MONSON PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 24, 2009
MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Sweitzer, Karen King, Kevin Haley and Tara Hengeveld
MEMBERS ABSENT: Paul Hatch
7:30 46 Palmer Road, Bukowski Construction. The Board received a fax copy of a letter dated 3/24/09 from Gary Weiner, Ecotec Environmental to David Loring, Tighe & Bond regarding the engineering work associated with the slope stability.
Craig Sweitzer questioned if an agreement had been reached?
Mr. Loring only received the letter today and the Board has no knowledge of an agreement at this time.
Thomas Villamaino, Palmer Road stated this issue is being dragged out and questioned when the Board would have a final time schedule for completion of the work for the slope and detention basin.
Craig Sweitzer stated it would appear that Mr. Bukowski has answered all of the concerns and the Board would keep working to bring finality to the issues.
Karen King moved to accept the minutes of February 17, 2009 as presented.
Kevin Haley seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
Karen King stated she attended a meeting of the Wilbraham Planning Board at which developer Kent Pecoy requested a waiver of the age restriction for a project currently being built in Wilbraham. The Board approved a special permit for a development of condominiums that had age restrictions limiting the units to 55 years of age and over. The Wilbraham Planning Board approved the removal of the age restriction to open the development for all ages and children. Ms. King questioned how the Planning Board would view such a request if it were to come before the Board?
Mr. Sweitzer stated considering the language of the Monson bylaw he did not believe the Board could waive the age restriction.
7:45 Public Hearing for a Special Permit as provided by Section 6.14.1 (2) of the Monson Zoning Bylaws for New Cingular Wireless (AT & T) to co-locate wireless communication equipment on an existing tower at 91 Cedar Swamp Road and construction associated equipment shelter in an existing enclosed compound.
Chairman Craig Sweitzer read the legal notice as it appeared in the Republican newspaper the weeks of March 5, & 12, 2009.
Also present at the hearing: Adam T. Kurth, Anderson & Kreiger for AT&T, Arvin Sebastian, AT&T, Matt McQuaid, SAI, AT&T.
Adam Kurth submitted additional material comprising copies of the special permit issued by the Planning Board to Verizon for construction of the facility and the variance issued by the Zoning Board of Appeals for relief from a setback requirement.
Mr. Kurth stated Monson’s bylaw requires that a communications facility be designed to accommodate the maximum number of users technologically practical and that is precisely what Verizon did. Their equipment is located at the top of the tower and AT&T proposes to locate on the second slot. No increase in the height of the tower is proposed. AT&T proposes to construct an 11 ½ foot by 20 foot communications equipment shelter and a diesel generator for back up power on a 4 foot by 11 foot pad. The diesel generator complies with the Water Protection overlay district regulations it is located above ground, has a double walled tank with an internal alarm, in the event of a puncture AT&T is automatically notified.
Craig Sweitzer questioned the color and design of the proposed equipment shelter?
Mr. Kurth stated the color and design of the equipment shelter would match the Verizon shelter.
Craig Sweitzer stated Verizon have a propane back up generator because this is in overlay district.
Matt McQuaid stated if the Planning Board preferred a propane generator AT&T would be agreeable.
Craig Sweitzer questioned if any additional fencing or plantings were proposed?
Mr. Kurth stated there is a fenced in area and the equipment shelter and back up generator would be located within the fenced area. No additional plantings are proposed because the site is located in a densely vegetated area set well back from the road on land zoned as industrial land.
Craig Sweitzer stated he assumed access to the site was from Cedar Swamp Road. He questioned if any improvements were proposed to the access?
Mr. Kurth stated AT&T did not propose to make any changes to the access.
Arvin Sebastian a Radio Frequency specialist demonstrated the coverage they expected by means of maps with different colors illustrating the strength of the signal in the south end of Monson and how it tied in with their existing facility located in the tower of the First Church on High Street.
Tara Hengeveld questioned how many more households were expected to be served by the improved reception?
Mr. Sebastian stated he had no information on individual homes their calculations related to road coverage.
Karen King questioned if the Route 32 corridor was the target area?
Mr. Sebastian stated their decision to locate equipment in the southern end of Monson was in part based on customer complaints. The fact that they are able to co-locate on an existing tower is an added advantage.
Karen King questioned the time frame?
Mr. McQuaid stated approximately 6 – 8 weeks once work begins.
Chip Lapointe stated he had no questions at this time but would need engineering and structural reports.
Tara Hengeveld moved to close the hearing at 8:10 P.M.
Karen King seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
Tara Hengeveld moved to approve the waivers requested by AT&T and the issuance of a special permit for New Cingular Wireless PCS, (AT&T) to co-locate equipment on an existing tower and to construct an equipment shelter and install a back up generator at an existing communications facility owned by Verizon located at 91 Cedar Swamp Road with the following conditions:
- The proposed back up generator shall be fueled by propane and is subject to compliance with the Water Supply Protection District Bylaw.
- The proposed 228 square foot ancillary building shall be similar in color and appearance to the existing ancillary building.
- The array of antenna shall be limited to those shown on Plan Z-2 of the plans prepared by Bradford A. Mills, P.E., Dewberry-Goodkind, Inc. for AT&T Mobility.
- This Special Permit shall lapse within two years from the date the decision is filed in the office of the Monson Town Clerk unless substantial construction has commenced and continues regularly.
- This Special Permit shall not take effect until a copy of this decision has been recorded in the Hampden County Registry of Deeds.
- This Special Permit shall not be transferred or assigned without prior approval of the Monson Planning Board.
- The use, location and construction of all improvements shall be in conformance with the plans submitted.
- Failure to comply with all conditions stated herein, and with all related statutes and other regulatory measures, shall be deemed cause to revoke or modify this decision. This Special Permit does not relieve the applicant or any other person of the necessity of complying with all applicable federal, state or local statutes, bylaws or regulations.
Karen King seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
8:10 Public Hearing to discuss and review a proposed Common Access Driveway bylaw.
Chairman Craig Sweitzer convened the hearing and read the legal notice as it appeared in the Republican newspaper the weeks of March 5, & 12, 2009.
Also Present: Donald Frydryk, Sherman & Frydryk, John Rahkonen, Alex Rahkonen and Ian Dailey.
The Board received a letter from Kathleen Conley Norbut stating she was unable to attend the hearing but wanted to put forward two issues for the Board’s consideration. The issue of access on a common driveway for public safety vehicles and water supply for fire services and recourse for the Town and neighbors if junk vehicles are stored on properties off of the common access but are not visible from the street.
The Board received input from the Fire Chief before finalizing the bylaw language.
Craig Sweitzer stated as he understood it John Rahkonen, Bumstead Road has proposed his own version of a common driveway bylaw.
Donald Frydryk stated the version he prepared for Mr. Rahkonen differs from the bylaw developed by the Town with regard to maximum grade, overall length, and allowing access from common driveway for an estate lot. There are other differences but he believed these to be the most significant differences.
John Rahkonen questioned why the Board imposed of a 12% grade limit for the common access?
Craig Sweitzer stated it was consistent with the requirements for an Estate Lot.
John Rahkonen questioned why the Board limited the length of a common driveway to 700 feet?
Craig Sweitzer stated the Board is developing this bylaw that would apply to all properties in Town and not one specific property unlike Mr. Rahkonen’s bylaw that is tailored for his specific requirements. The bylaw proposed by Mr. Rahkonen does not put a limit on the length of the common access if it does not serve more than four driveways.
John Rahkonen questioned how the Board determined that 700 feet would be the limit.
Craig Sweitzer stated the Board matched the allowed maximum length of a common driveway to the maximum length allowed in Monson’s Subdivision Regulations for a dead end street. In addition to staying consistent with other bylaws and regulations already in place the Board places great emphasis on the health and safety of the inhabitants of the Town. The limit of 700 feet in length works efficiently and safely not only for the general population but also for safety and emergency vehicles.
John Rahkonen stated he could drive at 55 MPH on his existing driveway and it is greater than 700 feet in length.
Craig Sweitzer reiterated that the Town developed a bylaw that was appropriate for all of the land in Monson and not for one specific piece of property. The purpose of the bylaw was to preserve the rural quality of the area, enhance public safety by reducing the number of curb cuts and minimize adverse impacts on wetlands. The Board is also considering other bylaws to help preserve the rural quality and roadside vistas such as reducing the frontage requirement when a house is setback a certain distance. This bylaw is just the first phase.
John Rahkonen questioned why it was rushed it out?
Craig Sweitzer stated the Board did not rush the bylaw. The Master Plan Committee compiled a list of bylaws that it wanted to see developed. Certainly everyone at this hearing is aware that the Board proposed a Lot Layout bylaw that was defeated at a Town Meeting. That is the beauty of the Town Meeting system the people decide.
John Rahkonen stated he did not see how this would benefit anyone if the Board required each lot to have legal frontage along the street. Additionally why did the Board prohibit the access for an estate lot from the common driveway? The cost of putting in a common driveway would be such that not everyone would be able to afford it.
Kevin Haley stated section 6.21.4 (4) of the bylaw proposed by Mr. Rahkonen would appear to have the same frontage requirements.
Donald Frydryk stated he believed that language referred to the required frontage only in the case of an estate lot being accessed from the common driveway.
Kevin Haley stated that was not the way he read it.
John Rahkonen stated people with large parcels of land but not a lot of frontage would benefit if an estate lot could be accessed from a common driveway.
Craig Sweitzer stated it is not the responsibility of the Board to make every piece of land developable. The Board has a responsibility to develop bylaws that in addition to creating opportunities for development also considers the safety and well being of the residents of Monson. A common driveway bylaw that does not impose limits on the length does not have safety in the forefront.
John Rahkonen stated development of expandable capes along the street frontage is not advantageous to the Town.
Craig Sweitzer reiterated that the Board is also looking at another bylaw that has a reduced frontage requirement depending on the setback of the house. He questioned how the bylaw proposed by Mr. Rahkonen benefits the Town of Monson?
John Rahkonen stated it helps create more open space.
Karen King stated it does not help to create anymore open space than the bylaw proposed by the Town. The Town bylaw requires that each lot on the common driveway have the required frontage along the street. That leaves the vegetation and any natural features in place along the roadway creating more open space and preserving the rural nature of the Town. Mr. Frydryk has stated the bylaw they propose does not require that frontage unless an estate lot that has a 40 foot frontage requirement is accessed from the common driveway. There is no emphasis on preserving the rural nature of the Town the emphasis is on developing a specific piece of property.
John Rahkonen stated the requirement of the Town bylaw that any common driveway exceeding an 8% grade must be paved makes it cost prohibitive.
Craig Sweitzer stated the Board and Mr. Rahkonen have approached this issue with a different purpose in mind. Mr. Rahkonen has developed a bylaw to suit his particular need, whereas the Planning Board is looking at this from the perspective of developing a bylaw that benefits in general the residents of the Town whether they own large parcels of land or not.
John Rahkonen stated that the bylaws were too far apart and he intended to go in front of Town Meeting to have his bylaw accepted.
Craig Sweitzer stated it is up to the residents of the Town.
Donald Frydryk stated he did not have a clear understanding as to the definition of lot width in the Town’s bylaw.
Chip Lapointe stated the intent was to provide the minimum required frontage for the zoning district in which the lot is located at the front setback line. For example in the rural residential district the required frontage is 200 feet, the required setback from the front lot line is 50 feet, a lot must be 200 feet wide at the front setback line of 50 feet.
Donald Frydryk suggested the Board clarify the language to make its intent clear.
John Rahkonen stated the performance bond required by the Board was just another roadblock to discourage a common driveway. The average person would not be able to get a bond.
Craig Sweitzer stated there are many special permits that require the applicant to obtain a performance bond and it has never been a problem.
John Rahkonen stated it was obvious they had reached an impasse with regard to grade, length of driveway and estate lots and he proposed to take his bylaw to the Town Meeting floor.
Craig Sweitzer stated Mr. Rahkonen’s proposed by law offers no protection for the Town, the abutters of any property that may be developed with a common driveway or the residents in general. There is no performance guarantee required to ensure conformity with the design plan and no limit on the length of the driveway to ensure safety, this is an effort to circumvent zoning and that is not in anybodies best interest other than Mr. Rahkonen.
Donald Frydryk stated he did not understand the Board’s reluctance to allow an estate lot to access from a common driveway?
Craig Sweitzer stated he was not at the Planning Board meeting when the bylaw was developed and speaking personally would not object. An estate lot requires a special permit with an engineered driveway plan and as long as all of the requirements for the creation of an estate lot were adhered to including that the lot must be in existence at the time of the creation of the estate lot bylaw and no more that two estate lots could be created from one lot he could see no reason to exclude an estate lot.
Karen King stated she would not object to adding language to the bylaw to allow an estate lot to be accessed from a common driveway.
Tara Hengeveld stated she concurred with Ms. King.
Kevin Haley stated a good example of a common driveway would be the lots developed on Upper Hampden Road by Jim Kelley.
Chip Lapointe state John Morrell contacted him to request that language be included in Section 6.21.3 1 (h) that the common driveway is a private driveway and not open to public use.
The Board amended the bylaw language to allow an estate lot to be accessed from a common driveway, added language “not open to public use”, and added language to clarify the lot width.
9:25 Kevin Haley moved to close the public hearing.
Karen King seconded the motion.
Kevin Haley moved to request the Board of Selectmen place an article on the Special Town Meeting warrant for the Common Access Driveway bylaw as amended.
.
Tara Hengeveld seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
9:25 Public Hearing for a Commercial Development Bylaw that regulates and establishes design criteria for large commercial buildings in the Central Commercial, General Commercial and Industrial zones.
Kevin Haley stated Paul Hatch did a great deal of research for the development of the bylaw language and basically this is that bylaw with a few changes. He stated he kept in mind that the designated areas are zoned for commercial use and that someone was trying to operate a business. There is no way to completely hide a large commercial business but there are ways to make it look appealing. The bylaw addresses large parking lots and the way they are distributed to reduce the overall scale of paved surface.
Karen King stated she has a problem with the traffic flow around the post office and questioned if this bylaw would address that?
Kevin Hayley stated in addition to the parking lot orientation the bylaw also addresses pedestrian flows.
Craig Sweitzer stated the bylaw does provide the opportunity for the Board to grant a waiver from the recommended approach if an alternative site plan and building design approach addresses the standard equally well or better than the recommended approach.
Karen King moved to close the public hearing at 9:50 P.M.
Tara Hengeveld seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
Karen King moved to request that the Board of Selectmen place an article for the Bylaw as written on the next Special Town meeting.
Tara Hengeveld seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
Kevin Haley moved to adjourn 9:55 P.M.
Tara Hengeveld seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
Respectfully submitted
Linda A. Hull
| 
