MONSON PLANNING BOARD
MINUTES JANUARY 15. 2013
MEMBERS PRESENT: Karen King, Kevin Haley, Tara Hengeveld and Paul Hatch.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Craig Sweitzer
Mr. Fernandes met informally with the Planning Board to determine what would be required of him to establish a construction business on 2 ½ acres of land located on Boston Road zoned General Commercial. He stated his business is currently located in Ludlow but he would like to relocate to Boson Road. It is a small business, he has 7 – 10 vehicles and would like to construct an approximately 60’ x 80’ building. The property in question has an existing exit off of the State Highway. It is bounded on one side by property owned by National Grid and by property owned by Mobil Oil on the other.
Paul Hatch questioned if it was only vehicles and equipment and the maintenance of the equipment that would occur on the premises or if Mr. Fernandes proposed to use rock crushing equipment etc?
Mr. Fernandes stated no rock crushing or work similar to that would occur at this location.
Paul Hatch stated the Zoning Bylaws allows a garage in the General Commercial zone with a Special Permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals and because it is a new commercial venture Site Plan Approval would be required by the Planning Board. He advised that first Mr. Fernandes should contact Mass Highway for a curb cut onto Route 20, and then speak with the Town of Palmer to see if the town sewer and water lines are there and if he would be allowed to connect to them.
7:15 Cornerstone Power LLC requested a continuation to February 19, 2013.
The Board voted unanimously to continue the hearing to Tuesday February 19, 2013.
The Board met with Dan Laroche for an update on the proposed zone change for 110 Main Street and changes to the bylaw.
Mr. Laroche stated he had found a deed for the 2 acre parcel on Main Street Assessors Map 114, Lot 101 that is to be changed from Residential Village to Central Commercial in order to rebuild the Town offices. In addition to the zone change Mr. Laroche provided the Board language relating to parking requirements and standards; screening and landscaping standards and two definitions with illustrations for “Triangle of Clear Sight” and “Yard, Front”. He stated he met with Police Chief Stephen Kozloski, Highway Surveyor John Morrell and Building Commissioner Paul Tacy to discuss the triangle of clear site definition. They had no problem with it.
Kevin Haley questioned if the requirements applied to a particular zoning district?
Dan Laroche stated no they would apply to all zoning districts. These are general zoning regulations that will allow more flexibility.
Paul Hatch and Tara Hengeveld felt that the front yard illustration could cause a problem with the driveway requirements.
Daniel Laroche stated the provision does not deal with frontage only the front yard setbacks.
Paul Hatch questioned if the definition of frontage and location of a driveway across the legal frontage were changed by the front yard definition?
Dan Laroche stated nothing changes for the frontage or location of a driveway, this deals only with front and side setbacks.
The Board reviewed the Screening and Landscaping section that requires screening between any commercial or industrially zoned property and residential property. The bylaw specifically identifies the types of screening that can be used, height of plantings and spacing between plants.
Paul Hatch stated when the Town went through the re-codification of its Zoning Bylaws one of the issues the professionals assisting the Town had was the inconsistency of the language of the bylaws. They changed the language in the bylaw to Special Permit Granting Authority (SPGA) rather than name Planning Board or Zoning Board of Appeals.
Dan Laroche stated the parking requirements have similar language and he would change that also to Special Permit Granting Authority.
Paul Hatch stated in the past the Planning has denied a special permit on the basis that the landscaping buffer was located on abutting property and not the property for which the special permit was applied for.
Dan Laroche stated Section A relates to the general requirements and includes no additional off street parking or loading is required in the Central Commercial district for continued use of a building in existence prior to 1973. Any new building or expansion of greater than 25% must meet the parking requirements. Where more than one use on one site occurs the parking requirements are cumulative unless the Building Commissioner finds that the parking periods for the different uses do not substantially overlap and approves a reduction in parking spaces. The number of required parking spaces shall not be less than the number of spaces required by the use requiring the greater number of spaces.
Section B relates to the location of parking areas and requires parking areas to be on the lot they serve unless the lot is separated from the use being served by a street with a width of 60 feet or more; or access to the parking area is not more than five hundred feet from the nearest street line of the lots being served. Shared off street parking areas for two or more structures are permitted provided the total number of spaces for each separate use is provided. No parking shall be permitted in the required front yard setback in any district except driveways serving two- family dwellings.
Section C specifies design requirements for parking areas for five or more vehicles. This section includes the triangle of clear sight at the intersection with the street line inside which no object shall be more than three feet above the elevation of the center line of the street. Parking areas shall be maintained dust free and properly drained to dispose of all surface water; parking spaces clearly marked and directional signs not internally illuminated; parking areas used for parking only, no sales, storage, repair work or servicing of any kind. A lighting plan shall be submitted as part of the site plan review.
Paul Hatch stated he would like to see something in the bylaw to ensure that the screening meets the requirements of the bylaw one year after planting and any trees that die have to be replaced.
Dan Laroche stated that could be achieved with a bond.
Paul Hatch stated the Board does not have a bylaw for a bond for landscaping, other than when a sub-division is proposed. A bond is required for the completion of the sub-division and landscaping is included in that.
Dan Laroche stated a general requirement should be added to allow the Board to request a bond to ensure completion of a project when reviewing site plan approval.
Kevin Haley stated he would like to remove the word reuse from the general parking requirements (2) because he felt it was confusing. Additionally he had a concern that certain uses could be more of a safety issue and to require no additional off street parking or loading for continued use of a building in existence prior to 1973 had the potential to cause a safety hazard. The new karate studio on Main Street is an example and the Board denied a certain use for the old bowling alley because of similar concerns.
Dan Laroche questioned what the Board would do with the old buildings? He stated the bylaw attempts to create some flexibility to allow the old buildings to be used by not requiring additional off street parking.
Karen King suggested asking for a traffic study detailing a way to enter and exit safely.
Kevin Haley stated it was his personal belief that there are some uses where there should be off street parking and he was not willing to mitigate safety for reuse.
Dan Laroche stated in general most large cities do not require on site parking in the downtown area.
Tara Hengeveld stated she believed it depends on specific uses and clientele the use is associated with and would agree with Mr. Haley that there are certain uses that she would not be comfortable allowing without on site parking.
Dan Laroche stated the average speed through the Monson downtown is 40 MPH it may be easier to control the traffic with bump outs to address safety.
Paul Hatch stated he would like to see the requirement for any new building or expansion greater than 25% to meet the parking requirements left in. He questioned how to address handicap parking?
Dan Laroche stated he believed the Building Commissioner would have to address that.
Paul Hatch questioned what the ADA would say if there were no on site parking adjacent to building?
Dan Laroche stated if the Town does not require parking it does not apply. When new parking is built then ADA accessible parking must be provided.
Paul Hatch stated he preferred to encourage grass rather than a paved surface because of ground water recharge.
Dan Laroche stated he has been working with Gretchen Neggers on a grant for Monson to become part of a Massachusetts groundwater coalition. There are quite a few permeable pavers on the market and the Board could require the overflow parking to be grass. If any new impervious areas are created they must meet pre and post run off conditions.
Paul Hatch questioned how the Board members felt about the provision that the layout of parking areas allow sufficient space for the storage of plowed snow unless removal from site is provided?
Kevin Haley stated he thought it should be removed from the site.
Dan Laroche stated he was trying to provide flexibility with the understanding it is done in a legal way.
Paul Hatch stated when designing anything you have to ask yourself is it doable? He stated he was asking himself if it was doable on a new site to provide space for snow storage.
Tara Hengeveld stated realistically most sites may have to remove the snow. The terrain is mostly vertical in Monson, Diversified Metals on Main Street is a good example they have no space to store snow.
Dan Laroche reviewed the changes suggested by the Board and will revise the document.
Tara Hengeveld moved to accept the minutes of December 18, 2012 as presented.
Karen King seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
8:45 Paul Hatch moved to adjourn.
Tara Hengeveld seconded the motion.
It was so voted, unanimous.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda A. Hull
| 
