MONSON PLANNING BOARD
MINUTES JANUUARY 25, 2011
MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Sweitzer, Paul Hatch, Karen King and Kevin Haley.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Tara Hengeveld
7:00 ANR plan for 38 Waid Road, submitted by property owners Eric & Suzanne Markham. The Board endorsed the plan that conveyed a small portion of land owned by Raymond & Lucia Blanchette to Eric & Suzanne Markham.
Harold Leaming, Building Commissioner stated his office received an inquiry regarding the status of a parcel of land on Paradise Lake Road with regard to building a single family home. Research in the Assessors Office shows that 52 Paradise Lake Road, shown on the assessors maps as parcel 075-026 and the adjoining parcel 075-025 were owned by Richard & Lillian Nash from approximately 1949 until July 29, 2010 when both parcels were sold to William & Amanda Warren. On July 30, 2010 William & Amanda Warren sold parcel 075-025 back to Lillian Nash. Mr. Leaming stated he wanted to bring this to the Boards’ attention because given the set of circumstances he believes both parcels have been made non-conforming and parcel 075-025 is not a building lot.
Paul Hatch stated he would agree with the Building Commissioner. The property owners should be sent a letter alerting them to the fact that parcel 075-025 cannot be built on and the owners of parcel 075-026 also known as 52 Paradise Lake Road have property that does not comply with the Monson Zoning Bylaws frontage requirement.
7:15 Public Hearing to review a petition for a Special Permit for a Common Access Driveway as provided by Section 6.21 of the Monson Zoning Bylaws for property owned by John Rahkonen located on Bumstead Road identified on Assessors Map 79, Parcel 002. Property is zoned Rural Residential.
Craig Sweitzer stated for the record the Planning Board is made up of a five (5) member Board and one of the Board members is missing this evening. The petitioner must receive a favorable vote from all four members present in order for the Special Permit to be granted. He questioned if Mr. Rahkonen wanted to continue with the hearing.
Mr. Rahkonen stated he did.
Craig Sweitzer read the legal notice as it appeared in the Republican Newspaper the weeks of January 3, & 10, 2011.
Donald Frydryk, Sherman & Frydryk Land Surveying and Engineering made a presentation to the Board on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. Frydryk stated the plan submitted shows the proposed common driveway and a proposed estate lot for which a public hearing has been scheduled directly following this public hearing. The driveway proposed to be used as a common access already exists and currently serves three homes and it is proposed to add a fourth.
Craig Sweitzer questioned when the driveway was established?
Donald Frydryk stated the right of way was granted in 1974. It is proposed to take the frontage and create a standard lot with 200 feet of frontage and an estate lot with a minimum of 40 feet of frontage. The standard lot would have 29 acres in area and the estate lot 22 acres.
Craig Sweitzer stated as he understood it Mr. Rahkonen was taking one lot and making it two lots and was asking the Board to approve what is essentially an existing common driveway.
Donald Frydryk stated both lots would be accessed from the common driveway but all of the homes existing and proposed that would use the common driveway met the Common Driveway bylaw requirement by having the appropriate legal frontage along Bumstead Road. The driveway starts at Bumstead Road and is approximately 1800 feet long, and includes two proposed paved hammerhead turn around areas every 700 feet and a curved area on the existing driveway that it is proposed to widen. Mr. Frydryk stated the applicant is requesting a waiver from Section 6.21.2.2 that limits the distance of the common driveway measured from the street line to the last lot line to 700 feet. The common driveway easements are within the standard lot and estate lot both will have access through deeds.
Craig Sweitzer questioned if the 10 feet buffer setback had been provided for the length of the driveway? Additionally the easements would have to be generated by an attorney when the land was conveyed along with the right of way for the common access. Section 6.21.3.2 requires an Association Agreement or Covenant be provided to the Planning Board with the application guaranteeing the continuing maintenance expenses. The agreement shall be subject to the review and approval of Town Counsel and the Planning Board as part of the special permit and recorded in the registry. The petitioner must satisfy this section of the bylaw before the Board votes.
Craig Sweitzer questioned what was proposed for drainage?
Donald Frydryk stated the existing driveway is totally paved, there is a culvert underneath the driveway at Bumstead Road and there are a series of swales. The areas of the driveway it is proposed to widen will be paved. There is no significant increase in the post development flow.
Craig Sweitzer questioned how the water was treated?
Donald Frydryk stated the water goes into the culvert and swale down Bumstead Road.
Paul Hatch questioned who put the culvert in?
John Rahkonen stated he put the culvert.
Paul Hatch questioned when the driveway was paved?
John Rahkonen stated he paved the driveway 6 years ago.
Paul Hatch stated a 10 foot buffer must be maintained between the driveway and abutting lot lines the areas that are changed must maintain the setbacks.
Craig Sweitzer questioned if the applicant would create a maintenance agreement as required by the bylaw?
John Rahkonen stated he would.
Craig Sweitzer questioned the maximum grade of the driveway?
Donald Frydryk stated 18%.
Craig Sweitzer stated the bylaw allows for a waiver, as long as the sections over 12% are limited to 250 feet and are separated by 250 feet of driveway that meets the 12% grade.
Donald Frydryk stated he believed the driveway complied with the variance requirements for the grade, but it did not meet the minimum traveled way width of 18 feet in some sections.
Paul Hatch requested that any areas that are less than the paved 18 foot traveled way be identified on the plan.
Donald Frydryk stated if the applicant has to pave an entire 18 foot wide traveled way it would result in more disturbance.
John Rahkonen stated he wanted to leave the driveway as it is and just put in the hammer head turnarounds and the areas of the driveway that are to be widened.
Craig Sweitzer questioned how much of the existing driveway had an 18 foot wide paved area?
Donald Frydryk stated the majority of the driveway does not have an 18 foot paved width.
Craig Sweitzer read a letter from Fire Chief George Robichaud dated December 13, 2010 expressing concern that the width of the existing driveway may not be adequate to accommodate an emergency vehicle having a wheelbase of 268 inches especially in the areas where turns and bends occur and during the winter when the width may be decreased due to weather conditions.
Craig Sweitzer read a letter from John Morrell dated December 9, 2010 stating he had no concerns with the common driveway or the estate lot, as proposed by Mr. Rahkonen.
Donald Frydryk stated he used a turning template that meets Mass Highway standards and believed with the areas that are to be widened an emergency vehicle would be accommodated.
Paul Hatch stated for clarity that using Mass Highway Standards an emergency vehicle can get to any existing house that is served by the common driveway and any proposed house still to be constructed that will use the common driveway. Mr. Hatch stated the Board would like a letter from Chief Robichaud after he reviews the revisions.
John Rahkonen submitted a photograph to the Board showing a truck that is bigger than an emergency vehicle traversing the driveway.
Harold Leaming, Building Commissioner stated the big difference is that the truck is an articulated vehicle a fire truck is not.
Kevin Haley stated he had concerns regarding the grade of the driveway and length between compliant section and non compliant sections. There are sections of the driveway where the grade is above 12% and the separation between the non-compliant grade is not the required 250 feet of driveway that is 12% or less. Mr. Haley stated the design of the driveway does not follow the waiver criteria.
Craig Sweitzer stated the Board cannot grant waivers if they do not meet the criteria identified in the bylaw.
Paul Hatch stated the Board must have a copy of the maintenance agreement before it takes a vote on the special permit.
John Rahkonen stated he would provide the Board with a copy.
Craig Sweitzer read a letter from the Board of Assessors, Principal Assessor Ann Murphy stating her office is responsible for assigning house numbers to properties in Town and keeping them in sequence for 911 purposes. Following review of the plan submitted by the applicant the existing house #165 will have to be changed to #149, and the proposed Lot 2 would be assigned #145 when a permit to build has been approved by the Building Commissioner. The way the numbering of the existing and proposed lots falls there is no gap in house numbers to support any further buildable lots, unless all of the properties abutting the common driveway are re-numbered.
Craig Sweitzer stated before the Board votes on the special permit the applicant must submit:
- Letter from the Fire Chief regarding the proposed revision to the driveway.
- Maintenance agreement.
- Narrative listing the waivers the applicant is requesting and proof that the requested waivers meet the waiver criteria of the Monson Zoning Bylaws.
Paul Hatch stated the applicant would have to provide a performance guarantee.
Craig Sweitzer stated the value of the construction would determine the bond.
Paul Hatch moved to continue the public hearing to give the applicant time to address the issues previously stated.
Kevin Haley seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
With the agreement of all parties the public hearing was continued to February 15, 2011 at 7:15 P.M. in Room 3, Town Administration Building, 110 Main Street.
Craig Sweitzer cautioned Mr. Rahkonen the same rules apply for the Estate Lot and all four members present would have to vote in favor in order for the special permit to be granted.
Mr. Rahkonen stated he wanted to go forward with the hearing.
8:05 Public Hearing to review a petition from John Rahkonen for a Special Permit for an Estate Lot as provided by Section 6.5 of the Monson Zoning Bylaws. Property is located on Bumstead Road shown on Assessors Map 79, Parcel 002 zoned as Rural Residential property. In addition to the Estate Lot the plan creates a frontage lot that is in conformity with the Zoning Bylaws.
Craig Sweitzer read the legal notice as it appeared in the Republican Newspaper the weeks of January 3, & 10, 2011.
Donald Frydryk stated the proposed Estate Lot incorporates the existing home and 22 acres of land. Included in this acreage is land that Mr. Rahkonen acquired from Richard Cardano in 2009, but it is the applicant’s position that original parcel on which the estate lot is to be established is over the required 10 acres. The existing house conforms to the setbacks required in the Zoning Bylaws front, side and rear.
Paul Hatch stated the driveway grade for an estate lot is a non issue, because the common driveway grade requirement is more restrictive.
Craig Sweitzer questioned if there was a turnaround area for emergency vehicles on the proposed estate lot?
Donald Frydryk stated the common access driveway has hammer head turnaround that emergency vehicles can back into.
Kevin Haley stated Section 6.8 (c) requires that an estate lot driveway have a maximum grade of 12% unless a waiver is granted.
Paul Hatch moved to continue the hearing because the estate lot is accessed by the common driveway and until the issues of grade and width are cleared up the Board cannot make a decision on the estate lot.
Karen King seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
With the agreement of all parties the public hearing was continued to February 15, 2011 at 7:30 P.M. Room 3, Town Administration Building, 110 Main Street. Monson.
8:35 Karen King moved to approve the minutes of November 16, 2010 as presented.
Paul Hatch seconded the motion.
The motion passed by majority vote.
Voting Aye: Craig Sweitzer, Paul Hatch and Karen King
Kevin Haley abstained, as he was absent from the meeting.
The Board received correspondence from Pioneer Valley Planning Commission, Christopher L. Curtis, Chief Planner, dated January 4, 2011 requesting a review and comments of the updated information to be included in “Valley Vision 3”.
The Board discussed the request specifically the final step that requires the chief elected officials re-signing of the “Memorandum of Agreement” for Valley Vision. The Planning Board did not recommend acceptance of Valley Vision 2 and to the best of its knowledge the chief elected officials of Monson did not sign any “Memorandum of Agreement”.
Paul Hatch made a motion not to respond to the request for review and comments because Monson did not accept Valley Vision 2 and did not sign any agreement.
Craig Sweitzer seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
8:55 Paul Hatch moved to adjourn.
Karen King seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda A. Hull
| 
