MONSON PLANNING BOARD
MINUTES OCTOBER 20, 2015
MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Hatch, Tara Hengeveld, Karen King, Craig Sweitzer and Marilyn Gorman,
MEMBERS ABSENT: Kevin Haley.
Also Present: Dan Laroche, Town Planner
7:00 The Planning Board endorsed an ANR Plan that transfers land labelled Lot F and Lot G located on East Hill Road from Westview Farms, Inc. to:
Lot F to Donald C & Kathy A. Foster, East Hill Road, 8.429 acres.
Lot G to William H. & Joan E. Metcalf, East Hill Road, 8.429 acres.
Paul Hatch moved to accept the minutes of September 15, 2015 as presented.
Tara Hengeveld seconded the motion.
It was so voted, unanimous.
Dan Laroche updated the Planning Board on the skate park rebuild and the issue surrounding the solid base needed for precast concrete; the new storage building for the Parks & Recreation Department to replace the one destroyed by the tornado; the ongoing improvements to Memorial Hall with the aim of opening the building in time for Big MAC.
Dan Laroche updated the Planning Board on the progress with Monson Developmental Center. The Division of Capitol Asset Management and Maintenance is responsible for the Building and the new Commissioner wants to look at doing some clean up at the site.
7:15 Craig Sweitzer convened a Public Hearing to review amendments to the Monson Zoning Bylaws to delete language in Section 3.1 Schedule of Use Regulations (Table 1) relating to Home Occupation and Dwellings and housekeeping facilities for employees and non-paying guests of owner or lessee in an accessory building; rename Section 5.1 Performance Standards for General and Central Commercial and Industrial Uses to Performance Standards; insert new Section 6.25 Home Occupations.
Craig Sweitzer read the legal notice as it appeared in the Republican Newspaper the weeks of September 29, 2015 and October 6, 2015.
Dan Laroche stated Table 1 Schedule of Use Regulations of the Zoning Bylaws lists Home Occupations which are allowed by right provided that the use is clearly secondary to the use of the premises for dwelling purposes; not more than 2 persons other than the residents are regularly employed; no trading in merchandise is regularly conducted except for products made on the premises or of parts or other items customarily maintained in connection with and incidental to such merchandise; no external change is made which alters the residential appearance of the building and all operations including storage are carried on within the principal or accessory buildings. There are problems with the bylaw, as some home occupations should have more review with regard to impacts to abutting properties and the neighborhood.
The proposed new bylaw is more comprehensive and would require a special permit for certain home occupations to allow the special permit granting authority to take under consideration off street parking, size of any new accessory building associated with the home occupation and that the home occupation would not substantially increase traffic volumes normally expected in a residential neighborhood. The proposed bylaw would allow certain home occupations by right such as artisans, dressmaker, tailor, real estate, insurance, financial broker and professional office of a doctor, dentist, lawyer etc.
Craig Sweitzer questioned if and how the proposed new bylaw would affect pre-existing home occupations?
Dan Laroche stated the bylaw affects new home occupations, any home occupation lawfully begun before the first publication of the new home occupation bylaw would not be affected, if changes are made to an existing home occupation the new bylaw may apply.
Charles Cournoyer questioned if the proposed new bylaw was a result of complaints?
Dan Laroche stated the present bylaw leads to complaints about home occupations because it is not specific enough.
Brad Kennison 200 Town Farm Road, stated this was a case of over regulation and an underhanded attempt to go behind the back to get this passed. Why is this on a Special Town Meeting in November and not in the regular Town Meeting? What is the difference between an investment broker and someone selling cabinets? Both sell something, why does one group deserve more regulation than another? What does the Town have against tradespeople?
Craig Sweitzer stated the purpose of zoning is to protect people and property in the Town of Monson. There are different zones within the Town that allow different uses, the bylaw attempts to avoid conflict between a business/factory use within the residential districts. The reason certain uses were identified as needing more review under the special permit process is because they are inherently more noticeable than others. Craig Sweitzer thanked the residents present for attending the meeting to voice concerns and stated ultimately the residents of the Town have the last voice because Monson has a Town Meeting form of government.
Paul Hatch stated the existing bylaw contains a home occupation, much of which is in the new bylaw. The new bylaw gives guidelines for enforcement specifically on a long term basis for the community and the individual.
Brad Kennison questioned if the Board was saying he could not sell cabinets from his home?
Dan Laroche stated existing home occupations would not be affected but a new home occupation that had a show room and sold cabinetry could not be established in a residential district without a public hearing and the issuance of a Special Permit. There is a big difference between selling an annuity and cabinetry.
David Beaudoin stated the new bylaw exempts an artist or potter from requiring a special permit can they also sell their product?
Dan Laroche stated an artist or potter cannot sell their product from their home. The present home occupation bylaw does not allow retail sales in a residential district and the proposed home occupation bylaw would not allow it.
Charles Cournoyer questioned if this was because the property was not in a commercial zone?
Dan Laroche stated it was.
Val Beaudoin stated she had several issues with the proposed bylaw why does it state the Building Commissioner may issue a permit, what does that mean if they like you they will issue a permit? The percentage of a new accessory building used for a home occupation makes no sense. It will allow an accessory building to be built that is half the size of the existing home, but in #2 of the new bylaw it states no more than 25% of the combined gross floor area of the dwelling and accessory buildings shall be used for the home occupation. She questioned why the bylaws were already on the Warrant for the Town Meeting?
Brad Kennison stated the no sales is a grey area, an annuity product is just the same as cabinets.
Craig Sweitzer stated ultimately any new bylaw that is adopted or not adopted is done by vote of the residents of Monson at Town Meeting.
Charles Cournoyer stated the Planning Board was choking new business.
Karen King stated Monson attracts people to Town because of the artisans in Town.
Paul Hatch stated he would prefer to recommend to the Finance Committee that Articles 3, 4 & 5 dealing with the Zoning Bylaws be passed over at Town Meeting.
Karen King moved to close the hearing at 8:00 P.M.
Paul Hatch seconded the motion.
It was so voted, unanimous.
Paul Hatch moved to recommend to the Finance Committee that Articles 3, 4 & 5 on the Warrant be passed over at Town Meeting.
Karen King seconded the motion.
It was so voted, unanimous.
8:10 Craig Sweitzer convened a public hearing for a Special Permit as provided by Section 4.2 Water Supply Protection District, 6.19 Stormwater Management and Site Plan Approval Section 7.4 of the Monson Zoning Bylaws for property located at 354 Main Street, owned by Levesque Properties, LLC. The applicant proposes to construct a 150’ x 100’ storage building.
Craig Sweitzer read the legal notice as it appeared in the Republican Newspaper the weeks of September 29, & October 6, 2015.
Donald Frydryk, Sherman & Frydryk Land Surveying & Engineering representing Levesque Properties, LLC questioned if he would still require a special permit from the Planning Board for Stormwater Management because he had filed a Notice of Intent on behalf of his client with the Monson Conservation Commission?
Dan Laroche stated the stormwater management must meet the requirements of the Wetlands Protection Act and the Board cannot exceed State Law.
Donald Frydryk questioned if the Order of Conditions would be rolled into the Special Permit from the Planning Board.
Dan Laroche stated it would.
Donald Frydryk stated his client proposes to construct a 150’ x 100 foot storage building similar to the building he owns on Palmer Road with a possible supplemental tenant on property he owns located at 354 Main Street, (across from Oak Street). When he purchased the property there was an existing building which will remain, he currently parks his trucks and trailers on the property. The site drains south to north toward Conant Brook and into a swale and the water eventually ends up going under Main Street. A gravel storage area is proposed on the north westerly side of the proposed building with a total of twenty four (24) parking spaces and a handicap space to be located around the existing and proposed building. The proposed lighting is shown on the plans and will be located on the westerly,
southerly and easterly sides of the new building. The sewer and water will be connected to the existing services on the property. An outdoor diesel storage tank with a 10,000 gallon capacity is proposed and a dumpster with screening at the rear of the property.
Paul Hatch questioned if he heard correctly that a gravel surface storage area is proposed?
Donald Frydryk stated yes.
Paul Hatch stated the sewer connection was not shown on plan.
Donald Frydryk stated he would locate the line on a revised plan. He stated they filed a Notice of Intent with the Conservation Commission and after meeting with them will move the location of the proposed building further away from the river. It is the intent to clear the tree line at the back of the property to the fifty (50) foot setback line. It is proposed to have an eighteen (18) sq. ft. sign. The site is also in the Water Supply Protection District and to comply with the impervious surface requirement it is proposed to infiltrate run off with a series sediment forebays, a detention basin and two infiltration basins. The drainage calculations have been reviewed by David Loring, Tighe & Bond consulting engineer for the Town of Monson.
Craig Sweitzer asked Donald Frydryk to walk the Board members through the review comments contained in a letter dated October 9, 2015 from David Loring, Tighe and Bond and Mr. Frydryks’ responses in a letter dated October 16, 2015.
David Loring in his General comments questioned the use of the site; if the existing building has sanitary facilities; has all performance standards been met for the Water Supply Protection District?
Donald Frydryk stated the project narrative describes the use for vehicle and trailer maintenance and storage by Levesque Properties, LLC and a possible tenant for a portion of the building for a shipping/receiving base for product distribution, or businesses providing a service at a clients’ site with equipment to maintain and or protect after hours or satellite product storage for an offsite business. The existing sanitary sewer connection is shown on the revised plan. The project meets the Zone II performance standards included in the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook.
David Loring requested additional information on the intended use of the site to determine if the development complied with Section 4.2.6.B Prohibited Uses of the Monson Zoning Bylaw and type of fuel to be stored in the above ground fuel storage tank. He questioned if additional containment measures would be required?
Donald Frydryk responded the intended use of the site is not listed as a Prohibited Use Section 4.2.6.B. The 10,000 gallon fuel tank will store over the road diesel fuel for the fleet vehicles. Storage is a double wall design tank meeting containment and fire safety regulations.
Paul Hatch questioned if the containment system was shown on the plan?
Donald Frydryk stated an outside containment system on a pad would be built.
Paul Hatch requested details for the Board.
Donald Frydryk provided details that showed a wall and not a pad for the tank.
Craig Sweitzer questioned if there would be a roof over the tank? He stated there are no details of the containment system as the applicant proposes it.
Donald Frydryk stated they would provide the Board with the details.
David Loring requested additional information on the intended use to determine if Section 6.19.5.2.e applies to the development; he questioned if the performance standards have been met for Section 6.19.5.2.f? Do the restrictions of the Long Term Pollution Plan meet the requirements of Zone II/Stormwater Standard 6? Do the Stormwater Best Management Practices meet all design requirements of Volume 2 of the MassDep Stormwater Handbook?
Donald Frydryk responded the site use is included in the Stormwater Standard 5. A 44% pretreatment is provided for all stormwater management practices. Three infiltration basins are provided to infiltrate one (1) inch of rainfall over the impervious surface site area and the calculations for stormwater policy standards have been revised to detail the pretreatment and infiltration provided. The long term pollution prevention strategies for Standard 6 requires a method of shutdown and containment, a method of containment has been added to the Operation and Maintenance plan to meet the performance standards included in the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. The stormwater BMPs meet all design requirements of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. The stormwater checklist and associated
calculations are contained in Appendix C of the Drainage Report.
David Loring requested the plan be revised to show abutter’s names, dimension of existing structures and location of loading areas and access and egress points as required by Section 7.4.4 Plan Requirements. He questioned if the structure met the architectural style requirements of Section 7.4.6.3 and if the development met stormwater and environmental performance standards?
Donald Frydryk responded that abutters’ names and dimensions of the existing structure have been added to the plan. The site will continue to use the single driveway entrance for access and egress. The proposed building will have overhead doors for loading and access into vehicle bays on the west, south and east elevation the location of which have been added to the plan.
Additional Comments from David Loring included a State Highway Access Permit would be required to compete the sanitary sewer connection. The connection to existing sewer manhole 1 in Main Street is made with an inside drop of 7.81 feet is this acceptable to the Monson Water & Sewer Department? An existing 24 inch corrugated metal pipe will be reused to convey flows from the water quality swale and infiltration basin 1 overflow, what is the condition of this pipe? What are the inverts of this pipe at existing catch basin 1 and at the outfall to the west of Main Street? What is the proposed inlet treatment for the culvert entrance? The HMA berm protecting the infiltration basin at the southwest corner of the paved parking area ends while the infiltration extends to the north. What materials
are proposed for construction of the stormwater BMPs? The detention basin bottom is given at elevation 440.75, the invert of the seven five (5) inch orifices in the outlet structure are set at 440.5. The orifices in the outlet control are set at 1.6 inches from the top of the concrete weir leaving a small concrete section above the opening. The berms between the sediment forebays and the infiltration basins are shown as three (3) inch earthen and fabric structure, these structures will be difficult to construct and maintain. The water quality volume required for sizing of the sediment forebays is 0.1 inch of runoff over the entire impervious area of the site, do the forebays have adequate capacity for the volume? The calculations for stormwater policy standards contain a reference to photovoltaic generation on site. There is a disparity between the post development conditions appendix showing the proposed roof split equally between subcatchment 203
& 211 and the HydroCad report which includes the roof area in subcatchment 202 & 211. Sections 2.6 and 4.1 of the SWPPP contain typographical errors.
Donald Frydryk responded the sanitary connection has been revised to eliminate the need for a State Highway Access Permit and to eliminate the need for a drop connection. The existing pipe is in fair condition, a riprap inlet pad will be placed at the entrance to the culvert and the invert elevations have been added to the revised plans. The infiltration basin has been revised to direct all flows to the pretreatment basins prior to entry into the infiltration basins. The dividers between basins will be constructed with curb blocks and the perimeter berm of the basins will be constructed from clean structural fill. The bottom elevation of the detention basin has been revised to 440.5 to match the invert elevation of the seven five (5) inch orifices in the outlet control structure. The outlet
control #1 orifices have been revised to three four (4) inch orifices providing a five inch section of concrete above the opening. The earth berm in each infiltration and detention basin has been replaced with curb stone to provide a division between the sediment basins. The sediment basin and forebays are sized for 0.1 inch of runoff over the impervious surface and calculations for stormwater policy standards have been revised to detail the pretreatment provided. The incorrect reference has been removed from the calculations for stormwater policy standards. The HydroCad report and watershed map have been revised. The typographical errors in the SWPPP have been corrected.
Chris Kibbe 5 Wales Road stated vehicles are washed outside on a weekly basis now.
Donald Frydryk stated washing of vehicles will take place inside the building, there will be no exterior washing of vehicles.
Craig Sweitzer read a letter dated October 20, 2015 from David Loring Tighe & Bond responding to the letter dated October 16, 2015 from Donald Frydryk.
In his letter Mr. Loring advised a conversation between the Board and the applicant regarding the use of the gravel area proposed for open storage.
Craig Levesque stated it would for flatbeds.
Paul Hatch questioned if this was the applicants’ trailers and flatbeds only?
Craig Levesque stated it was just his equipment.
Paul Hatch questioned if the special permit was restricted to the applicants’ equipment only to be stored on the gravel area would that cause any problem?
Craig Levesque stated it may because occasionally customers’ equipment could be stored there before it is moved to an offsite job.
Craig Sweitzer stated the applicant should provide assurances that no equipment would be stored on the gravel surface that could cause a potential hazard such as leakage, dry trailers only and occasionally customer’s equipment. This is a narrow use of the gravel area.
Donald Frydryk stated the use does not fall under prohibitive uses.
Dan Laroche stated no hazardous material stored on the gravel area.
David Loring stated in his letter that the Operation & Maintenance Plan should contain the Long Term Pollution Prevention Plan required by the Wetlands Stormwater Report. The SWPPP is a construction period document which terminates after the completion of the work. In particular the LTPPP should include prohibited use #12 in Section 4.2.6 B “Stockpiling and disposal of snow and ice containing deicing chemicals brought in from outside the district”.
Donald Frydryk stated they would provide a LTPPP and there would not be any stockpiling of snow and ice other than that on the site itself.
David Loring also stated in his letter that the proposed Best Management Practices do not meet several design standards.
Donald Frydryk stated he did not agree with David Loring and would be discussing the BMPs with him.
Jim Haynes 23 Wales Road stated with the use of the site now there is noise as early as 4:00 A.M. such as banging of hitching trailers, what is proposed as hours of operation?
Craig Sweitzer questioned the typical hours of business?
Craig Levesque stated that is difficult to answer it could be early or late it depends on a lot of different things weather, breakdowns and traffic problems. The proposed building should help to shield some of the noise.
Jim Haynes stated a previous petition to construct storage buildings for rent on this site was not allowed outside storage of any kind.
Craig Sweitzer stated this is a totally different business.
Jim Haynes questioned if any derelict parts of vehicles or unregistered vehicles would be allowed as outside storage?
Craig Levesque stated the outside storage would be trailers that are registered and equipment in transit.
Paul Hatch stated anything designed to run over the road must be registered.
Tara Hengeveld questioned how long the equipment would be allowed to sit?
Craig Levesque stated that was difficult to say maybe a few weeks.
Craig Sweitzer stated nothing long term meaning over a month.
Jim Haynes questioned the plans for the existing building?
Craig Levesque stated it would be subdivided and he would move his office to this location.
Jim Haynes questioned the height of the new building?
Craig Levesque stated maybe 20 feet high it would be well maintained and kept neat and clean.
Chris Kibbe 5 Wales Road stated the tree buffer that is currently there blocks out much of the noise from the site. It was stated by Mr. Frydryk that the tree line would be cut back to fifty (50) feet from the wetlands that is going to make a significant difference to the noise heard on Wales Road.
Donald Frydryk stated the Wetland Regulations allow cutting to within fifty (50) feet of the wetland and no lighting is proposed on the north side of the building.
Chris Kibbe stated if the tree line is reduced he would propose the hours of operation nothing after 11:00 P.M. and before 6:00 A.M.
Craig Sweitzer stated the applicant meets the buffer requirements, however a condition of the special permit could be no objectionable noise.
Carl Morris 350 Main Street stated his biggest concern is also noise. Vehicles coming into the site and hitching up in the early house of the morning or unhitching late at night. He stated his family has been woken up as early as 3:00 A.M.
Chris Kibbe stated the elevation of Wales Road is above the site in question and they have experienced a problem with lights from vehicles both early and late from the property.
Jason Hullihen 216 Main Street stated his concerns regarding the noise. He questioned the location of infiltration basin #2 and voiced his concerns that the trees would be damaged by digging so close.
Donald Frydryk stated the infiltration basin is within the work limit.
Jason Hullihen questioned what would happen if the noise on the site was beyond what is allowed by the Town?
Craig Sweitzer stated that is the purpose of Site Plan Approval public hearing, and residents are welcome at the meeting to voice their concerns. If complaints are received about the noise the Zoning Enforcement Officer would investigate.
Jim Haynes questioned if Mr. Levesque proposed to use the entire site for his own business or if other businesses would be located there?
Donald Frydryk stated the Site Plan shows three (3) rental bays.
Chris Kibbe questioned if rental meant mechanical noise and if those businesses would be subject to the same noise bylaw?
Craig Sweitzer stated they would. He questioned the hours of operation?
Craig Levesque stated his trucks sometimes start leaving at 4:00 A.M. and suggested the hours of operation as 4:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M.
Craig Sweitzer stated the Board does not want to impose unrealistic hours but there has to be consideration of the abutters. If trailers are coming in late don’t switch trailers, take care not to generate un-necessary noise the same if trucks are leaving early.
Paul Hatch questioned if there could be some kind of sound barrier?
Craig Sweitzer stated information is missing regarding details of the proposed fuel storage containment and if it is covered or not, a copy of the applicants’ responses to Tighe & Bond comments in a letter dated October 20, 2015 and revised plans. Craig Sweitzer asked that the Zoning Enforcement Officer take decibel readings at the site prior to the next Planning Board meeting.
Donald Frydryk stated the Monson Conservation Commission has continued its review of the project to October 28, 2015.
Craig Sweitzer stated when the Conservation Commission issues an Order of Conditions that will be incorporated into the decision of the Planning Board.
Craig Levesque made a written request to continue the public hearing to November 17, 2015 at 7:15 P.M.
The Board voted unanimously to continue the public hearing.
9:30 Paul Hatch moved to adjourn.
Craig Sweitzer seconded the motion.
It was so voted, unanimous.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda A. Hull
| 
