MONSON PLANNING BOARD
MINUTES SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Sweitzer, Paul Hatch, Kevin Haley, Tara Hengeveld and Marilyn Gorman-Fil.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Karen King.
ALSO PRESENT: Dan Laroche, Town Planner
7:00 The Planning Board reviewed an ANR plan submitted on behalf of Annette Berube, Butler Road.
The Board denied the plan because the remaining frontage did not meet the zoning requirements. Part of the property was to become an integral part of land owned by the Trustees of Reservations, but the frontage of property owned by the Trustees was not shown on the plan.
7:15 Chairman Craig Sweitzer reconvened a public hearing for ZPT Energy, LLC for a Large Ground Mounted Solar facility at 53 Wilbraham Road.
Craig Sweitzer stated at a previous meeting the Planning Board had several questions regarding the project. The Board hired Nitsche Engineering to act as its consultant, based on Nitsche Engineering comments ZPT Energy has submitted revised plans. Nitsche Engineering representative Matthew Brassard is present at the meeting.
Dan Laroche stated Nitsche Engineering made a site visit.
Adam Christie, ZPT Engineering stated they revised the plans based on comments from the last meeting and submitted them to Matt Brassard. He reviewed them and had eight additional comments that were received by ZPT on September 12, 2016. Following this ZPT made minor changes such as relocating the site identification sign near the Right-of-Way. To respond to the concerns regarding erosion, the project will be done in three phases to open only three acres of land at a time. Nitsche Engineering recommended that due to the steep terrain which exceeds 15-20% in some areas more erosion controls and/or sediment barriers may be needed. Mr. Christie stated they would be happy to discuss that this evening.
Adam Christie stated they have adjusted the closest location of the racks at the rear of the property to 76 feet. The northern boundary is defined by a stone wall, iron rods were located at each end of the boundary and held. Meridian Associates is in the process of preparing a draft ALTA/NSPS Title Insurance Plan. The plan has not been finalized or recorded, as it is pending the issuance of a decision for this application.
Craig Sweitzer stated any approval would be for all three phases.
Adam Christie stated the three phases are for sediment control, the building permit will be for the whole project. The phasing is for clearing and sedimentation control, as one third is cleared sedimentation controls will be installed and then another third and so on.
Craig Sweitzer questioned if the panels would be done in three phases.
Adam Christie stated they would not.
Craig Sweitzer stated Section 6.23.6.1 concerns the screening and it was the recommendation of Nitsche Engineering that a note should be added to the drawings indicating a specific width of vegetation along the corresponding section of property line that is to remain.
Adam Christie stated a note has been added stating twenty five feet of wooded vegetation along the property line is to remain.
Craig Sweitzer questioned Matthew Brassard if he agreed with the twenty five feet?
Matthew Brassard stated the review was limited to compliance with the Monson Bylaw it is not representative of an opinion.
Dan Laroche commented on the process stating Matthew Brassard should go over his concerns and comments and then have Meridian go over their responses, it would make the process more clear for the audience.
Craig Sweitzer explained the review process between the Towns’ consultant and the applicant.
Matthew Brassard stated Nitsche Engineering’s review was limited to the plans and documents that were submitted to the Planning Board by ZPT Energy, LLC.
Craig Sweitzer stated Section 6.23.6.1 (a) rear property line setbacks had been discussed and changes made on the plan. Section 6.23.6.1.(b) refers to the vegetative buffer zones, ZPT has revised the plan with a notation of specific widths of undisturbed buffer to remain along corresponding property lines. Section 6.23.7.1 the rear setback line compliance was addressed in the comments for Section 6.23.6.1 (a).
Craig Sweitzer stated Section 6.34.7.3 the location of the designated identification sign was relocated from the entrance gate where it was not easily visible to the Right-of-Way. He questioned if Nitsche Engineering was agreeable to that.
Matthew Brassard stated yes. He stated to clarify the property line issue, the plans that were submitted were based on record documents and are approximate. Adam Christie has stated that Meridian Associate, Inc. are in the process of preparing a plan that that will not be finalized or recorded pending the issuance of a decision for this application from the Monson Planning Board. The recommendation from Nitsche is that when that plan is completed and recorded the Board receive a copy.
Craig Sweitzer stated Section 7.4.6.2.(f) of the Bylaw states “Building sites shall, to the extent feasible screen objectionable features from neighboring properties and roadways. Nitsche Engineering commented that although there are buffers present, the steeply sloped site extends over 90 vertical feet above the road elevation. The corresponding screening requirement appears to be subjective, however, the recommendation is that the applicant clarify proposed compliance with the intent of Section 7.4.6.2.(f).
Adam Christie stated at the entrance to the site just left of the existing structure, the existing vegetation is to remain, and to the right from the edge of the existing wooden structure to the proposed utility pole nine arborvitae are proposed with a maximum planting height of 8 feet, 10 feet on center. It was also requested at the last meeting to provide enhanced screening for the Mitchell property, it is proposed to plant nineteen blue spruce 6-7 feet in height, 10 feet on center. There is a note on the plan that actual location is to be determined by the Town Planner during a site walk after the clearing is complete.
Craig Sweitzer questioned Matthew Brassard if the proposed enhanced screening was adequate.
Matthew Brassard stated he commented that the steeply sloped site extends over 90 vertical feet above the road elevation and the corresponding screening requirements appear to be subjective. He recommended that the applicant clarify proposed compliance with the intent of Section 7.4.6.2.(f). The applicant is proposing a buffer, whether or not that is sufficient is up to the Board.
Craig Sweitzer questioned how ZPT Energy would describe the screening from the street in relation to the location of the panels.
Adam Christie stated the location of the barn runs north and is fairly flat as it runs west it rises 90 feet to the former Beaudoin property, in response to Matthew Brassards comment we believe it meets the requirements of the Solar Bylaw with regard to screening and at the small location between the barn and the utility we are proposing arborvitae.
Craig Sweitzer questioned the existing buffer along the frontage and what was proposed?
Adam Christie stated the existing trees range in height to 80 feet and go back approximately 100 feet.
Craig Sweitzer questioned if the proposed blue spruce were in addition to the existing buffer?
Adam Christie stated that was correct.
Craig Sweitzer questioned what would be seen from Wilbraham Road once the project was complete?
Adam Christie stated the owner of the land may see the panels over the arborvitae, but if you were driving along Wilbraham Road you would see the existing barn, arborvitae and existing tree line.
Dan Laroche stated one of the questions is how does the Planning Board ensure that buffer remains and is maintained especially at the higher elevation.
Paul Hatch stated he would like a cross section of what would be seen,
Craig Sweitzer read Section 6.23.8.3 Landscaped Buffer Strip of the Zoning Bylaws and questioned ZPT Energy what was proposed in terms of a buffer and what would the neighbors be looking at?
Adam Christie stated the only neighboring property that would see this is the property owners. The profiles show there is a 100 foot vegetated buffer and blue spruce are proposed for the Mitchells and there is a 100 foot vegetated buffer for the Baileys.
Craig Sweitzer questioned if there was anyway the Planning Board could get a better view of what the neighbors across the street and the abutters to the north would be looking at?
Adam Christie stated they could provide a profile but it would only show 100 feet of trees.
Craig Sweitzer questioned how the Board members felt about this, would it be reasonable for the Planning Board to have some kind of view to get a better sense of what the abutters would see?
Attorney Kiritsy stated the Zoning Bylaws refer to two different buffer requirements. The general rule is that the specific language would control over the general language, so the 3 foot height would control, and ZPT Energy is providing plantings of 8 feet.
Craig Sweitzer stated he appreciated that viewpoint but the Board was concerned about the buffer and felt that 3 feet would not screen anything.
Adam Christie stated he did not think a profile would be helpful, but the applicant is willing to provide an escrow account prior to receiving a building permit for the maintenance and replacement of the buffer.
Craig Sweitzer stated that a financial security for the maintenance of the treed buffer would probably be a requirement of the Planning Board. The Planning Board will have to determine if the proposed screening is going to be adequate.
Craig Sweitzer stated Section 7.4.6.6 of the Zoning Bylaws requires the site plan to show adequate measures to prevent pollution of surface or groundwater, minimize erosion and sedimentation, and prevent changes in groundwater levels, increased run-off and potential flooding. The drainage shall be designed so that runoff shall not be increased, groundwater recharge is maximized and neighboring properties will not be adversely affected.
Matthew Brassard stated the drawings indicate locations and sedimentation barriers at the lower end of the limit of work, but due to the steep terrain of the site, which exceeds 15-20% in some areas, and the large area that is to be disturbed, it is the opinion of Nitsche Engineering that a more robust erosion control program is warranted. Meridian responded that they would implement a phasing plan, as well as additional erosion/sedimentation control measures. Mr. Brassard stated although the contractor would be responsible for the site, we were asked to comment on common practice and because of the size and grade of the site Nitsche suggests that a copy of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) be part of this process. The NPDES is a
requirement of the EPA when a construction site disturbs one or more acres of land. The whole process of the NPDES and the SWPPP is completely separate from the Planning Board process but Nitsche recommends that copies of the NPDES and SWPPP be made part of the process.
Rebecca Mitchell 63 Wilbraham Road questioned if the three phase process would address the erosion concerns?
Matthew Brassard stated it could with the proper erosion controls and using best construction techniques. The plans for the SWPPP will give much greater detail than the current plans, and ZPT Energy has to do it anyway because it is required by the EPA. They must do the NPDES and SWPPP before construction starts.
Rebecca Mitchell stated her concerns that the site contains huge boulders and her house and its foundation is old. She questioned how the boulders would be removed?
Craig Sweitzer questioned if they would be excavated or if any drilling or blasting was proposed?
Adam Christie stated they would be excavated.
Craig Sweitzer questioned if they would be stored on the site or removed?
Adam Christie stated it is noted in the plans that any unsuitable material would be removed from the site.
Autumn Bailey questioned if ZPT were aware of the size of the boulders?
Adam Christie stated he was not, he was not the contractor.
Craig Sweitzer stated he would assume they would drill and split the boulders.
David Mitchel 63 Wilbraham Road stated he was concerned that the removal of the boulders would affect his well and 250 year old foundation.
Craig Sweitzer questioned if any blasting was to be done would it be a separate permit?
Adam Christie stated yes.
David Mitchel questioned how that would affect him, a permit would not protect his property?
Leo Bailey 56 Wilbraham Road, stated at the first meeting on this project they stated they would not be doing any excavation or removing stumps or bringing in heavy equipment, and now that has changed.
Craig Sweitzer questioned the grade changes on the site?
Adam Christie stated 10 to 12% and in some cases 15%.
Craig Sweitzer questioned specifically what grade changes are ZPT making?
Adam Christie stated there is no proposed grading with the exception of the driveway and infiltration basin. The stumps would be removed from the footprint within the fence, and inside of the array any boulders would be removed. Any stumps outside the fence would be ground down and the boulders left.
Craig Sweitzer stated there is some fear that there will be impacts to foundations and wells because of the activity on the site.
Leo Bailey stated his well is approximately 15 feet from the road and extreme earth work and vibrations could cause his farm animals stress and affect the well. He stated he had an excavator come in and shoot the grade of the hill and it was 49 feet from the Beaudoins’ mailbox and he did not reach the Mitchell property.
Craig Sweitzer stated obviously the concern is erosion and impacts to neighbors, it is the responsibility of the contractor to make sure that any grading, earth or tree removal, boulder removal does not result in damage to abutting property.
Joshua Bailey 56 Wilbraham Road questioned the building lot that was to be broken off of the property?
Craig Sweitzer questioned if Mr. Bailey was referring to the ANR plan that the Board reviewed at the last meeting that separated the lot with an existing structure from the parcel to be developed for the solar facility?
Joshua Bailey stated the plan cuts off a building lot.
Craig Sweitzer stated the plan signed by the Planning Board shows two lots, one for the solar facility and the other with the existing wooden structure, it does not show another building lot.
Leo Bailey stated at the last meeting Mr. Beaudoin withdrew the plan.
Craig Sweitzer stated that was because one of the two lots showed a barn, and the existing structure did not meet the 75 foot setbacks required for a barn that houses animals. Mr. Beaudoin withdrew the plan removed the word “barn” from the plan, inserted the words “wooden structure” and resubmitted it for endorsement. The property lines remained the same.
Dan Laroche stated his question is how does the applicant meet the setbacks required for the solar farm now that the property has been split?
George Kiritsy stated the ANR plan divided the property into two lots, and the applicant was entitled to that under Section 81B. This is an independent process from Site Plan Review but it does have other effects with regard to zoning. The plans were submitted to the Town Clerk prior to the Town Meeting that changed the zoning in which solar facilities are allowed. This project goes over both property lines but that is O.K. because they are owned by the same owner.
Dan Laroche questioned if the applicant was now proposing to divide the property because they are two separate lots? If one of the lots were to be sold that would leave the parcel the solar facility is located on non-conforming. The Planning Board may want to consider some sort of bond to ensure that one of the lots is not sold off.
George Kiritsy state it could not be sold off because that would create a non-conformity, but because this is common ownership it is fine.
Craig Sweitzer stated he believed the question relates to the 75 foot buffer.
George Kiritsy stated a buffer is not needed between the parcels of land because they are in common ownership, they are combined for zoning purposes, and the plan that was submitted to the Monson Town Clerks’ office prior to the Town Meeting vote to amend the bylaw with regard to districts solar facilities are allowed in does not apply to this project. He stated no buffer is required between the lots.
Craig Sweitzer stated he disagreed, a 75 foot buffer is not shown between lots 1 and 2 and because the parcels are held in common ownership the applicant feels that a buffer is not required.
George Kiritsy when property is owned in common ownership for zoning purposes it is considered one lot.
Paul Hatch stated the conditions of the solar bylaw cannot be met with a property line that divides the land into two parcels.
George Kiritsy reiterated the parcels are held in common ownership, therefore for zoning purposes this is one lot. It is considered one lot for zoning purposes. The review by the Planning Board and by the Building Commissioner will be as if this is one lot. The date the Zoning Bylaw controls is August 19, 2016.
Craig Sweitzer stated that is a separate issue that will be discussed later.
Paul Hatch stated with two separate lots there is no control over the buffer zone.
George Kiritsy stated absolutely there is, because the law would not allow the owner to sell away one of the lots.
Craig Sweitzer stated the Planning Board looks at dimensional conformity when it signs an ANR plan, once the Planning Board endorses the plan the property owner could sell Lot 2.
George Kiritsy stated no legally they could not. If the owner were to apply to build a home right on the lot line between the two parcels the Building Inspector would allow it.
Craig Sweitzer stated he disagreed.
Dan Laroche stated they could but after that it is one lot and it would have to remain in one ownership.
Tamerisk Genholt 18R Elm Street, questioned how it is guaranteed, is there anything on the deed or in the title to the land that would prevent the owner selling off one of the parcels?
Craig Sweitzer stated that is a good question and one the Board should ask Town Counsel?
Attorney Bart Heemskirk, representing the Bailey and Mitchel families questioned the date the ANR plan was submitted to the Town Clerks’ Office?
Craig Sweitzer stated that opens up another issue, which set of bylaws the solar facility would be under? He stated it was his understanding that once the Planning Board stamps an ANR (Approval not Required) plan of land they become separate lots and can be sold separately. Atty. Kiritsy is saying that is not so, the parcels are one lot for the purposes of zoning. He stated he would like to have this clarified by Town Counsel because it has always been his understanding that once the Planning Board signs a plan dividing a parcel of land into separate lots, the lots are subject to the dimensional requirements of the bylaws, and that would include the 75 feet required by the solar bylaw. If they are viewed as separate lots the 75 foot buffer is missing on this lot.
Justin Bailey 257 Wilbraham Road questioned how long the buffer zone has to stay in place?
Craig Sweitzer stated it is for the duration of the project and to ensure this typically the Board asks for funds to be put into place to maintain the buffer.
Craig Sweitzer stated to return to Atty. Heemskirks’ question, the Zoning Bylaw allowed for large ground mounted photovoltaic systems in all districts including residential with certain acreage requirements. In between the submission of the original plans and today, there was a Town Meeting and the bylaw relating to where such facilities could be sited was changed and that change would not allow this project where it is sited. After a Town Meeting the bylaw is sent to the Attorney General for approval and that approval has not yet been received. Assuming that the bylaw change is legitimate, which bylaw would apply to this project, the earlier bylaw or the bylaw that prohibits large solar arrays in residential zones? The Planning Board consulted Town Counsel and the bottom line is that it is
his opinion that the submission of the ANR Plan on August 19, 2016 resulted in a freeze of the zoning bylaws in effect at that time, which puts the project under the earlier zoning bylaw.
Atty. Heemskirk questioned if the date the ANR plan was submitted to the Town Clerk was used or the date of the Town Meeting?
Craig Sweitzer stated the date the ANR Plan was submitted to the Town Clerk.
Atty. Heemskirk stated his position on behalf of the Bailey and Mitchel families under Chapter 40A Section 6 you do not go by the date of the zone change you go by the first date of the publication of the notice of the public hearing, which was August 6, 2016.
Atty. Kiritsy stated Chapter 40A Section 6 does state that but if you read further that Section also states when a plan referred to in section 81P of Chapter 41 has been submitted and written notice has been given to the Town Clerk, the use of the land shown on the plan shall be governed by the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance or bylaw in effect at the time of the submission of the plan. The ANR plan was submitted to the office of the Town Clerk on August 19, 2016.
George Kiritsy stated the project encompasses both parcels, and both parcels are held in common ownership.
Craig Sweitzer stated the issue of the ANR plan and how the date it was signed affects zoning is an issue for Town Counsel. The Planning Board will be advised by Town Counsel. The questions the Planning Board has are:
- Does the separation of the lots by the action of an ANR plan mean that the solar facility must be in compliance with the bylaw with regard to zoning or are they viewed as one lot?
Craig Sweitzer any approval from the Planning Board would require the applicant to meet every step of NPDES and SWPPP and if those requirements are not met it could be a reason to rescind the special permit.
Adam Christie stated NPDES is specifically for point source discharge and erosion control.
Matthew Brassard stated the SWPPP is a separate permit.
Adam Christie stated the EPA has different requirements for erosion control and they have a prepared a document that is about 2 inches thick. It is an on line filing and there is a 14 day waiting period. It is the contractors’ responsibility to certify they are following the requirements of the EPA. He stated they would provide a copy of the SWPPP to the Town.
Craig Sweitzer stated the Planning Board deals specifically with the Monson Zoning Bylaws, but any approval includes that the requirements of all other State and Federal agencies, Town Boards and Committees are met. He stated he believed that compliance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) should be included in the Planning Board approval. He questioned what guarantees the Board would have that the project will be built according to the plans and that all stormwater and erosion control conditions would be will be met and abided by?
Adam Christie stated typically before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued by the Building Inspector an affidavit is required from a certified engineer that the project and stormwater management is built in accordance with the plans. During construction a third party is hired to oversee that the contractor is building the project according to the plans. The project is controlled during and after construction.
Craig Sweitzer stated the Planning Board has not had a good experience with relying on a Certificate of Occupancy to ensure the project is completed in compliance with the plans approved by the Planning Board. Once the Electric Inspector has completed his final inspection is the facility ready to connect to the grid without a Certificate of Occupancy? The Board assumes that facilities are connected to the grid without that Certificate because there is so little actual construction for the Building Inspector to look at. The Board will not rely on the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by the Building Inspector as a guarantee of full compliance with all conditions. He stated he would assume the Planning Board would require some type of financial surety, as well as independent
inspections.
Tony Pawlik ZPT Energy stated they have done that on other projects and if the Board would like ZPT to have the Boards’ consultant on retainer they could do that also.
Craig Sweitzer stated in a past project the Board has had difficulty with the maintenance and replacement of the buffer and a surety would have to be in place for that. The Towns’ consulting engineer has expressed concerns with erosion control and stormwater management because of the steepness of the slope and that is a concern for the Board also, beyond that the Board assumes there would not be any damage to any abutting properties and structures.
Jessica Allen 165 Palmer Road questioned if the applicant could provide more details relating to the clearing of boulders. If the large boulders are encountered would the Town issue a permit for blasting? In an interview given by Brendan Gove he stated they typically use drilling and blasting when working on a difficult site. The steep grade of the heavily forested site in question and the large boulders on the site would qualify it as a difficult site.
Paul Hatch stated because of the concerns that have been expressed relating to the steep slopes he would suggest that the Board ask for a detailed written description of how they are going to approach this. Looking at the plan and the steep grade change the Board should have assurances that proper thought has been put into this, and it can be built as they propose without damage to the environment or the abutters.
Adam Christie stated regarding the comments about the slope which is 10 – 13% there have been projects built on slopes 15 – 20%.
Paul Hatch stated this is a very difficult project, quite aside from the boulder issue, it is proposed to clear three acres at a time on a site that has significant grade issues, hay bales are not going to be enough when it rains.
Adam Christie stated most everything is already on the plan, but after receiving Matthew Brassards’ comments he spoke with the engineer and asked what he was doing differently that was not on the plan. The engineer told him that after the three acres are cleared, before they do any racking they hydroseed and follow that with a layer of hay.
Paul Hatch expressed doubt that it was sufficient on this site. He stated for the Boards’ record a written detailed description of how this work was going to be done should be submitted so that the Board and ZPT have a clear understanding of the work.
Adam Christie stated the details are on the plan.
Paul Hatch stated the detail is not there.
Craig Sweitzer at some point in time the Board would have to discuss surety amounts to cover the landscaped buffer zones, erosion control and site safety during construction. The Planning Board would also require financial security post construction that no runoff leaves the site and that the detention basin is maintained. To determine values the Board will have to know in detail how this is to be constructed.
Atty. George Kiritsy questioned if the surety was a provision of the bylaw?
Craig Sweitzer stated it was in the solar bylaw, and any surety would be reviewed by Town Counsel.
Dan Laroche stated there was also a general provision in the Site Plan Approval bylaw.
Craig Sweitzer questioned the methodology to deal with the large boulders on the site?
Adam Christie stated they had not identified bedrock or exposed boulders within the area of the array, if they are encountered they will be dealt with on a case by case basis.
Craig Sweitzer stated assuming that the Board does not receive the level of detail it has requested, the surety amount would be higher. The Board would have to ensure against the unknown.
John Beaudoin 63 Wilbraham Road questioned if Mr. Bradway went through this process, as it seems a little aggressive?
Craig Sweitzer stated the site on East Hill Road is different from this site, it is flatter, it does not have the extreme slopes that the site on Wilbraham Road has and was not heavily forested. The Consulting Engineer that the Town hired expressed concerns about the slope and grade of the site.
Justin Bailey Wilbraham Road stated if the hydroseed that is proposed does not establish quickly, it is not going to be effective.
Craig Sweitzer stated that is understood, and the longer the land lays grubbed and baron it will have an effect on the erosion. If the plan is followed and all the trees are removed and the land graded, and it takes a couple of months to get the seed in, there will be a problem, at that time a surety should be there to take care of the damage to the environment and abutting properties.
Craig Sweitzer stated the questions he has:
- How to look at these lots with regard to the division of the land with an ANR plan and zoning?
Paul Hatch moved to request assistance from Town Counsel with regard to this question.
Tara Hengeveld seconded the motion.
Craig Sweitzer stated specifically without the new lot line being shown on the plans submitted for the solar facility the Board is unable to determine if a buffer is needed, is there adequate separation between lots, is this one lot or two and does the solar facility now comply with the dimensional requirements of the Zoning Bylaws
It was so voted, unanimous.
Craig Sweitzer if these are separate lots there is not enough detail on the plans to determine protection for the barn lot, such as buffers. Others concerns are the financial sureties for erosion during construction and post construction, and surety for the buffer to ensure it is maintained and replaced as needed. Another concern a consultant for the Town making inspections during the construction to ensure that the project is being built in accordance with the plan and all specifications on the plan are met.
Adam Christie stated that ZPT would have its own engineer making inspections during construction.
Craig Sweitzer stated he thought it would be wise if the Board hired its own engineer to do site inspections. The Board questioned if Nitsche Engineering performed that kind of service and if they did have a proposal forwarded to the Town. To clarify someone to make inspections during construction, to review the results of ZPT engineer, and to make sure erosion controls are in place, working and are designed as specified on the plans.
Matthew Brassard stated they did.
Paul Hatch stated it was sufficient to say the Board is concerned this is a difficult site and many aspects of the plan are a concern.
Craig Sweitzer questioned if the word barn could be removed from the plan because the use of the word implies that the use of the barn was for the stabling or housing of animals. A barn requires a 75 foot setback from all lot lines.
Atty. Kiritsy stated the Appeals Court of Massachusetts has ruled on this issue, and have said that a barn is a type of structure, not the use of the structure.
Craig Sweitzer stated the assumption of the Board is that the plans submitted reflect the ANR plan signed by the Board and there should not be any discrepancies between the two plans.
Paul Hatch stated the line between the two lots should also be on the plan, regardless of what Town Counsel says.
Craig Sweitzer stated the Board wants all approved and existing property lines shown on the plan.
Tara Hengeveld questioned the bond to cover the cost of removal if and when it becomes necessary?
Adam Christie stated in the submission there is a statement regarding decommissioning that ZPT Energy will work with the Planning Board to come to an agreement about that. The cost of decommissioning depends on the completed design of the project, Site Plan Review can change the plan so doing one up front is not cost effective.
Craig Sweitzer questioned how could ZPT Energy assist the Planning Board in determining if this is adequately screened, could a cross section be submitted?
Adam Christie stated they would provide one.
Craig Sweitzer stated remaining issues are:
The ANR plan separation of lots.
Plan that shows the property with that lot line whether it is construed as one lot or two lots.
Bond amount for planting.
Security amount for erosion during construction.
Details as to how the removal of the stumps and boulders is to be handled.
Bond amount for post construction.
Bond amount for decommissioning and removal.
The Board will ask Town Counsel to look at separate lots versus one lot with regard to zoning.
David Xantos Maple Street questioned the kind of footings the panels would have?
Adam Christie stated drilled in or screwed in posts.
David Xantos questioned how far the posts go in and whether any sub surface exploratory works was done to determine where the boulders are?
Adam Christie stated they typically go 6 feet down and no sub surface work has been done.
Craig Sweitzer questioned if they did hit ledge or bedrock are the footings anchored to the ledge?
Adam Christie stated yes.
Craig Sweitzer questioned if this was shown on the plan?
Adam Christie stated the plans show a typical system and states it is a screw or driven in system.
Leo Bailey Wilbraham Road stated for the record at the first meeting on this project ZPT stated they were doing no excavating, removal of rocks, drilling, blasting or heavy machinery now everything has changed.
ZPT Energy requested a continuation of the hearing to October 18, 2016 at 7:30 P.M. in the public conference room, Town Office Building, 110 Main Street.
Tara Hengeveld moved to grant a continuance.
Craig Sweitzer seconded the motion.
It was so voted, unanimous.
Paul Hatch moved to accept the minutes of June 21, 2016 and July 19, 2016 as presented.
Craig Sweitzer seconded the motion.
It was so voted, unanimous.
9:10 Paul Hatch moved to adjourn.
Tara Hengeveld seconded.
It was so voted, unanimous.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda A. Hull
| 
