PLANNING BOARD MEETING
MINUTES JUNE 18, 2013
MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Sweitzer, Karen King, Tara Hengeveld and Paul Hatch.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Kevin Haley.
ALSO PRESENT: Dan Laroche, Marilyn Gorman-Fil, Planning Board Representative to the PVPC and Larry Smith, PVPC.
The Planning Board endorsed an ANR plan that transfers a portion of land from property owned by Gabriel Lecours on Lower Hampden Road to the abutting property of Robert Mastroianni.
The Board discussed the submission of plans and documents from Cornerstone Power Monson, LLC for a Special Permit for a large ground mounted solar array on property owned by John & James Arooth located on Macomber/Upper Palmer Road. The public hearing is scheduled for Tuesday July 16, 2013. The Board noted that information regarding the financial surety that is required by Section 6.23.11.3 of the Zoning Bylaws is missing. The bylaw states that a form of surety through escrow account cash or surety bond to cover the cost of removal in the event the Town must remove the installation and remediate the landscape shall be provided.
The Board discussed its preferred method of surety.
Paul Hatch moved to request that a cash escrow account be provided by the applicant.
Karen King seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
Dan Laroche stated his role as Disaster Recovery Manager was coming to an end but on July 1, 2013 he would assume his new position as Town Planner and questioned how the Board envisioned his working relationship with the Board.
Craig Sweitzer stated certainly technical advice on planning issues and the development of bylaws.
Paul Hatch stated the Board would need assistance with the reuse of the Monson Developmental Center, the impacts a casino (if the proposal from Mohegan Sun to site a casino in Palmer was successful) could have on Monson, the redevelopment of the downtown area and possible reuse of vacant properties such as M & M Chemicals and Zero’s.
Karen King questioned when abutting Towns would be involved in the process if a casino were to be constructed in Palmer?
Dan Laroche stated abutting communities would not be involved until the Western Mass site had been awarded. If for instance Palmer were to be successful Monson would become involved in the process to mitigate any negative affects a casino in Palmer may have on Monson. Mr. Laroche stated he personally felt Springfield was the leader but Monson has to take the Mohegan Sun proposal seriously and he attended the last meeting of the Casino Committee to acquaint himself with the process and the abutting communities’ role.
Craig Sweitzer questioned who the Board would have to contact to ask for Mr. Laroche’s involvement with the MDC Reuse Committee.
Dan Laroche stated he has already attended a Committee meeting, Paul Hatch is the Planning Boards’ representative to that Committee and he saw his role as staff support for the Committee. If there were to be a casino in Palmer the economic development opportunities for MDC would be different than if there was not a casino.
Craig Sweitzer questioned if the property would be sold off to private developers?
Paul Hatch stated that is the way they think it will go.
Karen King questioned if there were brown field areas?
Paul Hatch stated there are areas that would be un-developable.
Craig Sweitzer questioned who would get the money?
Paul Hatch stated the State there is no monetary value in the site for Monson. The State wants to find a good use for the property that the Town supports. He stated the first milestone is this coming Thursday when the interviews are conducted to select a candidate to do a Marketing Analysis.
Dan Laroche stated whatever the outcome the property would have to be re-zoned, the question is if the Town should re-zone the property without a development project in hand?
Craig Sweitzer questioned why the Town would discuss re-zoning.
Paul Hatch stated it will be very difficult to get a developer for the property without zoning in place.
Craig Sweitzer questioned what the Planning Board should be doing regarding a casino?
Dan Laroche stated keep a watchful eye on the process.
Larry Smith stated typically the host community gets the high end patrons and surrounding communities get all the motels, pawn shops etc.
Dan Laroche stated things will become clearer in the next six months or so.
Paul Hatch stated Springfield makes the most sense.
Larry Smith stated he would agree with that but it is not all negative for surrounding communities, casinos in general have a high bar in terms of who they hire and there will be opportunities in terms of jobs.
Craig Sweitzer questioned what was happening with the down town development?
Dan Laroche stated the last information meeting he arranged with Emmy Hahn for the Downtown Initiative Project was very poorly attended. It is a struggle to get the residents of Monson to come to the meetings.
7:40 Larry Smith stated he has prepared the changes discussed at the April 2013 meeting to the Bylaw revisions:
Parking Section 5.2.3 Access – the word lot has been added to read “one driveway per lot”.
Section 5.4.5.2 Location and Layout – 1 Location – has been changed to 500 feet to read “or on a lot that is in the same ownership as, and located within, five hundred (500) feet of the main use”.
5. Surface & Maintenance – The words “For all new construction” has been added at the beginning of the sentence; after “with bituminous concrete or its equal” language has been added (“equal” to be determined by the Building Inspector for by-right uses, and by the Permit Granting Authority for Special Permits/Site Plan Approvals).
Section 5.4.5.3 Shared Parking – in the first sentence language has been changed from Board to Planning Board; to keep consistency with Section 5.4.5.2.1 language has been changed “or on a lot that is in the same ownership, and located within five hundred (500) feet of the uses”. Two new paragraphs have been added after 5.4.5.3 (b)
“The Parking Management Plan (including supportive documentation) shall be prepared by a Registered Land Surveyor, Engineer, Landscape Architect, Architect or Transportation Planner Licensed (where required) to practice in Massachusetts. The Planning Board may Permit said Parking Management Plan to be prepared by others in cases where they find that because of the size or nature of the project the above level of expertise is not required”.
“Shared Parking can also be provided on a lot that is not under the same ownership in conjunction with the requirements of this Section provided that it also receives a Special Permit and complies with the requirements of Section 5.4.5.4”.
Section 5.4.5.4 Off-Site Parking – In the first sentence language has been changed from Board to Planning Board; similarly in Section 5.4.5.4.(d) – approved by the Board has been changed to “approved by the Planning Board”;
The Board discussed the addition of the same paragraph relating to The Parking Management Plan that was added after Section 5.4.5.3 (b) and questioned if it was necessary to repeat the language.
Dan Laroche stated Shared Parking and Off Site Parking are separate sections of the Bylaws and to make it clear that the Parking Management Plan applies to both sections the paragraph should be repeated.
Section 5.4.5.6 Access/Curb-Cuts to Off Street Parking areas language has been changed to read “ Planning Board may issue a Special Permit allowing for a reduction of up to an additional 20% of required parking spaces”; in the paragraph after 5.4.5.6 (c) the words and related have been added to read “the permit granting authority can waive setback and related requirements to achieve”.
Section 5.4.5.8 Fees-In-Lieu of Parking – in the second sentence language has been changed from Board to Planning Board; the fee has been changed to $2000 and it now reads “the Planning Board may issue a Special Permit allowing a fee of $2000.00 per required parking space to be paid to the Town of Monson for required off-street parking spaces not provided where they find that:”.
Larry Smith stated Fees-In-Lieu of Parking is a double edged sword because the Town does not want to discourage business but also does not want to create a parking problem in the Central Commercial district. The cost of constructing a parking space is more than $2000.00 per space.
Craig Sweitzer stated he felt sure that there would be questions at Town Meeting regarding the fee and it would feel better to be able to say that $2000.00 is less than what it costs to construct a parking space. The underlying reason for all of the bylaw changes and revisions is to encourage growth.
Dan Laroche stated the Board members should take the time to read the bylaw and then have a public hearing and see what happens.
Larry Smith stated Section 6.13 Mixed Uses and Mixed Residential/Business Uses the language has been revised for clarity:
Section 6.13.2 General Description has been added:
1. A “Mixed Residential/Business Use” shall mean one or more business uses plus residential uses occupying the same structure or lot.
Section 6.13.3 Purposes – a new purpose has been added:
3. Integrate appropriate limited residential uses in the commercial districts.
Section 6.13.4 Permitted Uses – a new section has been added:
2. In addition to the uses permitted above in Section 6.13.4.1 the following use is also permitted in a mixed residential/business structure:
a. Residential uses, provided all residential units are located above the first floor/street level of the building. Residential units may be permitted in first floor portions of the building that do not front or access on the street frontage.
Section 6.13.5 Additional General Requirements a new sentence has been added to 6.13.5.3:
“In lieu of providing landscaped open space on the ground, this requirement can also include open areas provided on a balcony or on the roof of a structure, provided it is accessible to all residents of the building”.
Board members expressed concern with allowing the roof of a structure to be counted as open space and felt the language was open for abuse.
Following discussion it was the consensus of the Board that the language should read:
“In lieu of providing landscaped open space on the ground, this requirement can also include open areas provided on a balcony, deck or other flat surface suitable for the use intended”.
Section 6.13.5.4 – the language “The Planning Board may issue a Special Permit allowing for a” at the start of the first sentence; throughout the rest of this section the word Board was replaced by Planning Board.
Section 5.1.2 Lighting – Larry Smith stated the proposed bylaw would replace the existing Section 5.1.2 Lighting of the existing bylaws.
Section 5.2 Commercial Development and Landscaping. Larry Smith stated the existing bylaw has four purposes listed under Section 5.2.1 Purposes and it is proposed to add:
- To promote walking, biking and a pleasant outdoor environment for street life (use of public and semi public space)
- To protect and recharge water resources
- To minimize light pollution
- To prevent degradation of natural and landscape features as part of the development process
- To reduce use of potable water.
- To reduce heat pollution, also known as urban heat island effects; and
- To implement the goals of the Community Plan for Monson Center.
Larry Smith stated a new section has been added Section 5.2.3. Definitions to define Best Management Practices (BMPs); Critical Root Zone (CRZ); Drip Line; Heat Island Effect (Heat Pollution); Infiltration; Low Impact Development (LID); Pre-Development and Recharge.
Larry Smith stated the Section numbers of the existing Bylaws would probably have to change but for the purpose of this discussion he would use the numbers he assigned. A new Section is proposed Section 5.2.4 Landscaping that addresses landscaping for General Commercial Development; Village Center Commercial Development; Parking as it relates to General Commercial and Village Center Commercial Development; the preservation of natural features and soil preservation; tree preservation and included in that is a suggested list of trees the Town may approve; and reduction of water use y minimizing lawn area and the use of plants and landscaping with low maintenance and little or no irrigation requirements.
Larry Smith stated lastly PVPC recommends a few changes to the existing Site Plan Approval Bylaws.
Section 7.4.3 changed to read “Location, dimensions, height and setbacks of all existing and proposed building, signs, fences, walls and outdoor storage area, including elevations”.
Section 7.4.4 changed to read “Location, arrangement and dimensions of automobile parking spaces, aisles, vehicular drives, fire lanes, entrances, exits and ramps, loading and unloading areas, walkways, sidewalks, bike racks, street furniture, trash receptacles, access and egress points, and public spaces, including surface treatment type”.
Section 7.4.6 changed to read “A landscaping plan showing all existing and proposed landscape development of the property (including that to be removed) including the location, layout, type and size of the buffer or landscape area, plant material, fencing, screening devices, decorative paving or other materials proposed.
Section 7.4.7 changed to read “The location, dimensions, height, orientation, design and characteristics of proposed signs”.
The following are proposed new sections to the bylaw:
Section 7.4.9 The location, dimensions, height, orientation, design and characteristics of proposed lighting, including a lumens plan.
Section 7.4.10 A table or chart indicating the proposed number or amount and types of uses, lot area, lot width, yards, building height, lot coverage, floor area, parking spaces, landscaping and open spaces as they are required.
Section 7.4.11 Location, width and purpose of all existing and proposed easements and rights of way on the property.
Section 7.4.12 Location and design of all existing and proposed sanitary sewer, storm drainage, water supply facilities, and refuse collection areas as well as other underground and above ground utilities. All public utilities shall be placed underground unless the applicant can substantiate that such underground placement is impractical.
Section 7.4.13 All refuse containers and screening.
Larry Smith stated in its original presentation PVPC looked at the reuse of property that was damaged by the tornado in the downtown area and suggested changing the zoning for the old gymnasium property to allow a residential use. The Town did not appear to favor that suggestion and PVPC now suggests a mixed use residential and commercial.
Craig Sweitzer stated that property is not owned by the Town it is a private land owner and any change to the zoning or any suggested uses of the property would require the full cooperation of the property owner. It seems a moot point to discuss the property.
Dan Laroche stated he would favor a mixed use because the commercial area on Palmer Road struggles in a different way than the downtown area and he would not want to see the Main Street Palmer Road areas isolated.
Larry Smith stated caution should be used with a mixed use because it can suck the life out of the downtown area and that would be contrary to what the intent is of the bylaw changes.
Dan Laroche stated the Town is interested in a bylaw for a Mixed Use/Mill District it would allow some flexibility for the re-use of properties such as the old Zero Corporation and MDC.
9:15 Craig Sweitzer questioned if Ms. Gorman had any specific issues she would like to discuss with the Board.
Ms. Gorman stated the Board had covered most of the issues that would concern her as the Boards’ representative to the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (PVPC).
Dan Laroche stated the Police Communication tower that used to be on top of 110 Main Street would have to be replaced and because of the height of the proposed new building the tower could not be replaced on top of the building. He stated a special permit application would be required from the Planning Board to replace the tower and that would be ready to be heard at the July 16, 2013.
9:25 Paul Hatch moved to approve the minutes of April 30 2013 as presented.
Karen King seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
Karen King moved to adjourn.
Tara Hengeveld seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda A. Hull
| 
