MONSON PLANNING BOARD
MINUTES JULY 17, 2012
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tara Hengeveld, Paul Hatch, Karen King and Craig
Sweitzer,
MEMBERS ABSENT: Kevin Haley
7:00 Tara Hengeveld moved to accept the minutes of June 19, 2011 as presented.
Paul Hatch seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
7:10 Chairman Craig Sweitzer re-convened the public hearing for a Special Permit as provided for by Section 6.21 Common Driveway of the Monson Zoning Bylaws, 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.
Mr. Sweitzer announced that the Planning Board is a five member board but this evening one member is absent. The Zoning Act requires a yes vote of at least four members of a five member board in order for it to be granted. He questioned if the petitioner wanted to go forward with four members.
Atty. Bart Heemskirk counsel for James Babcock questioned the date of the next meeting?
Craig Sweitzer stated August 21, 2012.
Tara Hengeveld stated she would not be available for the next meeting.
After conferring with his client Atty. Bart Heemskirk stated they would go forward with four members.
The petitioner submitted a revised plan and letter dated July 12, 2012.
Donald Frydryk, P.E., P.L.S, Sherman & Frydryk, Land Surveying & Engineering made a presentation to the Board detailing the revisions to the plan.
- To address the length of the common driveway the applicant proposes a modification to the existing property lines so that the length of the common driveway does not exceed 1900 feet. The applicant has requested a waiver for Section 6.21.2-2 the common driveway shall not exceed 700 feet measured from the street line to the last lot line unless a waiver is granted. Turnarounds have been added along and at the end of the common drive and along the standard drive at a maximum of 700 feet spacing.
Paul Hatch stated he assumed the maintenance agreement would go to the last lot line.
Craig Sweitzer questioned if the modification to the property lines retains a conforming lot.
Donald Frydryk answered yes to both questions.
- The driveway has been relocated and realigned to provide a 10 foot landscape buffer to abutting properties.
- The width of the proposed driveway has been revised to provide a minimum of 18 feet in all sections. In addition a 24 foot side cleared area is shown on the plan.
- The profile of the driveway has been revised to include a minimum of 2% grade at the intersection of Hovey Road.
Paul Hatch questioned what was happening with the storm water run off?
Donald Frydryk stated it continues onto the shoulders at Hovey Road.
Craig Sweitzer questioned if the storm water currently stays on site?
Donald Frydryk stated currently it pitches downhill to the road.
Paul Hatch stated if his memory is correct it is a pretty steep cut at the entrance from Hovey Road.
Donald Frydryk stated it is about 8 feet.
Craig Sweitzer questioned if there was a retaining wall?
Donald Frydryk stated no.
- The proposed driveway has been relocated and realigned to provide a minimum125 foot radius.
Mr. Frydryk stated the applicant is requesting a waiver from Section 6.21.2.2 relief from the maximum length of 700 feet. A common driveway 1900 feet in length is proposed with turnarounds provided as required in Section 6.21.6.1(a). A turnaround and hammerhead is provided at the end of the first residential driveway and a turnaround and hammerhead at the building area of the home.
Paul Hatch questioned if this would accommodate fire vehicles?
Donald Frydryk stated it would accommodate a tanker truck. The only waiver the applicant is requesting is the length of the driveway.
Atty. Bart Heemskirk stated when an easement is granted the property owner to whom the easement right is granted has the right use the easement and by implication make any and all reasonable repairs and improvements necessary. Mr. Babcock and Mr. Derby have the right to use the easement for all purposes for which a public way may be used including making improvements, repairs, grading and the placement of gravel to make it a proper road. When Ms. Pereira purchased the property she accepted that there was an easement across her property and whether she realized it or not accepted that repairs and upgrades could be made to the easement across her property without her permission. Atty. Heemskirk submitted a copy of case law to the Board supporting his argument.
Craig Sweitzer stated the language of an easement is specific to metes and bounds and gives the right to pass over but he was not aware that an easement also implied significant changes could be made to the easement for use for which a public way may be used without the consent of the owner of the property over which the easement passed.
Atty. Heemskirk stated there is no prejudice or injury to the interest of the residents of Monson in allowing the common driveway to allow two owners to build homes on two large pieces of property. Atty. Heemskirk urged the Board to approve the special permit for a common driveway.
Atty. Beglane stated the Monson Bylaw requires that all the property owners whose property is served by the common driveway sign a maintenance agreement and Ms. Pereira will not sign such an agreement and does not agree to the creation of a common driveway with all of the proposed changes, grading, and upgrades to the existing right of way. With regard to the case law submitted by Atty. Heemskirk that is dated 1948 and the Monson Zoning Bylaw was developed and adopted by the residents of Monson on May 11, 2009 and revised May 10, 2010 with the conditions and requirements that must be met in order to be issued a Special Permit for a Common Driveway in Monson. The bylaw was approved by the residents of Monson at a Town Meeting and approved by the Attorney General.
Paul Hatch stated the Monson Bylaw does not allow a waiver of the requirements of the maintenance agreement.
Craig Sweitzer stated it is clear there are two diverse views and both Attorneys have made their point of view clear. Speaking as one member of the Board who has no legal background he felt the Board should seek the assistance of Town Counsel.
Paul Hatch agreed stating the Board does not have the authority to grant a waiver of the maintenance agreement. He questioned if case law supersedes the Monson Common Driveway bylaw?
Tara Hengeveld stated she viewed this as an incomplete application.
Karen King agreed and quoted Section 6.21.3.2 Application Requirements of the Monson Bylaw which lists everything that shall accompany an application for a common access driveway special permit. Section 6.21.3.2 “Any deeds of ownership of lots served by a common driveway shall require that the owners of said lots must be members of a maintenance association, whose purpose is to provide for maintenance of the common driveway, which shall include, but not be limited to, snow plowing, maintaining driveway design specification, and stormwater drainage systems. An association agreement or covenant shall be submitted with the Special Permit application guaranteeing the continuing maintenance expenses. Such agreement shall be subject to the review and approval of Town Counsel and the Planning Board
as part of the Special Permit, and shall be recorded in the Hampden County Registry of Deeds. The deed to each lot served on a Common Driveway must reference this Maintenance Association Agreement.
Atty. Heemskirk stated the fact that two of the users agree to sign a maintenance agreement makes it a diminishing problem that Ms. Pereira will not sign the agreement. Additionally the current Town Counsel cannot be consulted because Atty. Beglane works for Bacon & Wilson as does Monson Town Counsel.
Craig Sweitzer stated a common driveway was not allowed in Monson prior to the adoption of this bylaw in 2009. The bylaw clearly defines the standards and requirements that must be met in order to be granted a special permit for a common driveway and two out of three owners of the properties affected does not meet the bylaw.
Donald Frydryk stated there are existing easements where owners may have previous rights that go beyond bylaw.
Craig Sweitzer reiterated that a common driveway was not allowed before the bylaw was adopted and the Town of Monson set the standards and requirements that shall be met prior to the issuance of a special permit for a common driveway to allow the construction of more than one single family home off of a driveway.
Atty. Heemskirk stated whichever way the Board votes it is probably going to go to court.
Craig Sweitzer stated he believed this was a complex issue and the Board should request the use of Town Counsel or as Atty. Heemskirk pointed out an alternative counsel to advise on this matter.
Atty. Heemskirk stated they are aware that the submittal does not meet the bylaw but the Board would be arbitrarily affecting the property rights of his client if the special permit was denied.
Tara Hengeveld stated the Common Driveway Bylaw was voted on by residents of the Town at a Town Meeting and the Planning Board has a duty to uphold the bylaws passed at Town Meeting. She questioned how the greater good would be served if the Board did not uphold the bylaws that have been approved by the residents of the Town of Monson?
Paul Hatch stated the applicant has addressed the concerns of the Board with the exception of the submission of a maintenance agreement that has been signed by all owners all the properties served by the common driveway.
Paul Hatch made a motion that with the exception of a driveway maintenance agreement/covenant the applicant has addressed the concerns of the Board with the submission of an ANR plan that changes the lot lines between the properties owned by Mr. Babcock and Mr. Derby as a condition of approval.
Tara Hengeveld seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
Craig Sweitzer moved to request a continuance of the public hearing to Tuesday September 18, 2012 to allow the Board time to request legal assistance with the issues raised by Attorney Heemskirk and Attorney Beglane.
Tara Hengeveld seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
With the agreement of all parties concerned the public hearing was continued to Tuesday September 18, 2012 at 7:15 P.M.
Paul Hatch excused himself to avoid the appearance of a conflict.
8:05 Michael Burns, O’Leary Group representing Lamcotec, Inc 152 Bethany Road met with the Board to request a waiver from the requirements of Site Plan review. Mr. Burns stated the proposed work affects significantly less than 25% of the existing floor area as required by the Monson Zoning Bylaws for a waiver from site plan review. It is proposed to clean up the entrance to the building to create a better image and improve traffic access. An existing loading dock is to be reconfigured and angled to allow easier and safer access for trucks from Bethany Road and a new entrance to the building constructed. Additionally the gravel parking area will be enlarged.
Tara Hengeveld questioned if this is to accommodate more truck traffic?
Mr. Burns stated no the improvements to the parking area and loading dock are proposed to address issues with access from Bethany Road. The changes will allow trucks to turn into the property from Bethany Road without a lot of fancy maneuvering.
Craig Sweitzer stated compared to the scope of the building it is a small percentage of change and the Board does have the authority to grant a waiver. He questioned if an increase in the width of the curb cut was proposed?
Mr. Burns stated no change to the curb cut was proposed, internal changes to the parking area are totally on Lamcotec property.
Tara Hengeveld moved to waive the requirement for a public hearing for site plan approval because the scope of the work will increase the footprint of the existing building by 1,350 square feet, or 3.2% which is significantly less than a change of 25% allowed by the Monson Zoning Bylaws and is within the Boards’ authority to grant a waiver. Additionally the proposed construction will improve vehicular access into the property and will improve the visual appearance of the building.
Karen King seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
Paul Hatch returned.
8:20 Public Hearing for Site Plan Approval as provided by Section 6.23 Large Scale Ground Mounted Photovoltaic Installation of the Monson Zoning Bylaws. The applicant Cornerstone Power Monson, LLC seeks to install a ground mounted photovoltaic system on approximately 56 acres of a 147.5 acre parcel of land located on Upper Palmer Road/Macomber Road. The property is owned by James & John Arooth.
Chairman Craig Sweitzer convened the hearing and read the legal notice as it appeared in the Republican Newspaper the weeks of June 30, & July 9, 2012.
Craig Sweitzer explained the Planning Board is a five member Board and one of the members was absent. The Zoning Act requires all four members present of a five member Board to vote in favor of the petition for it to pass.
Atty. Jeffrey Roberts, Roberts & Donovan, assisting Cornerstone Power Monson LLC stated they would proceed.
Also present were: Dan Sommers and Stephen Elkin Cornerstone Development and Fazli Quadir, John Colegrande, Whitman Engineering.
Mr. Colagrande stated at the present time they are still in the bidding process for the system installer and until that is completed will not have a surety bond in place. The documents will be forwarded to the Planning Board as soon as they are complete. He stated the wetlands on the property have been flagged and he expected to file and to be on the Conservation Commission Agenda August 29, 2012.
John Colegrande stated Whitman Engineering has prepared the exhibits that were submitted to Board. The site is an existing farm field on Upper Palmer Road and Macomber Road owned by James and John Arooth. Plan SP – 2 is a site plan showing the overall plan, phasing plan and notes. It is proposed to complete the project in three phases each phase correlates with agreements with National Grid. The ground mounted panels have an approximate two foot clearance to the ground and are an average of eight to nine feet in height although this can change slightly due to topography. The facility is unmanned and there are no utilities required. Maintenance consists of cutting the grass and cleaning the panels. The site is accessed at two points one from Upper Palmer Road and the
other immediately adjacent to the last residence on the left on Macomber Road. Gates will be installed at each location with signs for contact in case of emergencies. As stated previously this is a cornfield but after the panels are installed grass will be planted between the panels, this will improve drainage because grass will slow down the water and allow a greater infiltration. Mr. Colagrande stated Plan SP – 7 shows typical racking detail, pipe mounted structures imbedded in the earth with two rows of panels, one on the top and one on the bottom mounted on the structure.
Craig Sweitzer questioned the dimension of the modules?
John Colagrande stated approximately 30’ x 8’ tilted to the south.
Craig Sweitzer questioned if there would be lighting on the site?
Mr. Colagrande stated no special lighting is proposed, a six foot chain link fence around the perimeter is proposed.
Paul Hatch questioned the maintenance schedule?
Mr. Sommers stated typically the panels are washed twice a year a truck brings water in. The grass is maintained between the rows of panels but the site is monitored remotely and most of the maintenance can be is done remotely. If the panels are damaged because of the weather or trees coming down on the site that would require a maintenance visit.
Craig Sweitzer questioned if the excavation on the site would change the topography of the property?
Mr. Colagrande stated there is no significant grading change, there is an area that would be addressed in Phase 3 of the project that needs to be flattened but it will not significantly change the drainage pattern. He stated there is a maximum 3 foot change in elevation.
Craig Sweitzer questioned if the approval sought by the applicant was for all three phases?
Mr. Colagrande stated the plans submitted show the total project and the petitioner was seeking approval for the total project. The plans submitted include proposed landscaping along Upper Palmer Road and Macomber Road. It is proposed to plant alternating ever green pines and cedar trees.
Paul Hatch noted the plan shows plantings 10 feet high and 15 feet apart in two staggered rows.
Craig Sweitzer questioned why the project was proposed in stages?
Dan Summers stated it is because of the rules for interconnection for solar projects.
Craig Sweitzer questioned how long it would take from the start of the project to grass growing?
Fazli Quadir stated approximately 6 months for the first phase National Grid will determine the time table for construction of the sub station. If there is a delay in building the sub-station the land will not be disturbed.
Maureen Rossman 10 Macomber Road stated the impact to the abutting properties view is immense and questioned if the petitioner would consider buying her out. She stated the impact of a solar array and barbed wire fence in her backyard decreased the value of her property.
Rick Trembly stated he was speaking on behalf of his daughter Suzanne Leighton, 12 Macomber Road who was unable to attend the meeting. He asked the Board to consider increasing the setback from the homes located on Macomber Road from 75 feet to 175 feet. In the scheme of things the increased setback would not reduce the number of panels by much.
John Colagrande stated the project meets the setbacks required in the bylaw but it would be up to Cornerstone Power Monson, LLC if they would consider a change.
Craig Sweitzer read a letter into the minutes signed by Gregory & Suzanne Leighton, Michael & Maureen Rossman, Ronald & Toni Sisco, Dan & Mary Zollo and Tom Zollo requesting an additional 100 foot buffer a copy of which is attached to these minutes and incorporated therein.
The Board received a letter from John Morrell, Highway Surveyor stating he had no objections to the project but his Department should be contacted regarding driveway permits.
Gaylin Bingle 7 Macomber Road wrote a letter stating she had no objections to the proposed project.
Rosalyn Taft, Macomber Road questioned if the panels were stationary?
Mr. Colagrande stated yes.
Joan Pink stated she owned property near the Arooth property and questioned if any improvements were planned to Macomber Road?
John Colagrande stated no improvements were proposed for Macomber Road all of the improvements are within the subject property limits.
Mary Zollo questioned if the sub-station that is proposed directly in back of her property would require a separate building permit.
John Colagrande stated National Grid would be responsible for the sub-station, it would be a fenced enclosure within the fenced Arooth property.
Craig Sweitzer questioned the size of the enclosure?
Mr. Colagrande stated approximately 150’ x 100’ enclosure with a 6’ chain link fence with three strands of barb wire on top of the chain link fence.
Ms. Rossman questioned if the sub-station could be located elsewhere on the property? The enclosure with a fence and barbed wire directly behind her home was an additional burden on top of the large solar array project and directly impacted the value of her property.
Fazli Quadir stated the equipment is similar in size to a large refrigerator and National Grid determines where it goes.
Glenn Nordin Hovey Road, questioned how far along Upper Palmer Road would the project go? He stated his concern for wetlands on the Arooth property just beyond Stebbins Road.
Mr. Colagrande stated they have to file with the Conservation Commission and the regulations require a buffer from the wetlands to any disturbance. The project is going north for approximately 400’ along Upper Palmer Road.
Eugene Quaglini 62 Upper Palmer Road suggested eastern white pine for landscaping.
Mr. Colagrande stated they would be amicable to eastern white pine and northern red cedar.
Mr. Quaglini also suggested some type of arborvitae to help screen the project.
Craig Sweitzer stated possibly the petitioner should consult with an arborist to discuss the most effective plantings to screen the project.
Nancy Klisiecz, Macomber Road stated she was in favor of the project and would rather see a solar project than a large housing project.
Tara Hengeveld questioned the increase in traffic with maintenance for the project and monitoring?
Mr. Colagrande stated there would be no significant increase in traffic. The site is monitored remotely and a crew sent out in a truck to wash the panels and mow the grass.
Karen King questioned the color of the panels?
Dan Sommers stated the panels are a deep opaque blue the purpose is to capture the sun not reflect it. The size of the facility is 14 + - DC.
Dan Zollo questioned if there would be landscaping along the access road by his home?
Mr. Colagrande stated they plan to level out and grade the access and plant trees along the side and back.
Paul Hatch questioned if the chain link fence surrounding the project would be monitored?
Mr. Colagrande stated no.
Craig Sweitzer stated this is not a complete submission so the Board would not take a vote at this hearing.
Atty. Roberts stated still to be submitted is evidence of notice between installer and National Grid; name of contractor; proof of liability insurance and bond or surety to insure removal of installation.
Craig Sweitzer questioned what was proposed for stormwater engineering?
Mr. Colagrande stated there is no change in the stormwater the current run off patterns will be maintained. Tests indicated the soil has a low permeability and the current use of cultivation with furrows does nothing to help slow the water down to allow time for infiltration. It is proposed to plant grass once the panels are installed and that should help slow the water down and increase infiltration.
Rosemary Taft stated the neighbors have been aware of this for sometime how certain is the Board that this will happen?
Dan Sommers stated they are well into the connection process and in the option to buy process.
Fazli Quadir stated he expected the first phase of the project to start before the end of the year depending of course in how long it takes to get approval from the Town.
Joan Pink questioned if the sub station had to be on the subject property or if it could be located on the piece that she owns that abuts Mr. Arooth’s property?
Mr. Quadir stated National Grid determines where the sub station is to be located.
Craig Sweitzer questioned if there was an operation and maintenance plan?
Stephan Elkin stated they have a plan.
Tara Hengeveld questioned the size of the signage?
Mr. Colagrande stated a sign would be mounted at each gate.
Ms. Taft questioned if the fencing and plantings would be done before construction or after?
Mr. Quadir stated the fencing would be installed at the start of the project and the plantings at the end.
Craig Sweitzer questioned if the petitioner would consider the request to extend the buffer?
Mr. Colagrande stated they would take it under advisement and assess the impact to the project with regard to numbers of panels..
Atty. Roberts made a written request on behalf of Cornerstone Power Monson LLC to continue the hearing to Tuesday September 18, 2012 at 7:30 P.M. in order to submit the final documents and to consider the abutters request to extend the buffer.
Paul Hatch moved to continue the public hearing to Tuesday September 18, 2012.
Karen King seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
Tara Hengeveld moved to adjourn at 10:00 P.M.
Karen King seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda A. Hull
| 
