enter. Snacks would be available for purchase at a small concession stand. The outside of the building would be monitored to discourage loitering. No outside changes are planned other than the removal of boards on some of the smaller windows. The parking will remain the same because most of the young people using the facility would be dropped off and picked up. The applicants requested two signs one 3’ x 5’ extended off of the building and if that is not possible mounted flat on the front of the building. The other sign 4’ x 5’ to be mounted on the north
sidewall of the building.
Craig Sweitzer read a letter from Police Chief Stephen Kozlowski in which he stated although he has no prior knowledge of the impact of this type of business he could advise the Board that his Department receives a number of complaints each year regarding loitering, trespassing and skateboarding on streets and sidewalks. Chief Kozlowski stated in his letter that he expressed his concern to Ms. LaFlower that her new business not exacerbate the existing problem. Chief Koslowski asked the Planning Board to consider the impacts the business would have on parking, traffic flow and activity outside the premises and to mandate whatever steps necessary to assure the public’s safety.
The Board members expressed concern that the activities inside the building would spill out as the patrons left the facility and they would continue skateboarding on the street and sidewalk along this dangerous area on Main Street. A discussion followed regarding the option to have patrons use the entrance to the building that faces the Dunkin Donuts parking lot. This option was dismissed because there was nowhere for cars to turn.
Roy Miller 68 Main Street stated he has a right of way behind the Bowling Alley and that is the only way to get to his garage. He expressed his concern that whatever is proposed the Board make sure his right of way is not impacted.
Paul LaFlower stated included in the application are the proposed hours of operation. Times change with the season but they do not intend to be open past 9:00 P.M.
The applicants requested a continuance of the public hearing to June 20, 2006 to address the concerns raised regarding loitering, parking and drop off and pick up concerns.
Kevin Haley moved to continue the hearing to June 20, 2006 at 7:45 P.M.
Tara Hengeveld seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
Karen King returned to the meeting.
Kevin Haley moved to adjourn at 9:30 P.M.
Karen King seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
Minutes transcribed from a combination of notes taken at the meeting and a recording.
Linda A. Hull
| 
