MONSON PLANNING BOARD
MINUTES JULY 16, 2013
MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Sweitzer, Paul Hatch, Karen King, Kevin Haley and Tara Hengeveld.
Douglas Warka, Bethany Road presented an ANR plan for review. The Plan involved multiple properties - conveying a portion of land owned by John & Jane Malo to Douglas Warka and a portion of land owned by Douglas Warka to John and Jane Malo; a portion of land owned by Douglas Warka to James & Margo Manning; and a portion of land owned by AJES Enterprises, LLC to Douglas Warka. Additionally the plan creates Lot 2 known as 17 Bethany Road that has an existing single family home with 43,984 square feet in area but lacks frontage on a Town way. Douglas Warka purchased 17 Bethany Road on 12/23/2009. Mr. Warka owns 9 Bethany Road.
Following review of the plan the Board stated it could not endorse the plan because it creates a non-conforming lot leaving property land locked without frontage on a Town way.
Mr. Warka stated it was like that before he purchased it in 2009.
The Board explained land held in common ownership cannot be divided to leave a property non-conforming.
Mr. Warka withdrew the plan.
The Board received a request from Ellen W. Freyman, Esq., on behalf of Bell Atlantic Mobile of Massachusetts Corporation, Ltd. d/b/a Verizon Wireless for a waiver from the requirements of Section 6.14.1.2 of the Monson Zoning Bylaws of a new Special Permit to replace antennas at Wireless Communications Facilities located at 91 Cedar Swamp Road and 127 #B Hove Road, Monson.
The Board reviewed the documents submitted that showed three (3) of the existing antennas are to be replaced with three (3) new antennas slightly larger in size at 91 Cedar Swamp Road, and one (1) existing antenna is to be replaced with one (1) slightly larger in size at 127 #B Hovey Road.
Paul Hatch moved to waive the requirements of Section 6.14.1.2 of the Monson Zoning Bylaws because although the antennas that are proposed to replace the existing antennas are larger in size it is not a substantial change and the visual impacts of the installations would not change because no change in height is proposed and there is no increase in the number of panels at the facilities located on 91 Cedar Swamp Road and 127 #B Hovey Road.
Kevin Haley seconded the motion.
It was so voted, unanimous.
Tara Hengeveld moved to accept the minutes of June 18, 2013 as presented.
Paul Hatch seconded the motion.
It was so voted by majority vote: Craig Sweitzer, Paul Hatch, Tara Hengeveld and Karen King.
Kevin Haley abstained, as he was not present at the meeting.
7:15 Public Hearing for Site Plan Approval for a Large Scale Ground Mounted Solar Array at property owned by James & John Arooth, located on Upper Palmer Road and Macomber Road as provided by Section 6.23 of the Monson Zoning Bylaws. Applicant Cornerstone Power Monson, LLC seeks to install a ground mounted photovoltaic system on approximately 56 acres of a 147.5 parcel of land.
Craig Sweitzer convened the hearing and read the legal notice as it appeared in the Republican Newspaper the weeks of June 28, 2013 and July 5, 2013.
Present and representing Cornerstone Power Monson, LLC: Andrew Boggs, Jeffrey Roberts, Esq., and John Colagrande, Whitman Engineering.
Craig Sweitzer stated this is a new public hearing for an old project. The Board held a public hearing and reviewed plans but those plans changed which prompted a new public hearing.
John Colagrande stated Whitman Engineering prepared the site plans for the installation of ground mounted solar panels on Macomber Road/Upper Palmer Road. The facility will be accessed from Macomber Road. A utility easement runs through the property and the project is proposed in three phases. A major change to the project is the elimination of panels that were proposed on the south side of Macomber Road. The Monson Conservation Commission has reviewed the project and issued an Order of Conditions. This is an unmanned facility that will have access for emergency vehicles. The panels are connected in an array comprised of ten (10) to fourteen (14) panels; several arrays are then connected in a converter box. Throughout the installation there are inverters and combiner boxes to
capture the electricity and convert it in such a manner to be deeded into the grid. National Grid will construct a sub station on the property.
Craig Sweitzer questioned if the sub station would be fenced in within the fencing proposed for the property, if the sub-station would be landscaped and the size of the area of the sub station?
John Colagrande stated the area of the sub station was one hundred feet (100’) x one hundred and fifty feet (150’). The fence around the perimeter is a standard six foot (6’) chain link fence around the sub station there would be a seven foot (7’) fence with barbed wire on the top.
Craig Sweitzer questioned the distance from the sub station to the property line?
John Colagrande stated it was one hundred feet (100’) to the nearest property line and three hundred and fifty feet (350’) to the nearest residence.
Paul Hatch questioned the decibel noise level?
John Colagrande stated he did not have that information.
Craig Sweitzer questioned if this was the typical sub station with ground mounted transfers and overhead line?
John Colagrande stated there were two points of interconnection with underground lines.
Craig Sweitzer questioned if the structure of the panels followed the existing terrain?
John Colagrande stated the panels have been designed to fit the contours of the slopes; the horizontal frames are mounted on posts.
Craig Sweitzer questioned the amount of grading necessary?
John Colagrande stated very little in the most severe case it is three to four feet.
Craig Sweitzer stated he remembered the original plan showed significantly more grading.
John Colagrande stated the system has been changed to lessen the grading.
Craig Sweitzer questioned the height?
John Colagrande stated the panels are two feet (2’) off the ground, approximately four feet (4’) tall and three and a half feet (3.5’) wide.
Greg Leighton 12 Macomber Road stated his concerns are the same as those he expressed when the Board held public hearings on this project last year the proximity of the facility to his property. A letter was presented to the Board signed by the residents living on the north side of Macomber Road asking that an additional one hundred foot (100’) setback be considered for that side of the project.
John Colagrande stated the project complies with the seventy five foot (75’) setback required by the Zoning Bylaws and there is a double row of trees and a chain link fence between Mr. Leighton’s property line and the project property line. The edge of the panels is 75’ from the property line.
Craig Sweitzer questioned how far the fence was from the property line”
John Colagrande stated approximately forty feet (40’) from the Leighton property line. The landscaping proposed is a row of mountain laurel and a row of rhododendron and the rows are staggered.
Craig Sweitzer questioned the planting height?
John Colagrande stated the planting height of the rhododendron would be three feet to five feet and the mountain laurel eight to ten feet, fifteen feet on center.
Paul Hatch questioned if there was a plan to replace the plantings if they should fail to thrive?
Dan Laroche questioned if there was reason not to leave some vegetation along the property lines?
John Colagrande stated the screening comes right up to the property lines.
Greg Leighton stated the foundation drainage for his house runs out of the back of the house almost to the property line if that is filled or covered it will be a problem.
John Colagrande stated there is nothing happening in the area behind the property on Macomber Road.
Rosemary Taft, Macomber Road questioned if the wiring that connects the panels was exposed?
John Colagrande stated the utilities are underground.
Rosemary Taft questioned if the property would be mowed?
John Colagrande stated it is critical that the property is mowed and maintained including the trees. In order for the panels to function properly they must be kept clear and clean.
Craig Sweitzer questioned if the applicant had projected a figure to decommission the facility if that became necessary?
Andrew Boggs stated with thirty million dollars of equipment on the property it is highly unlikely it would be abandoned, even if a bank took over the property they would not shut down a multi million dollar solar facility. Having said Mr. Boggs stated that it is understood that the Town needs some type of surety bone.
Atty. Robinson stated the applicant is still in the process of laying out how the facility will be built and cost so it is very difficult at this time to determine a figure for the financial surety.
Craig Sweitzer questioned if the engineer on the project came up with any figures?
Andrew Boggs stated he has an estimate but it does not have an engineers stamp on it and the figure is close to 1.4 million.
Craig Sweitzer stated Town Counsel would have to review the bond to ensure that it was non revocable and sufficiently protected the Town.
Paul Hatch questioned the estimated project cost?
Andrew Boggs stated it is close to 30 million dollars.
Atty. Robinson stated there is an issue that if the bond is for decommissioning the equipment would be worth something and that worth.
Dan Laroche stated the bond is a kind of insurance policy for the Town; Town Counsel would review it in terms of an insurance policy. The goat is for the Town to be risk adverse.
Rosemary Taft questioned if the facility is decommissioned would that include the fence?
Andrew Boggs stated in the unlikely event of decommissioning that would include the fence.
Rosemary Taft questioned if the applicant had purchased the property?
Andrew Boggs stated no.
Greg Leighton questioned when work would start?
Andrew Boggs stated that would depend on National Grid Cornerstone Power would like to start by the end of the year.
Kevin Haley stated the project is to be completed in phases with Phase 1 to be complete before starting Phases 2 & 3 although in the documents submitted the applicant has asked to be allowed to start Phases 2 & 3 before completing Phase 1. What would trip that request?
Andrew Boggs stated they do not want to wait but Phases 2 & 3 are on a different line so it depends when National Grid is ready. If it is possible to negotiate a deal they would like to move up the start date for Phases 2 & 3.
Paul Hatch questioned if the Town was to receive a copy of the EPA filing?
John Colagrande stated he was not sure what Mr. Hatch meant.
Paul Hatch any project that disturbs in excess of one acre must file with the EPA under the NPDES program and prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP requires periodic monitoring.
Atty. Robinson questioned if the Board could render a decision subject to receiving the decommissioning bond, proof of Liability Insurance, contact information for the system installer, and maintenance agreement.
Tara Hengeveld questioned the lighting proposed at the facility?
John Colagrande stated no lighting is proposed.
Tara Hengeveld questioned if the converter boxes had lights?
John Colagrande stated no.
Greg Leighton questioned the material proposed for the roadway?
John Colagrande stated it was proposed to construct an access way a little wider than a single lane of three quarter inch gravel.
Paul Hatch stated he was concerned that there is no enforcement mechanism in place should the screening plantings of Mountain Laurel and Rhododendron fail to thrive. He stated he had no problem with the choice of plantings but the species are prone to failure if not planted in its natural environment.
Dan Laroche stated a way to solve that problem would be a two year escrow account to replace plants if they die and are not replaced by the system operator. After two years it would be assumed the landscaping plants were established and the money in the escrow account returned with any interest earned. Mr. Laroche suggested an account of $5000.00.
Paul Hatch stated he felt that was an acceptable solution. The landscaping is important to the neighbors of this property and important to the developers in their efforts to become good neighbors to the residents of an established residential neighborhood.
Craig Sweitzer questioned if Mr. Boggs had anything to add regarding to escrow account for landscaping plantings and the $1.4 million decommissioning bond?
Andrew Boggs stated he had nothing to add.
8:30 Paul Hatch moved to close the public hearing.
Karen King seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
Paul Hatch moved to approve the Site Plan for a large ground mounted solar array to be located on Macomber Road and Upper Palmer Road with conditions:
- In the event that the installation is abandoned a performance bond that conforms to the requirements of Section 6.23.11.3 Financial Surety for an amount no less than $1,400,000.00. Said surety to be reviewed and approved by Town Counsel.
- To guarantee that screening plants (rhododendron and mountain laurel) are replaced if they die, cash escrow account in an amount no less than $5000.00 to be held by the Town of Monson for two years. It is assumed that after two years the plantings have taken and the account would be closed and returned to the applicant including any accrued interest.
- Proof of General Liability.
- Name, address and contact information for system installer.
- Copy of completed signed maintenance agreement.
Craig Sweitzer seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
8:40 Public Hearing for a Special Permit as provided by Section 6.14 Wireless Communications Facilities for a communications tower to replace the police communication tower destroyed by the June 1, 2011 tornado. Chairman Craig Sweitzer read the legal notice as it appeared in the Republican Newspaper the weeks of June 28, 2013 and July 5, 2013.
Present Dan Laroche Disaster Recovery Manager for the Town of Monson.
Mr. Laroche made a presentation to the Board giving an overview of the project to replace the Police Communications Tower that was located on top of the Town Administration Building at 110 Main Street. The tower and building was destroyed by a tornado that occurred on June 1, 2011. The damaged building was demolished and the Town is in the process of constructing a new building and it must also replace the tower. The proposed new building will not be as high as the building it replaces and locating the tower on the top of the building is not an option. Of the options considered the most cost effective is a free standing lattice tower that will be located on the property but not on the new building. In order to meet the communication needs of the Monson Police Department Cromack Industries,
Inc. determined that a 120 foot tower would be required. By means of sketches Mr. Laroche demonstrated the visual affects of the construction of a 120 foot tower on the Main Street property. He emphasized this is not a new facility it is a replacement of a tower destroyed by the June 1, 2011 tornado and it meets the required Zoning Bylaw setbacks.
Craig Sweitzer stated there is a height restriction in a residential zone this property is located in the Center Commercial zone.
Paul Hatch stated it would be in compliance with the Zoning Bylaw with regard to a lattice tower because it is a replacement of an existing tower that was destroyed by a catastrophic natural disaster.
The Board reviewed the opinion from Town Counsel that any bonding requirement associated with this project should be waived by the Planning Board. The intent of a bond is to protect the Town against private party abandonment, as the Town is spending its own money for this project it serves no purpose to add the expense of a bond.
8:55 Paul Hatch moved to close the public hearing.
Craig Sweitzer seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
Paul Hatch moved to approve a Special Permit for a 120 foot lattice tower that replaces the Police Communications tower destroyed by the June 1, 2011 tornado at 110 Main Street and based on the opinion of Town Counsel Kenneth J. Albano, Esq., the Board unanimously waive the requirement for a decommissioning bond.
Craig Sweitzer seconded the motion.
It was so voted, unanimous.
Karen King excused herself to avoid the appearance of a conflict.
8:55 Public Hearing for a Special Permit for an Estate Lot as provided by Section 6.5 of the Monson Zoning Bylaws for property owned by Donna St. Pierre. Said property is zoned Rural Residential and is located on Paradise Lake Road Assessors Map 074, Parcel 023. In addition to creating an Estate Lot the plan creates a frontage lot that is in conformance with the Zoning Bylaws.
Ms. St. Pierre stated she would like to separate her property into two lots, an Estate Lot and a lot that has an existing home on it. The Estate Lot would have 10.6 acres and in excess of 40 feet of frontage. The lot with the existing home would be in conformance with the Zoning Bylaws with regard to frontage and area.
Craig Sweitzer stated the land slopes away from the street and it appears by the plan the maximum grade of the proposed Estate Lot driveway is approximately 3.80%. The plan indicates that the first 25 feet is paved and then gravel the rest of the way to the house location.
Paul Hatch stated the plan references an erosion control pad but there are no details for the pad on the plan.
Kevin Haley stated the language required by the Estate Lot Bylaw Section 6.5.10 is not on the plan.
Paul Hatch questioned why the word future is on the plan in relation to the required turnaround for emergency vehicles? He stated the turn around must be built at the time the driveway is put in additionally it should be identified on the plan as a solid line not a dashed line.
Craig Sweitzer questioned if the Board was agreed that the only deficiencies on the plan were:
- The details for the erosion control pad;
- Language required by Section 6.5.10;
- The turnaround for emergency vehicles must be constructed when the driveway is constructed and should not be identified with the word “future” and should be shown on the plan as a solid line rather than a dashed line;
The Board members were agreed.
Richard Bissaillion 39 Paradise Lake Road stated he had a problem with boundaries shown on the plan.
The Board stated he could contact Smith Associates who prepared the plan and speak to them or another option was to have his land surveyed.
Ms. St. Pierre requested a continuation of the Public Hearing in order to make the necessary changes to the plan. The public hearing was continued to Tuesday July 30 at 7:00 P.M.
Karen King returned to the meeting.
9:20 Public Hearing to review a petition Site Plan Approval from Antonio Fernandes for property zoned General Commercial located on Boston Road West Assessors Map 064, Parcel 002. The petitioner proposes to construct a commercial building with associated parking and utilities. Chairman Craig Sweitzer read the legal notice as it appeared in the Republican Newspaper the weeks of June 28, 2012 and July 5, 2012.
Also Present: Antonio Fernandes, Michael Mocko, Environmental Consultant, Rachel Begley, 101 Wilbraham Road, Jeffrey Begley, 101 Wilbraham Road.
Michael Mocko made a presentation to the Board stating Mr. Fernandes is in the construction business and proposes to erect a metal building on the property to provide storage for his vehicles and equipment and a place to repair his construction equipment. The northern portion of the lot has an Exxonmobile pipeline easement. It is proposed to locate the building on the westerly side of the lot with a retention basin for stormwater management on the easterly side.
Dan Laroche questioned if the pre and post development conditions?
Michael Mocko stated this is a 2.4 acre of which 1.6 acres will be developed. Mr. Fernandes proposes a 6,000 square foot metal building with a 36,000 square foot parking lot.
Mr. Fernandes stated he has no need for a paved parking lot and proposes a pervious gravel parking lot with a sub base of crushed stone.
Michael Mocko stated the roof drainage will be directed to stone infiltration trenches that are located on the north side and the south side of the parking lot additionally overflow infiltration trenches are proposed. Run off from the parking lot will be directed to a grass infiltration strip, from there to the trenches on the north and south sides of the parking lot. All of the run off will eventually end up in retention basin that is to be located on the easterly side of the property. Mr. Mocko stated he has maintained the pre and post development drainage patterns for a 10 year storm.
Dan Laroche questioned if it was possible to retain the full 100 year storm on site?
Michael Mocko stated the property has a fairly large water shed of 200 acres but the site is interesting because it is at the bottom of the water shed and the water pre and post development goes to the stream and out to the river before the peak occurs from the water shed. The peak discharge from the 200 acre water shed takes 35 minutes to occur, it occurs in 16 minutes from this site so any run off is long gone downstream.
Dan Laroche questioned why a retention basin versus a detention basin?
Michael Mocko stated it is designed to be a dry basin the 10 year storm will filter through in less than 24 hours.
Paul Hatch stated it appears that construction work within 50 feet of delineated wetlands is proposed.
Michael Mocko stated it is a permitted activity and they would file with the Conservation Commission.
Paul Hatch stated the plan shows the drainage elevation at 344 and in the detail it shows it a 344 the wetland is shown at 342 and 344 usually there is a four foot separation for infiltration.
Craig Sweitzer questioned if the property was in the water supply protection district?
Michael Mocko stated no.
Craig Sweitzer questioned if there were details on the type of building proposed?
Antonio Fernandes stated he proposed a 60’ x 100’ steel four garage that will meet all State requirements.
Michael Mocko stated the only facilities would be a toilet and washroom and an oil and water separator floor drain.
Antonio Fernandes stated he has an agreement with the Town of Palmer to connect to its sanitary sewer system and would provide the Planning Board with a copy of the agreement.
The Board it wanted to see more details such as:
- Lighting;
- Signage;
- Height, color and design of proposed building;
- Hours of operation;
- Screening sufficient to provide a visual buffer;
- Outside storage of equipment?
- Dumpster;
Paul Hatch stated the Board needed details on record on a plan and narrative to ensure that all parties had a clear understanding as to what was proposed.
Craig Sweitzer questioned if repairs of equipment other than that belonging to Mr. Fernandes would be part of the business?
Antonio Fernandes stated no the only repairs that would occur on the site was his own
Craig Sweitzer stated the outside storage of equipment would require screening.
Paul Hatch suggested Mr. Fernandes take photographs from Route #20 looking into the site and from the site looking out to give the Board a visual reference.
Mr. Begley stated because of the topography the base of the proposed building will be approximately eight (8) feet above Route #20.
Antonio Fernandes stated he intends to install a black chain link fence.
Craig Sweitzer reiterated that the Planning Board wanted to see all of these details on a plan, as well as hours of operation, days of operation etc.
With the agreement of all parties the Public Hearing was continued to August 20, 2013 at 7:15 P.M.
Dan Laroche provided the Board members with a copy of a draft moratorium bylaw that would allow the Town to formulate a bylaw to address the selling and cultivation of medical marijuana.
Dan Laroche stated the Monson Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing for earth removal that was associated with the construction of the Town Offices and Police Station. Included in the submission to the Zoning Board was a Stormwater Management Report, prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. dated June 14, 2013. Mr. Laroche stated the existing conditions allows untreated stormwater to enter an existing culvert which outlets to a small brook and leads to the Chicopee Brook. The proposed conditions were designed to fully comply with the Massachusetts Stormwater Management Policy and the applicable Monson Zoning Bylaws, water run off from rooftop areas will be directed to Stormtech Chambers that will have an emergency overflow in the existing culvert. Runoff from the remaining impervious
surfaces will be collected in a closed drainage system with deep sump catch basins with oil/debris traps and then to the Stormtech Chambers. There is a decrease of impervious area from the pre and post conditions of approximately 7,800 square feet. Based on this information Dan Laroche questioned if the Planning Board would require another public hearing given that the stormwater management was reviewed in a public hearing as part of a Special Permit for earth removal?
It was the consensus of the Board that going over the same material that another Town Board has already reviewed was cost and time prohibitive.
Karen King moved to approve the minutes of June 18, 2013 as presented.
Tara Hengeveld seconded the motion.
It was so voted, unanimous.
10:10 Paul Hatch moved to adjourn.
Karen King seconded the motion.
It was so voted, unanimous.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda A. Hull
| 
