MONSON PLANNING BOARD
OCTOBER 24, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Hatch, Kevin Haley, Tara Hengeveld, Craig Sweitzer and
Karen King
7:30 Craig Sweitzer convened the public hearing to review the adoption of a bylaw to establish siting criteria and standards for windmill wind energy conversion systems.
Craig Sweitzer read the legal notice as it appeared in the Republican newspaper the weeks of October 9, & 16, 2006.
The proposed bylaw establishes standards for windmills and the definition of a windmill for the Monson Zoning Bylaw purposes. Such systems would be allowed by Special Permit from the Planning Board.
Present and speaking in favor were: Paul Bourbeau, Lower Hampden Road and Robert Dane, Cedarhurst Drive.
Craig Sweitzer stated the height limit would be 120 feet.
Mr. Dane stated the height restriction would eliminate the system for commercial use.
The Planning Board agreed that it would and stated the purpose of the bylaw is for residential use only at this point. The Board recognizes that alternative sources of energy are the way forward.
William Donovan, Country Club Drive stated he was not opposed to the proposed bylaw but was concerned because the bylaw allows a higher structure than 100 feet which is the limit set on a cell tower structure. He questioned if the Board would consider adding to the bylaw a condition that the petitioner be required to float a balloon at the height of the windmill to allow abutters to see the impacts if any to their property? Additionally would the Board consider adding a bond that protects the Town’s interest if the facility is abandoned?
Karen King stated she did not believe a bond was applicable in this situation because a windmill would be owned by the property owner and a cell tower is owned by a third party.
Kevin Haley stated it should be handled in a similar manner as condemned buildings.
Chip Lapointe stated if the structure is demonstrated to be unsafe the Town could get an order for it to be removed.
William Donovan stated there are no guarantees for the Town when it is handled in that manner.
Paul Bourbeau stated it is a residential structure not commercial and would be covered under a homeowner’s insurance policy.
Robert Dane stated windmills like cell towers would be obsolete in 10 years.
Paul Hatch moved to close he hearing at 8:00 P.M. and take the matter under advisement.
Karen King seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
8:00 Craig Sweitzer convened a Public Hearing to consider the addition of language to Section 5.4.1 of the Monson Zoning Bylaws.
The proposed bylaw adds language as follows Residential Uses “Except on a farm, only one commercial vehicle (excluding pickup trucks and vans with a gross vehicle weight of less than 10,000 pounds) shall be garaged or in any way stored on any lot in any R District. Said vehicle shall not exceed 26,000 pounds gross vehicle weight”.
The hearing was advertised in the Republican newspaper the weeks of October 9, & 16, 2006.
There was no one present at the hearing in favor of the addition of the language to the Zoning Bylaws.
A letter from Gary Pfisterer, Reynolds Avenue dated October 19, 2006 opposing the change was read and is hereto attached to these minutes.
The Board received a letter dated 10/24/2006 from Kathleen Conley Norbut opposing the bylaw change limiting trailers on residential property. Ms. Conley Norbut stated a property owner should have the right to use their land with the most flexibility whenever possible and larger parcels of land where vehicles can be parked “out of view” should provide allowances for more than one trailer.
Christopher Russell stated his opposition to the change because it affects business owners.
Paul Hatch stated the bylaw does not affect commercial business as it clearly states this applies to any “R” district. The “R” stands for residential district.
Craig Sweitzer stated if someone is running a business from their home and is in compliance with the Home Occupation bylaw the additional language would not affect them because the home occupation bylaw requires no outward sign of a business. If on the other hand someone’s business started out as a home occupation and has grown beyond what is allowed under the bylaw the change could affect the operation of the home occupation. If such a business has grown beyond what is allowed under a home occupation and no long complies with the bylaws it is time to move the business. It is unreasonable to think that abutters should be subjected to the noise of employees’ comings and goings in a residential neighborhood.
Jerry Talbot stated the way the bylaw is written he could not take his dump truck home and park it in his driveway.
Rob Sanderson, Thayer Road stated the noise is the same if it is a big truck or little truck.
Jim Haynes, Wales Road questioned how the Board determined a commercial vehicle?
Chip Lapointe stated is was based on weight of commercial vehicle registered and used for commercial business.
Craig Sweitzer stated to simplify anything over 26,000 GVW is not allowed.
Craig Sweitzer stated the purpose of the public hearing is for discussion and to put it to vote at Town Meeting.
Paul Hatch stated any change to the bylaws must be done at Town Meeting and if two thirds of the people in attendance vote in favor it will change if not there will be no change.
John Gousy stated he works a lot of hours.
Craig Sweitzer stated the beauty of Town government is the Town meeting. Any Town resident can be heard and what can be purer than going to Town meeting and voting.
William Donovan Country Club Drive stated most of the problems arise because someone starts a business that is in compliance with the home occupation bylaw but as the business increases and becomes more successful it outgrows the limitations of a home occupation but the property owner continues to grow and operate in a residential neighborhood.
Harry Rodgers, Bethany Road stated there is a big difference between a home occupation and leaving a truck overnight. He stated his opposition to the 26,000 GVW.
Mark Kline stated his opposition because the right to operate a business is being taken away.
The Planning Board stated the bylaw affects only the residential districts not commercial districts. If someone operates a home occupation in compliance with the bylaw that business would not be affected. There is no grandfathered protection for a home occupation that has grown beyond the limits imposed by the Zoning Bylaws.
Craig Sweitzer stated the intent of the home occupation bylaw it to protect abutters. When the home occupation grows and goes beyond what is allowed under the home occupation bylaw it becomes a commercial operation that has no place operating in a residential neighborhood.
At 8:50 P.M. Karen King moved to close the hearing and take the matter under advisement.
Tara Hengeveld seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
8:55 Craig Sweitzer convened a Public Hearing to review the addition of Section 3.4.7 Size of Accessory Buildings to the Monson Zoning Bylaws.
The proposed revision is as follows:
“In residential districts no accessory buildings in excess of three hundred (300) square feet in area or sixteen (16) feet in height shall be built except by Special Permit from the Planning Board in accordance with the provisions of Section 7.3. This provision shall not apply to accessory structures approved in conjunction with a Special Permit issued by the Zoning Board of Appeals (e.g. riding academy, greenhouse) nor to a detached garage accessory to a single family dwelling provided such garage does not exceed six hundred and twenty five (625) square feet (25’x 25’) in area and twenty two (22’) feet in height.
The hearing was advertised in the Republican newspaper the weeks of October 9, & 16, 2006.
The Planning Board stated larger accessory structures are not prohibited under the proposed by law change but would be subject to Special Permit review.
Harry Rodgers, Bethany Road stated his opposition to the requirement of a special permit.
Robert Dane, Cedarhurst Drive questioned if he wanted to construct a barn to store hay would he be subject to a special permit?
Craig Sweitzer stated he would if the building exceeded the height and square footage limits.
Jim Haynes questioned how long it normally takes to go through the special permit process?
Chip Lapointe stated approximately 8 weeks.
Jim Haynes, Wales Road questioned the circumstances that would cause a special permit to be denied?
Craig Sweitzer stated if the building proposed was out of character with the neighborhood it would probably be denied.
Robert Dane stated most families have more than two cars.
Kevin Burnham questioned if he wanted to build a garage that was attached to his home would he have to have a special permit?
Craig Sweitzer stated a structure attached to a home is not an accessory building.
Jim Haynes questioned if the proposed bylaw was unique to Monson?
Chip Lapointe stated it was not.
Harry Rodgers questioned why a detached building and not both detached and attached?
Chip Lapointe stated an attached structure is normally compatible with the existing house a detached building does not have to be compatible.
Kevin Haley moved to close the hearing at 9:20 P.M. and take the matter under advisement.
Paul Hatch seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
Following discussion of the proposed Windmill bylaw Paul Hatch made a motion to request the Board of Selectmen place an article on the warrant of the Special Town Meeting and recommend the adoption of the bylaw.
Kevin Haley seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
9:25 Section 5.4.1 additional language for garaging commercial vehicles in a residential district.
Following discussion of the proposed amendment to the bylaw Paul Hatch made a motion not to recommend the change to Section 5.4.1 of the Zoning Bylaws.
Kevin Haley seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
9:30 Section 3.4.7 addition of language regarding size of accessory buildings.
Following discussion of the changes Paul Hatch made a motion to support the change to Section 3.4.7 of the Monson Zoning Bylaws and request the Selectmen place an article on the warrant for the Special Town Meeting on November 27, 2006.
Craig Sweitzer seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
Paul Hatch moved to adjourn at 9:50 P.M.
Tara Hengeveld seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda A. Hull
Clerk
| 
