MONSON PLANNING BOARD
MINUTES APRIL 30, 2013
MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Sweitzer, Paul Hatch, Tara Hengeveld and Karen King
MEMBERS ABSENT: Kevin Haley.
7:00 Craig Sweitzer convened the meeting.
The Planning Board endorsed an ANR plan for Ronald & June Hasenjager that two new lots one with frontage on Lakeshore Drive and the other with frontage on Silver Street.
The Planning Board endorsed an ANR plan for Laura C. Rogers that conveys approximately 11 acres to Norcross Wildlife Foundation on Pond Road.
7:18 Eric True met informally with the Planning Board to discuss the change of location to property located on Main Street owned by Alan Coolong of his karate instruction business.
Craig Sweitzer stated it is an allowed use.
Paul Hatch stated parking and the drop off and pick up of students are the main areas of concern. The Planning Board would want to see a sketch of the parking, a written description of how students are dropped off and picked up and hours of operation. The parking should be marked on a plot plan, there is no need to have a stamped plan but it should show the lot, the location of buildings and parking.
Craig Sweitzer stated this is one permitted use to another permitted use with no exterior change.
Paul Hatch stated Section 7.4.1.5 “Any change in use or intensity of use which will affect the characteristics of the site in terms of parking, loading, access etc. He stated the use has changed from a store selling stoves to a karate studio that serves a much younger public. Mr. Hatch stated he did not believe this would require a public hearing.
Larry Smith Pioneer Valley Planning Commission stated there are two issues the site plan itself and the process dictated under zoning. The Site Plan bylaw allows the Planning Board to waive the requirements of site plan review for “external enlargements of structures of less than 25% of the existing floor area” and may waive the requirements that a registered architect, landscape architect or professional engineer shall prepare all site plans because of unusually simple circumstances. This seems to fit the unusually simple circumstances but the Planning Board may only waive that particular requirement not the process itself.
Craig Sweitzer questioned how the loading was affected?
Paul Hatch stated in terms of dropping off and picking up students.
Dan Laroche Monson Disaster Recovery Manager stated the bottom line is Mr. True must go through the process. The Planning Board can waive the requirements for a professional to prepare the plans as allowed by the Zoning Bylaws. Not all of the required site plan contents apply and the applicant can make a copy of the bylaw and just address those things relevant to his or her project.
7:45 Public Hearing for Cornerstone Power Monson, LLC continued. The applicant proposes to construct a large photovoltaic installation on property owned by John and James Arroth on Macomber Road and Upper Palmer Road.
Present at the hearing: Attorney Jeffrey Roberts, Larry Smith, Pioneer Valley Planning Commission and Dan Laroche, Monson Disaster Recovery Manager.
Atty. Roberts stated the Monson Conservation Commission are scheduled to walk the property with the environmental consultant on May 3, 2013 and has a regular scheduled meeting on Wednesday May 15, 2013. At the Planning Board meeting on March 19, 2013 it was the belief of everyone present that the Board was reviewing the final plan and the Planning Board voted to close the public hearing and take the matter under advisement to make a decision at the April meeting. The peer review undertaken at the request of the Conservation Commission has identified drafting errors that must be removed from the plan including an area on the other side of Macomber Road that was proposed as part of Phase III. Taking this into consideration and not knowing the results of the site walk with regard to any changes that may be
made to the wetland delineation he asked if the Board would consider postponing the decision.
Craig Sweitzer questioned if the Board were to agree to that how would it review any changes that may be made to the plan because the public hearing was closed?
Paul Hatch stated the Board members cannot base their votes on a plan they know to be wrong or on a plan that they have not seen.
Dan Laroche stated the only solution to this would be for the applicant to submit a written request to withdraw without prejudice and start the process from the beginning. Submit the required documents for the Planning Board to schedule a new public hearing that has been advertised according to the requirements of MGL Chapter 40A and notification to abutters.
Craig Sweitzer stated the applicant would not have to make a presentation of the whole project just on the changes that have been made to the plan.
Atty. Roberts stated some of the application requirements of the Zoning Bylaw would be required in order to get a Building Permit and may not be available until after the process is complete:
- Contact information for construction and operation of the installation.
- Proof of liability insurance.
- Financial surety for decommissioning or abandonment of the installation.
- Evidence of utility notification.
Atty. Roberts questioned if the Board would condition its approval based on the applicant providing the above to the Building Inspector prior to the issuance of a building permit?
Craig Sweitzer stated he would not be comfortable voting on this project without a figure for the financial surety in case of abandonment of decommissioning of the facility.
Paul Hatch stated the plans show a Knox Box that is to be located on the primary entrance gate.
The Board discussed the meeting dates for May and June with Attorney Roberts. The meeting scheduled for Tuesday May 21, 2013 does not leave enough time to produce new plans, advertise the public hearing in the paper and schedule a public hearing.
Atty. Roberts stated the next Conservation Commission meeting is May 15, 2013 and the one after that is scheduled for June 5, 2013 and he was inclined to say the Planning Board meeting scheduled for June 18, 2013 would be the one for the new public hearing.
Craig Sweitzer stated the Board acted in good faith when they closed the public hearing because they thought the plan was the final one.
Atty. Robert submitted a written request to withdraw without prejudice in order to resubmit a new plan to hold a public hearing June 18, 2013.
Paul Hatch moved to accept and approve the written request to withdraw without prejudice.
Tara Hengeveld seconded the motion.
It was so voted, unanimous.
8:40 Informal discussion with Larry Smith PVPC and Dan Laroche, Monson Disaster Recovery Manager.
Larry Smith stated after discussions with Dan Laroche he has focused on four bylaw revisions that the Planning Board indicated as a priority. He provided copies of the proposed bylaw revisions to the Planning Board members with the changes highlighted. Copies of the draft changes are attached to these minutes and incorporated herein.
Mixed Uses and Mixed Residential/Business Uses
Larry Smith stated Monson has an existing bylaw Section 6.13 Mixed Uses but it does not reference mixed business use. It was obviously the intent of the bylaw to allow mixed residential and business uses but it was not clearly spelled out and so the General Description has been modified for more clarity. It is also proposed to add language to Section 6.13.3 “To integrate limited residential uses in the commercial districts”.
Section 6.13.4 Permitted Uses
Section 6.13.4.1 remains the same. It is proposed to add Section 6.13.4.2 that would allow residential uses provided all residential units are located above the first floor street level, residential units may be permitted at the street level in portions of a building that does not front or access on the street frontage.
Larry Smith stated if it is a large building and areas are not being utilized in the rear of the building why not tuck apartment in there.
6.13.5 Additional General Requirements.
Section 6.13.5.1 In keeping with the General Description add language to clarify residential business use. It is proposed to change the number of the existing Section 6.13.5.3 to Section 6.13.5.4 with some changes and add a new Section 6.13.5.3. The new Section 6.13.5.3 adds language for mixed residential/business use that provides at least fifty (50) square feet of landscaped usable open space for each dwelling unit except for existing buildings where this provision applies only to the maximum extent practicable.
Craig Sweitzer stated he was not sure about the last sentence of the proposed new language that would allow a balcony or roof of a structure to be provided instead of open space on the ground.
Dan Laroche suggested changing it to balcony or on a roof structure to count toward the open space square footage.
The proposed changes to the renumbered Section 6.13.5.4 includes the addition of the words “Dimensional and Density’ to the first sentence and in the second sentence add “or establishing/re-establishing a business use within an existing residential structure”.
Paul Hatch stated he liked the revised language.
Tara Hengeveld agreed.
Larry Smith stated the existing Section 5.4 Off Street Parking and Loading of the bylaws remains as it is but a new Section 5.4.5 Off Street Parking for Central Commercial District is proposed. The State is promoting Smart Growth and in the simplest terms it concentrates higher density where there are public utilities and less density in the rural residential areas. It is a challenge to use different techniques to balance the need to provide adequate parking with the need to maintain the character of downtown Monson and Central Commercial District. Any new structure in the Central Commercial District or enlargement or addition to an existing building must provide off street parking. No additional off street parking is required for the continued use or reuse of an existing building. Larry
Smith stated he had provided a table in the proposed parking for the Central Commercial District that was compatible with the parking currently required.
Paul Hatch stated he was concerned with the exemption for an existing building because certain changes in use can result in a totally different traffic pattern.
Larry Smith stated he had provided options that allow parking on a lot in the same ownership but not necessarily the lot on which the building is located.
Section 5.4.5.2 Location and Layout
Section 5.4.5.2.1 Location Parking shall be provided on the same lot with the main use it is to serve or on a lot in the same ownership and located with three hundred feet of the primary use.
Paul Hatch stated he would prefer to make that five hundred feet.
Section 5.4.5.2.2 Off Street Parking shall be located behind or to the side of the principal building.
Section 5.4.5.2.3 Size Larry Smith stated this section of the proposed bylaw specifies 60% of parking spaces in a parking lot or parking building that must be nine feet by eighteen feet in size with the remaining 40% reduced to eight feet to sixteen feet to accommodate smaller cars. The bay sizes are exclusive of adequate driveways and aisles and compact cars shell be grouped together to the extent possible and clearly designated for compact cars. 10% of all parking spaces shall be dedicated for compact cars, low emission vehicles, car/vanpools, and fuel efficient vehicles.
The Board members were not in favor of designating parking spaces for compact cars, low emission vehicles etc.
Section 5.4.5.2.5 Surface & Maintenance. Off street parking facilities shall be surfaced with bituminous concrete or its equal, with adequate drainage.
Paul Hatch stated his concern for the “or its' equal” language because the downtown area is the water recharge area.
Larry Smith stated if it is a Special Permit the Permit Granting Authority would determine the “or equal”, if it is by right the Building Inspector would make the determination.
Section 5.4.5.3 Shared Parking.
Larry Smith stated to make parking requirements in the Central Commercial District more flexible a special permit may be granted permitting the use of parking space for more than one use on or on a lot in the same ownership that is located with 500 feet of the uses when the Special Permit Granting Authority finds the applicant has submitted an adequate Parking Management Plan showing:
- that peak parking demand generated by the different uses on the property occur at different times.
- adequate parking for the combined uses at all times.
Craig Sweitzer questioned who would be the Special Granting Authority?
Larry Smith stated that was up to the Planning Board.
The Board felt that most of the parking issues would be associated with Site Plan Approval and the Planning Board is the review authority for Site Plan Review. It made more sense to keep the review with one Board in this case the Planning Board rather than several different Boards.
5.4.5.4 Off Site Parking.
Larry Smith stated in the Central Commercial District a Special Permit may be issued by the Special Permit Granting Authority to provide parking for the use on a lot that is not under the same ownership when they find the applicant has submitted an adequate Parking Management Plan showing that:
a) the parking spaces are located in the Central Commercial District.
b) the parking is suitably located in the neighborhood proposed.
c) the parking has adequate paving, lighting and screening
d) the applicant has submitted sufficient legal documentation guaranteeing access and use of the parking spaces on the lot.
Paul Hatch questioned the difference between Shared Parking and Off Site Parking?
Larry Smith stated the shares parking is one property owner the off site parking is leased space.
Paul Hatch stated the off site parking would only be good as long as the agreement is in place.
Craig Sweitzer stated he would assume the Special Permit Granting Authority would be the Planning Board for the same reasons as the Shared Parking.
Section 5.4.5.5 Reduction of Required Parking
Larry Smith stated this section would allow the Planning Board to reduce the required parking spaces by 20% when the applicant can demonstrate a reduction is warranted because of reasons of availability of public transportation; the property lies within walking distance from shopping, employment, housing and schools; bicycle storage facilities, showers, lockers and related facilities to encourage bicycling are provided.
The Board members were not in favor of the provision for bicycle storage facilities, showers etc.
Section 5.4.5.6 Access/Curb-Cuts to Off-Street Parking areas
Larry Smith stated the bylaw references Section 5.2.3 of the existing Commercial Development and Landscaping with regard to access to the lots. A provision of the proposed bylaw allows the Planning Board to reduce the number of required parking spaces by Special Permit for up to 5% where they find that some or all of the extra curb cuts are eliminated or discontinued; the eliminated curb cuts are designed to physically prevent use and sufficient parking is provided.
Craig Sweitzer stated too many curb cuts can also cause a traffic hazard.
Paul Hatch stated he would like to keep it consistent Section 5.4.5.5 allows a 20% reduction in the number of required parking spaces why not change Section 5.4.5.6 from 5% to 20%.
Larry Smith stated abutting property owners should be encouraged to coordinate access to their lots including utilizing common curb cuts and driveways under reciprocal easements.
Section 5.4.5.7 Combined Parking Lots
Larry Smith stated this section would give the Special Permit Granting Authority when a Site Plan or Special Permit is required the authority to allow abutting property owners to combine lots for parking, allow for a reduction in the number of required parking spaces and waive setback requirements.
5.4.5.8 Fees-In-Lieu of Parking.
Larry Smith stated in the Central Commercial District there may be cases where it is not possible or desirable to meet the required number of off street parking spaces the Special Permit Granting Authority may issue a Special Permit allowing a fee to be paid per parking space where the required parking cannot be physically provided and the payment put into a fund that would ultimately lead toward addressing parking demand.
Commercial Development and Landscaping.
Larry Smith stated new language has been added to Section 5.2.1 Purposes:
5.2.1.5 to promote walking, biking and a pleasant outdoor environment.
5.2.1.6 to protect and recharge water resources.
5.2.1.7 to minimize light pollution.
5.2.1.8 to prevent degradation of natural and landscape features as part of the development process.
5.2.1.9 to reduce use of potable water.
5.2.1.10 to reduce heat pollution.
5.2.1.11 to implement goals of the Community Plan for Monson Center.
Section 5.2.2 General
Larry Smith stated a new section has been added Section 5.2.2 General that addresses Best Management Practices; Critical Root Zone ( that portion of a tree’s root system that is the minimum necessary to maintain the stability and vitality of the tree); Drip Line (a circle around the tree directly under the tips of the outermost branches); Heat Island Effect; Infiltration; Low Impact Development; Pre-Development, and Recharge.
Section 5.2.4 Landscaping
Larry Smith stated it is proposed to add this new section that is mostly geared to the downtown area and general commercial development. He stated he would not go through it section by section but in general this is an attempt to provide for commercial development in the downtown area of Monson and by implementation of landscaping; parking; lighting; preservation of natural features and tree preservation keep in tact the small town look and feel that so many of the residents who attended the various meetings were anxious to retain.
Larry Smith stated if the Town adopted a Mill/ Mixed Use bylaw a piece of property such as the old Zero property could be developed under the proposed new bylaws.
10:05 Tara Hengeveld moved to approve the minutes of March 19, 2013 with an amendment that all of the panels proposed by Cornerstone Power Monson, LLC would be the same design.
.
Craig Sweitzer seconded the motion.
It was so voted.
Voting Aye: Craig Sweitzer, Karen King and Tara Hengeveld.
Paul Hatch abstained.
10:10 Paul Hatch moved to adjourn.
Tara Hengeveld seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda A. Hull
| 
