MONSON PLANNING BOARD
MINUTES FEBRUARY 26, 2014
MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Sweitzer, Paul Hatch, Kevin Haley, Karen King and Tara Hengeveld.
ALSO PRESENT: Dan Laroche, Town Planner/Acting Town Administrator
7:00 Dr. Richard Smith met with the Board to request a waiver from Site Plan review for property located at 297 Main Street.
Dr. Smith stated the property is located on the corner of Main Street and Bliss Street and his plans for the property would not involve any exterior changes to the building or interior changes other than painting and the installation of fire proofing between the first and second floors. He stated he spoke with Building Commissioner/Zoning Enforcement Officer Paul Tacy about the property and his plans to use the basement for a gun smith workshop for his personal fire arms. The main floor would be used to teach a fire arms course that would not involve any shooting at this location and the existing apartment on the second floor would be rented. Mr. Tacy was of the opinion that the mixed use had not lapsed because the property was not abandoned but actively marketed. The existing parking lot is not in good shape
and would have to be addressed. Dr. Smith stated he would like to reduce the size of the parking lot to make some permeable space between the parking area and the brook.
Craig Sweizter questioned if the Zoning Enforcement Officer had determined that it was not an abandoned use was the only issue for the Planning Board the business use?
Dan Laroche questioned how many parking spaces would be provided?
Dr. Smith stated the fire arms classes were not held every weekend and would be less traffic that the dental office previously proposed at this location.
Craig Sweitzer stated the Board had determined this was a service orientated business which was allowed by right in the General Commercial zoning district.
Dan Laroche stated two spaces were required by the zoning bylaw for a residence, two spaces for the basement and eleven spaces to comply with the requirements of the zoning bylaws for the first floor, a total of 15 spaces.
Dr. Smith stated he believed it would be possible to provide 20 spaces and still make a permeable area between the parking lot and the brook. He stated he wanted to put up a sign and would speak with the Building Commissioner and also John Morrell, Highway Surveyor to ensure that it complies with zoning and that it does not interfere with traffic exiting Bliss Street onto Main Street.
Paul Hatch moved to waive the requirements of Site Plan Approval because:
- The Zoning Enforcement Officer determined it was not an abandoned use and the use proposed is allowed by right in the General Commercial zoning district in which the property at 297 Main Street is located.
- It is proposed to reduce the amount of impervious surface on the parking lot, as long as it complies with the Wetland Protection Act.
- It is proposed to provide 20 parking spaces which would be in compliance with the requirements of the Zoning Bylaws.
Tara Hengeveld seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
7.25 Dan Laroche advised the Planning Board that due to the requirements of Section 6409 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 the Town needs to amend Section 6.14.1.2 General Use Restrictions of the Zoning Bylaws to allow co-location, removal, addition or replacement of transmission equipment that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of the tower or base station without the necessity of a special permit. A Special Permit would still be required for a new communications tower and for a substantial change to an existing tower.
Craig Sweitzer asked if Mr. Laroche would work on the bylaw change.
Dan Laroche stated he would.
7:35 Craig Sweitzer stated the Board received a copy of a petition from the Board of Selectmen from the property owner of 12 Bethany Road requesting a one year extension for reconstruction after a catastrophe Section 3.3.8.1 of the Zoning Bylaws.
The Board stated it would hold the public hearing in March 2014.
7:40 Atty. Jeffrey Roberts representing Cornerstone Power Monson, LLC met with the Board regarding Condition #1 of the Notice of Decision issued by the Monson Planning Board dated July 26, 2013.
Atty. Roberts stated the decision of the Monson Planning Board required that Cornerstone Power Monson, LLC post a bond, escrow account or cash in an amount no less than $1,400,000.00. The figure was based on a total build out of the site. He stated that his client has an inter-connection agreement with the utility company for Phase I of the project and as a result purchased approximately half of the land and kept an option on the other half. The Planning Board signed an ANR plan and Monson Cornerstone Power, LLC purchased parcels 1 and 2 with parcel 3 under option. This affects the project in two ways the decommissioning bond was based on a build out of the entire site and on a 16 MW (AC) ground mounted photovoltaic system. At this time Phase I is to be built with a 3 MW (AC) ground mounted photovoltaic system
and it is conceivable that Phases 2 and 3 will not be built. Cornerstone Power Monson, LLC is asking that they be allowed to phase the bond to correspond with the work that is to be done under Phase I. Atty. Roberts submitted an Engineers Estimate of Probable Costs prepared by John W. Cologrande, Whiteman Engineering and plans identifying Phase 1.
Dan Laroche stated the estimate prepared also contains an estimated salvage value something the Board declined to include in its determination of the amount of the bond in its Notice of Decision.
Atty. Roberts stated he was not asking that the salvage value be taken into consideration. The engineers estimated cost of decommissioning is $391,746.12 not including salvage value and that is the amount they are requesting the Board approve for the bond.
Paul Hatch stated he would have no objection with amount if the estimate is stamped and signed by a registered Profession Engineer in Massachusetts.
Dan Laroche stated in order to make it absolutely clear what is covered by the bond a plan showing Phase 1 with the MW must be attached to the bond.
Craig Sweitzer stated a reduced performance bond for a reduced amount of work seems reasonable.
Paul Hatch stated he wanted it on record that the bond for $391,746.12 has to include plans showing the area of Phase I covered by the bond and the MW.
Dan Laroche stated define the scope of work for Phase I on a plan with metes and bounds, the Megawatts, access road and any transformers and substations that may be included in Phase I covered by the bond for $391,746.12.
Craig Sweitzer moved to approve a bond in the amount of $391,746.12 that shall include a plan with metes and bounds defining the scope of work and megawatts for Phase I including the access road and any transformers and substations. Construction of addition phases shall require a separate bond.
Paul Hatch seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
8:15 Dan Laroche presented a draft of a Medical Marijuana Bylaw that included definitions for Registered Marijuana Dispensary (RMD) and Off-Site Medical Marijuana Dispensary (OMMD); language to be added to the Table of Use Regulations and a new bylaw Section 6.24 Registered Marijuana Dispensary (RMD) and Off-Site Medical Marijuana Dispensary (OMMD).
Paul Hatch questioned why the Board would want to include an exemption regarding agricultural exemption Section 2 IV? The Board does not have the expertise to determine if they comply under M.G.L. Chapter 40A Section 3.
Dan Laroche stated it has not been determined by the courts and was included to protect the Town.
Paul Hatch stated why not make the assumption that it is not an agricultural use until the courts determine otherwise. He stated he did not want to be in conflict with the right to farm.
Dan Laroche stated he believed it was better to leave that language in the bylaw because although a Registered Marijuana Dispensary may be able to demonstrate that they comply with the agricultural exemption under M.G.L. Chapter 40A Section 3 said facility must still go through review by the Town under Site Plan Approval.
Kevin Haley stated suggested adding “permitted by right in Industrial zone with site plan approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals (SPA/ZBA) to the Table of Uses.
Dan Laroche questioned if it should be ZBA or Planning Board (PB)?
Paul Hatch stated Section 2 c ii uses the word “lot” as a buffer and that would be hard to evaluate it would be better to have a defined measurement.
The Board decided to change the language to mirror Section 2 c i and change lot to 300 feet to be measured in a straight line etc.
Paul Hatch stated he had reservations with Section 4 in general because it appears the Board is taking on the liability for performance over something for which the Board has no expertise. Section 4 b states the RMD or OMMD facility demonstrates that it will meet all the permitting requirements of all applicable agencies within the Commonwealth etc. the Board does not have the expertise to make such a determination. There should be language in the bylaw that would allow the Board to retain a consultant at the applicants’ expense. Similarly Section 4 d states that the RMD or OMMD project meets a demonstrated need, how would the Board know that? If the permits have been issued by the State it is not for the Board to make a determination of need. Paul Hatch stated Sections 4 e and f requires the Board to make
determinations of security and traffic issues and speaking as one individual that is beyond my comfort level. These are issues that require the expertise of consultants to be retained at the proponents’ expense.
Craig Sweitzer stated he agreed with Paul Hatch the Board members are not qualified and why would the Board want to make security and safety measures the responsibility of the Town?
Dan Laroche stated the language in Section 4 e could be changed to read the RMD or OMMD facility has shown that it provides adequate security etc..
Paul Hatch stated the Board must be careful about the language and give the ZBA the tools to do the job.
Kevin Haley stated he would agree there should be something in the bylaw that allows the Board to hire a consultant at the applicants’ expense.
Dan Laroche stated looking at the Bylaws Site Plan Approval is the responsibility of the Planning Board, there are situations in the Bylaws that the Zoning Board has responsibility for Site Plan Approval in conjunction with the issuance of a Special Permit in the table of uses it appears SP/SPA ZBA.
Tara Hengeveld stated there is nothing in the bylaw about removal of garbage, is it considered medical waste?
Dan Laroche stated the public health aspects of Medical Marijuana facilities are a separate process approved through the Board of Health.
Dan Laroche stated rather than including language that allows the Board to hire a consultant at the applicants’ expense in the Medical Marijuana Bylaw it would be better to amend the Site Plan Bylaw to allow the Board to request a consultant for any Site Plan Approval project it deemed needed the expertise of a consultant.
Karen King moved to approve the minutes of January 28, 2014 as presented.
Tara Hengeveld seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
8:45 Paul Hatch moved to adjourn.
Tara Hengeveld seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda A. Hull
| 
