MONSON PLANNING BOARD
MINUTES JUNE 19, 2012
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tara Hengeveld, Kevin Haley, Paul Hatch, Karen King and Craig Sweitzer.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
7:00 Larry Smith Pioneer Valley Planning Commission met informally with the Planning Board to discuss the Zoning Analysis and recommendations the PVPC will present to the Board of Selectmen. Mr. Smith gave the Board maps to identify areas of downtown Monson that they would recommend re-zoning. Other suggested recommendations in the Central Commercial District were to reduce lot sizes; require a minimum building height; prohibit on-site parking in front of buildings; change the minimum front setback; look at the permitted uses in the Central Commercial District; require residential uses in the Center Commercial District to be in upper stories or in the rear of larger buildings; and revise the Zoning map to follow parcel boundaries in the Town center. Mr. Smith stated he questioned why certain downtown
areas were zoned Industrial or Central Commercial when the predominant use was residential.
Paul Hatch stated when the Zoning map was developed the existing structures and uses were placed in the appropriate zone. Over time of course the structures and uses have changed but the zone remains the same.
Mr. Smith suggested the Board consider a “mill district” for properties such as M & M Chemicals and the old Zero property. This has been a successful tool for many communities to redevelop old mill buildings that allows residential, artisan and commercial uses.
Craig Sweitzer questioned if that would be by right?
Mr. Smith stated he would suggest the special permit process to allow the Town to have oversight over the project.
Craig Sweitzer questioned some of the proposed zone changes for example one of the changes on Lincoln Street and Green Street would affect a well established hardware store and funeral home.
Mr. Smith stated they would exist as pre-existing uses.
Craig Sweitzer stated he had reservations regarding eliminating so much of the commercial zone and would certainly want the input of affected property owners.
Larry Smith stated they learned in Northampton that to have a vibrant downtown area you must have a viable residential population living near downtown. A mixed use in the downtown area that requires two story buildings with commercial uses at the street level and residential use on the second floor accomplishes that.
Craig Sweitzer questioned how much of this work would be undertaken by PVPC?
Mr. Smith stated he understood the Boards’ position that it did not want another study that ends up on the shelf and the plans and proposals never used. He stated it was his understanding that on July 1, 2012 more funding would be available to move this forward to develop bylaws and zone changes and prepare for a Town Meeting vote.
The Board discussed at length the recommended dimensional changes to lot size and setbacks in the Commercial and Residential zones in the downtown area of Monson to make the majority of existing properties conforming.
Mr. Smith suggested the Board consider extending by one year the time a property owner has to rebuild a non-conforming structure after a disaster. Currently a property owner must start to rebuild within two years the one year extension would allow a property owner three years to rebuild.
Paul Hatch stated if the zoning were to be changed to reflect the existing conditions the Town could preserve the downtown it currently has.
Craig Sweitzer stated he would like to see a layout before he would go along with a reduction of lot size and setback requirements in the Central Commercial zone because if the frontage is reduced that would reduce the amount of parking area.
Larry Smith stated PVPC worked with the Town of Palmer to get private property owners along Main Street to agree to pool everything to allow parking in the rear of the properties. Cross easements were put into place, maintenance costs were pooled and it improved traffic flow. Mr. Smith stated the Commercial Development Bylaw that Monson has is pretty good but he would encourage Monson to develop design guidelines with illustrations showing how the standards apply.
Craig Sweitzer questioned the next step?
Larry Smith stated producing a final report and meeting with the Board of Selectmen to discuss connecting pedestrian areas and a river walk.
8:15 AT &T met informally with the Board to request a waiver from the requirements of Site Plan Approval to change antenna panels on existing towers at 91 Cedar Swamp Road and 127 Hovey Road.
Keenan Brinn, Nexlink Global Services representing A T & T stated the technology for the industry continually changes and carriers need to update equipment to keep up with the new technology. It is proposed to replace three antenna panels with three new antenna panels, nothing will change visually and there will be no change in the number of panels on the installations at 91 Cedar Swamp Road and 127 Hovey Road.
Craig Sweitzer questioned the height of the panels?
Keenan Brinn stated 6 feet tall.
Tara Hengeveld questioned if there was any change in the radio frequency?
Keenan Brinn stated there is an increase but it is negligible and well within Federal guidelines.
Paul Hatch made a motion to grant a waiver from the requirements of Section 6.1.4.1.2 of the Monson Zoning Bylaws because the Board determined there is no change to the visual impacts of the installations, there is no change in the height and no increase in the total number of panels at 91 Cedar Swamp Road and 127 Hovey Road.
Craig Sweitzer seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
Patricia Masterson, Goodman Networks, representing Sprint Nextel Corporation met informally with the Board to request a waiver from the requirements of Site Plan Approval to change antenna panels at an existing installation at 139 Hovey Road.
Ms. Masterson stated they propose to remove six (6) existing antenna panels and replace them with four (4) antenna panels. She stated similar to A.T.& T Sprint needs to change the panels to modernize the network.
Paul Hatch stated to clarify six panels would be removed and replaced with four panels.
Ms. Masterson stated that was correct.
Paul Hatch made a motion to grant a waiver of the requirements of Section 6.4.1.2 because the Board determined the visual impact of the installation would be reduced by the reduction of the number of antenna panels on the installation at 139 Hovey Road.
Kevin Haley seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
8:30 Public Hearing for a Special Permit as provided for by Section 6.21 of the Monson Zoning Bylaws Common Driveway for property located at 269 Hovey Road to serve Lot 9 A/K/A 269 Hovey Road, Lot 8 owned by James Babcock the applicant and Lot 7 Donald Derby.
Craig Sweitzer read the legal notice as it appeared in the Republican Newspaper the week of May 30, and June 6, 2012.
Present at the hearing: Atty. Bart Heemskerk, representing James Babcock, James Babcock, Atty. Mark Beglane, representing Cheryl Pereira, Cheryl Pereira, Donald Derby, Donald Frydryk, PLS, PE, Sherman & Frydryk, Land Surveying & Engineering and several interested abutters.
Paul Hatch stated in the interest of full disclosure he wanted all present to know that he is working with Donald Frydryk on a completely different project that does not involve anyone present at the hearing this evening.
Atty. Heemskerk stated his client is seeking a special permit for a common driveway over Lot 9 (269 Hovey Road) owned by Cheryl Pereira. The previous owner of 269 Hovey Road John Ryan granted a right of way to Lot 8 owned by James Babcock and Lot 9 owned by Donald Derby to access their properties. When Ms. Pereira purchased the property she accepted the right of way easement. Atty. Heemskerk stated Ms. Pereira does not join the application for a common driveway and objects because it comes too close to her property. Mr. Babcock has tried to negotiate with Ms. Pereira and have her join the application failing that his client is insisting on his deeded right of way through the Pereira property. The property owners of Lot 8 and Lot 7 have been unable to gain access from Hovey Road for their
individual lots because of wetlands. The common driveway bylaw requires a maintenance covenant to be recorded at the registry of deeds and Mr. Babcock has provided that.
Craig Sweitzer questioned if all of the deed owners of the properties involved have signed the maintenance covenant?
Atty. Heemskerk stated Mr. Derby has signed but Ms. Pereira does not want a common driveway across her property and does not join in the application for a common driveway and has not signed the covenant. Atty. Heemskerk reiterated that when Ms. Pereira purchased the property she accepted the right of way.
Craig Sweitzer stated a right of way allows one to travel over, it does not allow the right to construct which is what is proposed by the common driveway application.
Kevin Haley questioned the length of the proposed driveway?
Donald Frydryk stated the total length of the common driveway is 2,300 feet.
Paul Hatch stated the proposed common driveway appears to be longer than that.
Donald Frydryk stated the section of the driveway that is to serve one home on Lot 7 is not included in that calculation.
Craig Sweeter stated this is proposed as a common driveway so the length of the driveway includes all of the homes that will use it.
Donald Frydryk stated it would be approximately 3,400 feet in total. The paved section of the driveway is 20 feet wide and approximately 600 feet in length and ends at station 6:00. The driveway continues as a gravel driveway to its completion on Lot 7 but varies in width from 20 feet to 15 feet to reduce impact to wetland areas.
Chief George Robichaud, Monson Fire Department stated his concerns that the proposed driveway was not adequate for emergency vehicles.
Craig Sweitzer questioned the minimum driveway width to support tire width of emergency vehicles?
Paul Hatch stated 18 feet but it also requires a 120 foot radius and 10 foot buffer and there is no buffer proposed at the existing house at 269 Hovey Road.
George Robichaud stated the length of the driveway is a concern as is the lack of pull off areas to accommodate multiple tankers given there is no hydrant.
Donald Frydryk stated the applicant is requesting waivers from the requirements of the common driveway bylaw if the Board determines that the length of the driveway is from the road to the last property served by the driveway the 1650’ requested for the waiver is incorrect.
1. Section 6.21.2.2 –Common Drive – 700’ maximum – 1650’ common drive proposed with turn – around provided as required in 6.21.6.1(a).
2. Section 6.21.2.3 – 10’ Landscape buffer between common drive and Lot not served by drive – 2’ buffer is proposed to minimize the wetland disturbance and follow the existing established driveway.
3. Section 6.21.3.1(a) – 18’ Minimum travel way required – 15’ wide travel way proposed from sta 5+50 to sta 8+50. The reduction will reduce disturbance at the existing wetland crossing. The remaining drive will be 20’ wide.
4. Section 6.21.3.1(b) – 2% Maximum grade at common drive entrance required – 4.3% grade proposed at the existing driveway entrance.
5. Section 6.21.3.1(c) – 125’ Minimum centerline radius required – 50’ radius provided within the existing access easement. A hammerhead turn around is provided at the driveway corner for emergency vehicle use.
Craig Sweitzer read correspondence from Paul Tacy, Building Commissioner/Zoning Enforcement Officer stating the plans lacked conformance with the Section 6.21 of the Zoning Bylaws. Mr. Tacy cited the lack of a 10’ foot buffer between the common driveway and lots not served by the common driveway; the lack of the minimum travel way width of 18’; and the lack of a minimum centerline radius of 125’. The bylaw does not provide for relief by means of a waiver from the above cited concerns.
Craig Sweitzer read correspondence from Leslie A. Duthie, Chairperson, Monson Conservation Commission. Ms. Duthie stated the Conservation Commission had concerns with the proposed improvements to an existing stream crossing; the work proposed on Lot 9 from station 6+00 to 8+00 is within the jurisdiction of the Commission and requires a filing; the work on the proposed driveway at the north end of Lot 8 is also within the jurisdiction of the Commission and requires a filing, it is shown on the plan as an “Existing Gravel Drive” this section is considered to be a violation of the Wetland Protection Act because the Conservation Commission did not receive a filing for the work; and the work that has taken place on Lot 7 is considered to be a significant violation of the Wetland Protection Act and the
Commission will consider issuing an Enforcement Order for section 30+00 up to the building for the construction of a gravel driveway across a wetland without a filing or review by the Commission and to the Commission this represents a second crossing, one was granted for Lot 9 for this property and it is doubtful the Commission would approve a second crossing.
Craig Sweitzer read correspondence from John Morrell, Highway Surveyor stating he had no problems with the plans as proposed but would advise the petitioners they will need to apply to the Highway Department for a driveway permit to upgrade the existing entrance on the public way.
Craig Sweitzer stated to summarize the petitioner is asking for 3,400’ common driveway and several waivers and one of the property owners the owner of Lot 9 (a/k/a 269 Hovey Road) does not want any part of this.
Paul Hatch stated the easement does not follow deeded right of way and he believed the affect on the property owner of Lot 9 would be a take action.
Donald Frydryk stated they are relocating the right of way on Lot 8.
Paul Hatch stated the easement must follow the deeded right of way.
Atty. Heemskerk stated it does not say everyone has to a benefited parcel it is a permanent access.
Donald Frydryk stated the property owner of Lot 8 would grant a new easement to the owner of Lot 7.
Craig Sweitzer stated the owner of Lot 9 does not want a common driveway and has not signed the maintenance agreement. The maintenance agreement requires all parties to be in agreement.
Atty. Mark Beglane representing Cheryl Pereira stated his client has not agreed to join the maintenance association to provide maintenance of a common driveway. Through no fault of her own mistakes were made when she purchased the property. Ms. Pereira was given to believe that the easement had been removed and did not realize this was not the case until after the purchase of the property.
Ms. Pereira stated the easement in her deed gives permission for the owners of Lot 8 and Lot 7 to travel across her property, it does not give them permission to make alterations to or rebuild or change her existing driveway without her agreement.
Atty. Heemskerk stated it would be unreasonable of the Board to hold up a special permit for a common driveway because of a lack of agreement between the property owners. When Ms. Pereira purchased her property she bought it with the right of way in favor of Lot 8 and Lot 7 in place.
Craig Sweitzer stated the submission does not meet the requirements of the Common Driveway Bylaw. Safety is part of the Board’ responsibility and the Monson Fire Chief and the Board have serious concerns relating to width, surface and turning radius on the proposed driveway. He stated he had a problem because all the owners of the properties to be served by the common driveway were not in agreement. He questioned if there was access from Hovey Road for Lot 8 and Lot 7?
Atty. Heemskerk stated both lots have frontage on Hovey Road but wetlands make it impossible to put in a driveway. The safety concerns can be worked out between Donald Frydryk and Chief Robichaud. He stated his client would work with the Conservation Commission to address any problems.
Atty. Beglane stated the Town of Monson has adopted an ordnance to allow the construction and development of a common driveway to serve more than one home. Ms. Pereira purchased a property that has a right of way for Lot 8 and Lot 7 to allow the property owners to pass through her property. The right of way does not give authority for the property owners of Lot 8 and Lot 7 to develop a roadway across Ms. Pereira’s property without her consent. Ms. Pereira has maintained her driveway at her own expense since she purchased the property and objects to the creation of a common driveway so close to her home. Additionally the maintenance agreement that has been submitted does not address the stream crossing and if that should fail in the future due to large trucks and increase in vehicle traffic
associated with the construction of new homes.
Craig Sweitzer questioned if documents could be presented for the maintenance association that shows each owner of the lots served by the common driveway is a member of the association?
Atty. Heemskerk stated no.
James Babcock stated when he purchased the property he was guaranteed he could build a house.
Craig Sweitzer stated the Board has no control over what a seller of a property says to a purchaser.
Pauline Wright Hovey Road questioned if the Board does not grant the common driveway does that mean it will go through wetlands?
Craig Sweitzer stated there is a real concern among the Board members regarding safety due to the length of the driveway, width and proximity to an existing home.
George Robichaud echoed the concerns of the Board stating the turning radius is an issue, that fact that the driveway will not be paved for the entire length and the width of the driveway.
Kevin Haley stated he would agree with the Zoning Enforcement Officer that the bylaw does not allow the Board to waive anything other than the length and grade of the common driveway requirements.
Craig Sweitzer stated it is evident that the Board and the Fire Chief has safety concerns regarding the proposed common driveway. It is also evident that the Board members have concerns that one of the property owners is not a party to this application and there is no maintenance agreement between the owners of the properties served by the common driveway. Craig Sweitzer questioned if the applicant wished to request a continuance of the hearing to address the issues raised by the Board and Fire Chief?
Atty. Heemskerk on behalf of his client James Babcock requested a continuance to July 17, 2012.
Paul Hatch moved to grant a continuance to Tuesday July 17, 2012.
Tara Hengeveld seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
10:00 The Board discussed the final course on the driveway for Quaboag Heights. When the project was proposed it was agreed that the final course on the driveway would go on when the units were complete. No one could have foreseen how long the project would take and as a result the base course that is there is deteriorating. The Board would like the Building Commissioner to take a look at it and speak with the developer.
Paul Hatch moved to accept the minutes of May 22, 2012 as presented.
Craig Sweitzer seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
10:10 Tara Hengeveld moved to adjourn.
Karen King seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda A. Hull
| 
