MONSON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
NOVEMBER 29, 2007
MEMBERS PRESENT: William Donovan, Frank Carey, David Beaudoin, Tere Hrynkiw, David Jarvis, Kevin Biermann, Roger Pelletier.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Nicola Gioscia
Chairman William Donovan convened the meeting at 7:30 P.M.
David Beaudoin moved to accept the minutes of October 25, 2007 as presented.
Frank Carey seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
The Board met with Christopher Haley and Kevin Haley to discuss the special permit granted to them under the name Maeldun, LLC for earth removal on property located in an Industrial zone on Palmer Road (Route 32).
Christopher Haley stated Phase I is complete and they would like to move into Phase II.
Chip Lapointe stated he had inspected the site and found this to be a model project. The applicants have completed Phase I in accordance with the plans submitted for all three phases.
William Donovan stated the Board reviewed the total project Phases I, II and III and issued a decision on November 6, 2006. In accordance with the issuance of a special permit the property owners are now asking to have the special permit renewed for one year in order to accomplish Phase II of the project.
The Board voted unanimously to waive a separate filing requirement for Phase II. The Board has reviewed all three phases and the independent consultant retained by the Town also reviewed all three phases. The applicant does not propose any changes to the plans approved by the Board. The Boards’ vote to waive the separate filing requirement for Phase II does not automatically exempt the applicants from a separate filing for Phase III.
Frank Carey moved to approve an extension of the Special Permit for one year to cover Phase II of the earth removal operation on property owned by Maeldun LLC, located on Palmer Road, (Route 32) and zoned Industrial. The conditions of the Special Permit signed and filed in the office of the Monson Town Clerk on November 6, 2006 remain in effect with the exception of the waiver granted by the Board for a separate filing for Phase II.
Kevin Biermann seconded the motion
It was so voted unanimous.
Roger Pelletier moved to change the date of the December meeting to December 20, 2007 because of the Christmas holiday.
Frank Carey seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
William Donovan questioned if Mr. Bridgeman, Old Reed Road had resolved the issue of his driveway?
Chip Lapointe stated that measurements were taken from the center of the stone wall and in a couple of areas it is a matter of inches short of the10 feet in all other areas the driveway is fine.
Chip Lapointe stated he would like to make a change to the Zoning Bylaws to allow whichever Board is the Special Permit Granting Authority on a particular project to waive certain requirements such as parking etc and eliminate the necessity of an applicant having to be before two different Boards.
William Donovan stated he believed that was a good idea.
7:47 Public Hearing Equestrian Hills Estates LLC, Special Permit for Earth Removal on Route 32, Stafford Road, Case No: F – 2007.
Following the Chairman’s comments regarding the powers and purpose of the Board, the time constraints under which it is required to schedule a hearing and issue a decision according to Mass. General Laws, the manner in which the hearing would be conducted, the rights of all concerned and introduction of the members of the Board David Beaudoin read the legal notice as it appeared in the Republican the weeks of November 12 & 19, 2007.
Members Voting on the petition: William Donovan, Frank Carey, David Jarvis, David Beaudoin and Kevin Biermann.
Donald Frydryk, Sherman & Frydryk, Land Surveying & Engineering made a presentation to the Board on behalf of his client Equestrian Hills Estate. Also present were Dan Avery and Bob Garthwright, Equestrian Hills Estate, LLC.
Donald Frydryk stated Equestrian Hills Estate had previously filed for a special permit for earth removal at this location on Stafford Road (Rt. 32) but had withdrawn the petition without prejudice. The plans submitted propose excavating earthen material for a single family home on the south westerly area of the property and excavating earthen material on the north westerly side of the property for a horse barn. A total of approximately 115,000 cubic yards of material would be removed at a rate of approximately 1000 cubic yards a week. A gravel driveway with a 15% grade is proposed to the single family home. Application has been made to Mass Highway for a driveway entrance for a single family home. Mass Highway has indicated a permit would be granted for a single family home but the applicant
must first apply for a permit for the driveway entrance for the earth removal operation.
The General Requirements for earth removal:
1. Method of removal - Standard excavation, loaders excavators, dump trucks. Two test borings one 47 feet and the other 42 feet and seven test pits were conducted on the site and no ledge encountered.
2. Temporary Structure - Sanitary facilities and construction trailer.
3. Hours of operation – Monday through Friday 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. The estimated 1000 cubic yards of earth removal a week would result in an operation lasting approximately 2 years.
4. Transporting material through the Town - Trucks will meet applicable standards.
5. Area and Depth of excavation – The total acreage of the site is 12.7 acres. The earth removal will occur over 6.7 acres with a maximum depth cut of 52 feet in the area of the proposed barn. The depth of the cut in the area of the proposed house is 25 feet.
6. Distance of excavation to Street and lot lines - Some excavation will occur along Stafford Road, (Rt. 32) within 2 feet of the road to provide site distances. Excavation will be no closer than 15 feet on the north side of the property, 15 feet on the southerly side of the property and 20 feet on the rear of the property.
7. Steepness of slopes excavated – The entire site will have a 3-1 maximum slope.
8. Re-establishment of ground levels and grades – The 3-1 slopes are shown on the plans submitted with the application.
9. Provision for temporary and permanent drainage – A drainage report and plans showing temporary and permanent drainage was submitted to the Board and to the Boards consultant Tighe & Bond. David Loring, Tighe & Bond responded by fax today and had a couple of questions with regard to drainage.
10. Disposition of tree stumps and boulders - Trees stumps would be removed from the site and as previously stated first indications are there is no ledge on site. If boulders are encountered they would be split on site and removed.
11. Fencing and signs for public safety – Temporary construction fence along Route 32 and it has been suggested that a gate should be installed at the entrance on Rt. 32 as well as no trespassing signs. Advance warning signs would be required for traffic once operations commence.
12. Stock piling and replacement with loam – Erosion control barriers would be installed around any stockpiled material. The area of excavation will be covered with loam and seed after final grading.
13. Planting of area to suitable cover – After the disturbed areas have been loamed and seeded and the vegetation established native pine trees will be planted on all sloped areas at a rate of 25 trees per 10,000 square feet.
14. Provisions for property access and egress to and from site – Access on Stafford Road as shown on the plan submitted during earth operations and dependent on final permit from Mass Highway Dept.
15. Opaque fencing and/or vegetated buffer strip to collect dust and mitigate visual impacts - Temporary construction fencing would be used it lessen visual impact and watering and/or a dust control agent used as needed.
16. Inspection of premises at any time by the Board or its representatives - The site is open for the Board or its representatives to make inspections at any time.
17. Non industrial district portable stone crusher – No portable stone crusher would be used if boulders are encountered they will be split by mechanical means.
Donald Frydryk briefly outlined the proposed project using the plans submitted with the application. Sheet 1 shows the site as it currently exists. Sheet 2 shows the location of the proposed home, driveway and horse barn and elevations after the earth removal is completed. Sheet 3 shows details of the detention base, driveway profile and erosion control details.
There was no one present to speak in favor of the petition.
The Board wrote a letter to Mass High Department on November 7, 2007 regarding the issuance of a driveway entrance permit. The Board followed up with a telephone call to Kenneth Crochiere November 29, 2007 and was told that a permit has not been issued the matter is still under review.
Those present and speaking in opposition:
Joyce Cookman 126 Stafford Road. Ms. Cookman stated she lives directly opposite the property in question, since the petitioners removed all of the vegetation the gully between the two hills they intend to remove funnels the water onto Route 32 and then to her property. The plans show a house on one hill and the barn on the other side of the lot on the other hill. It makes no sense to have them so far apart and is just an excuse to remove as much earth as they possibly can.
Bill Skillman 146 Bumstead Road. Mr. Skillman stated he is the abutter to the rear of this property and has been at previous hearings held on this property to speak in opposition. This proposal is similar to the previous proposals inasmuch as it is a commercial gravel removal operation dressed up to look like site preparation for a home. There is no need to remove 115,000 cubic yards of material in order to build a house and a barn. The plans show a proposed house and a proposed barn but do not give a footprint as to size of the buildings. No provisions are shown for water and power to the barn bearing in mind the barn is on the opposite side of a 12.7 acre lot that is a long way to be carrying water. There are no fenced in areas shown on the plan for the horses and horses can graze on
a hill. Along the ridge that the petitioners want to remove there are already horse trails. Mr. Skillman asked the Board to consider the impacts to the neighborhood during the 2 to 3 year commercial gravel operation. Abutters will not be able to open their windows in the summer because of the noise and dust. The trucks going in and out of the site on this narrow State Highway are going to cause traffic hazards. It is hard to believe the petitioners are sincere about the ultimate objective because it makes no sense to site a horse barn so far from the house. He stated he believed this is all about the money that can be made from a commercial gravel bank and very little consideration has been given to those living in the neighborhood.
Kevin Haley Blanchard Road stated he is the owner of property on Palmer Road zoned industrial land on which earth removal is in progress to allow construction of a commercial/industrial building and storage of materials. He stated he was aware how noisy this type of operation can be and expressed concern with the proximity to homes already existing in the neighborhood. He questioned if the applicants proposed to sort materials on site?
Dan Avery stated there would be no sorting or screening of materials on site.
Karen King 11 Longview Drive. Ms. King stated the proposal is not visually in keeping with the existing neighborhood. There are existing homes in the area that have been built on the hill without removing huge amounts of material to permanently change the landscape. From a health perspective the impact an earth removal operation would have on residents of the neighborhood with respect to dust and noise are significant. Ms. King stated she is a realtor by profession and in market that is already depressed for someone in the area who is trying to sell their home a commercial operation such as this would make it even more difficult. Additionally property values of existing homes in the neighborhood would be affected. This has the look and feel of a commercial venture and that is
inappropriate in a residential neighborhood.
Carl Strout 113 Stafford Road. Mr. Strout stated he is a direct abutter to the property under review and as such is one of the residents who would be most affected by a commercial earth removal operation. Mr. Strout stated he checked the address given by Equestrian Hills Estates, LLC and found they are also Garf Trucking, Inc. a trucking and hauling contractor of sand, gravel, stone and fill. In addition to their address in Windsor, Connecticut they also operate another facility in Windsor Locks, Connecticut. He stated it was his understanding that the fill material that would be removed is currently going for $7.00 to $8.00 a cubic yard and it was obvious to him by the placement of the proposed buildings this is about the removal of the fill not to build a home. Mr. Strout stated he spoke
with Mr. Crochiere, Mass. Highway Dept. when he was looking at the site and understood from him that he had a lot of concerns regarding the safety of the trucks entering and exiting the site. The consultant for the applicants has given approximate amounts of material to be removed and approximate length of times it would take. It could easily take far longer than 2 years and easily be more than 115,000 cubic yards removed. The values of the existing properties in the neighborhood would certainly be diminished by a commercial gravel operation and that is exactly what is being proposed. If the applicants genuinely wanted to build a home that could easily be done on this 12.7 acre parcel of land without removing the amount of material proposed.
Dan Genholt 126 Stafford Road. Mr. Genholt stated he was the co-owner of property directly across street and strongly opposed the granting of an earth removal permit. He stated his concerns with traffic safety, water run off and the impact to property values. A new home has just been finished on an adjacent lot on the south side of the property and once prospective buyers find out what is proposed next door to them they walk away. This is a commercial business and inappropriate for a residential neighborhood.
Joyce Genholt 126 Stafford Road. Ms. Genholt stated she endorsed everything that had been said and asked the members of the Board voting on the petition to make believe this was in their back yards and across the street from where they live.
Joan Genholt 126 Stafford Road. Ms. Genholt stated it is difficult to exit her driveway now. The addition of so many large trucks going in and out with fill directly across from her home is going to make getting out of her driveway even more of a challenge.
Lawrence Label 130 Stafford Road. Mr. Label reiterated the traffic safety concerns.
Kelly Hamlin 125 Stafford Road. Ms. Hamlin stated she had just listed her father’s home for sale and was concerned that no one would be interested in purchasing a home next door to a gravel removal operation. The applicants stated they would replant the area with native trees after completion but the whole 12.7 acres was a treed lot before they removed every single tree.
Leonora Meurisse 246 Stafford Road. Ms. Meurisse stated the area is zoned as rural residential land and she would like to see it kept that way.
Carl Strout stated the proposed steep driveway is going to present the same problems as the one on Palmer Road. The drainage area will fill up and water will be all over Route 32 causing a real safety hazard in the winter. Mr. Strout questioned how the vote at the Town meeting on November 26, 2007 regarding the change to the Earth Removal bylaw would affect this project?
Dan Genholt stated Mr. Frydryk made a great presentation but did not address the issue of drainage and run off.
Donald Frydryk stated he was not avoiding the issue of drainage and run off. A complete set of drainage calculations and details of the detention pond was sent to Tighe & Bond for independent review. However if the Board felt it necessary he would be happy to go through the calculations. He stated he would respond to the issues raised.
1. Mass Highway Dept. has asked the applicant to make a new application for a driveway access for earth removal and not a single family home. The Department has said it would not make a decision on that access until the Town has issued a special permit for earth removal.
2. The slopes proposed are the maximum allowed in other earth removal projects.
3. Earth removal is allowed in an area zoned rural residential with a special permit.
4. The existing horse trails and quad trails are not on the applicants’ property. Some of the slopes that are proposed are not as steep as the existing slopes.
5. The material extracted will not be sorted on the site.
6. If a rock crusher or screener is necessary the applicants will come back to the Board.
7. The amount of fill is estimated to be 115,000 cubic yards. An estimated 2000 cubic yards per week using trucks that have a carrying capacity of 20 cubic yards would result in 100 truck loads. To have an accurate picture the truck loads should be doubled because the trucks will be coming in and then going out. This would result in 40 trips per day and over an 8 hour day 5 trips per hour.
8. Test borings and test pits indicated no ground water.
9. Mr. Frydryk stated he would be happy to go through the water run off and drainage calculations and address the issue of peak flows from the site but bottom line is the peak flows from the site before any earth removal takes place are the same as post development peak flows.
10. The Zoning Board issues a permit for earth removal for one year, if the work is not completed the permit can be renewed. The Board also receives from its independent consultant an approximate figure for a Bond should the applicant fail to complete the project.
11. The applicant proposes to remove the fill five days a week Monday through Friday 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. All questions regarding traffic and site distances would be answered by Mass. Highway Dept.
12. Tighe & Bond has questions regarding erosion from the site and has requested additional information and phasing of the plan.
13. The action taken by the residents at the Town meeting does not affect this special permit request because it applied to exemptions only. Under the old bylaw a property owner was allowed to remove 200 cubic yards of material per acre without applying to the Zoning Board for a special permit. Under the revision approved by Town Meeting vote a property owner is allowed to remove 200 cubic yards per lot without a special permit.
14. With regard to clear cutting of the property Mr. Frydryk stated he would not comment on whether it was a good thing or not but no permit is required for a property owner to clear cut.
William Donovan stated members of the Board now have the opportunity to ask questions. The hearing would not be completed tonight because Tighe and Bond have questions that the applicant must address.
David Beaudoin stated for those in attendance at the meeting he wanted to make it clear that he did have a very good understanding of what the people will go through with an operation of this size in their back yards. He stated he lived on Country Club Drive and the construction project on Palmer Road for age restricted housing has resulted in the removal of material and breaking up of large boulders. The enjoyment of his home especially in the warm weather has been compromised. For elderly residents of the neighborhood who are home most of time it has been particularly difficult.
David Beaudoin stated he had questions regarding the grades on the plan as the existing and proposed grades seemed to match up?
Donald Frydryk stated the grades do not match up for example the section of the property where the barn is proposed does not match because material is going to be removed from that area.
David Beaudoin stated it does not appear to be necessary to remove much material for the driveway.
Donald Frydryk agreed there was very little removal or fill proposed at the center line of the driveway. He stated in the area of the proposed barn approximately 60 feet of material is to be removed.
David Beaudoin stated the applicants are taking two hills down. The property has a flattish area at the front and center of the property which is why very little removal or filling is required for the driveway. Why propose taking the hills at the back of the property down to the existing grade at the front? It is easy to see why the residents of the neighborhood are skeptical about the ultimate goal of this project.
Frank Carey questioned if the applicants have house plans?
Dan Avery stated they could get one.
Frank Carey questioned if a septic plan had been designed?
Donald Frydryk stated a septic system cannot be designed until the material has been removed. Two monitoring wells have been installed in the borings one is at 42 feet and the other at 47 feet.
Frank Carey stated he was concerned with the location of the proposed barn from the house. He measured the distance and it is 1/10th of a mile that is a long way to be going back and forth also it is in line with the house that sits below the property on the north side.
Donald Frydryk stated they intend to flatten out the area and then berm it up to prevent water running off onto abutting property.
Frank Carey stated if the Board was to grant the Special Permit and allow a temporary trailer and sanitary facilities they must not be in view of the neighbors. The Board should receive a copy of Mass. Highway Dept. recommendations and approval.
Roger Pelletier questioned the pre and post development calculations for run off?
Donald Frydryk stated he took a conservative approach and used a curve number for the calculations for land that was not clear cut. If he had used a curve number for deforested land it would allow more peak run off to come from the site.
David Jarvis questioned if the applicant was going to live on the property?
Dan Avery stated he lives in Connecticut on a 7 acre farm and it was his intention to build a house and barn on the property. After going through the special permit process he stated he was having second thoughts because he does not want neighbors like the people in attendance at the hearing.
Tere Hrynkiw questioned if the need to remove the earth still existed if the applicant was not going to build a house? She also questioned if instead of removing the earth the existing material could be pulled down and spread on the property to enlarge the flat area?
Kevin Biermann stated Tighe & Bond reported that 50,000 cubic yards could be removed and still have room for the house and barn would the applicant consider this approach?
The applicant stated there would be less pasture area and grazing area.
Chip Lapointe stated the bylaw requires 4 inches of loam over disturbed areas, in the notes on the plans it states slopes would be mulched.
Donald Frydryk stated the slopes would have 4” of loam and be seeded and mulched.
William Donovan stated the Board has experience of earth removal in an Industrial zone that was to facilitate the construction of a commercial/industrial building. The Board was assured the structure would be built but it did not happen. Equestrian Hills Estates, LLC has applied for the earth removal permit in order to build a house and horse barn and the Board must explore a way to ensure that the structures are built should it grant the special permit. Mr. Donovan stated he was one of the members of the Board who made a site visit to the property on Saturday November 24, 2007 and was concerned that even driving the speed limit the site is almost invisible driving south toward Connecticut. He suggested having a Massachusetts State Police Safety Officer look at the site to advise what is needed for
safety. A school bus heading south and traveling at the speed limit would be in some danger if it suddenly confronted a truck in the road. Any resident of the Town can move soil around on their property without a special permit. Equestrian Hills Estates could make a very nice grazing area and build a home and barn just by moving material around it does not have to be removed. In the report from Tighe & Bond David Loring stated 50,000 cubic yards of material could be removed and still allow for construction of a house and barn. Mr. Donovan stated he did not see the necessity to remove all of the material in order to construct a home.
Donald Frydryk stated he did not know if that could be done or not.
William Donovan stated the Board approved a large earth removal operation on Palmer Road primarily because the land was industrially zoned had the area been zoned for residential use he would not have voted in favor of it. The site on Palmer Road is not abutted by residential homes it is surrounded by commercial business including across the street. This is more like a commercial venture that would be more compatible to an Industrial or General Commercial zone. The length of operation proposed is two years but is more likely to extend to three years because excavation and removal depends on weather. He stated the last thing he wanted to do was to approve a project that could result in someone being hurt. He urged the applicants to consider other options for the construction of a house and barn that
would reduce the amount of material that had to be removed. Consider moving material around on the site to enlarge the existing flat area or locate the house and barn somewhere else other than on top of the hills on opposite sides of the property.
William Skillman Bumstead Road questioned the size of the barn?
Dan Avery stated he proposed a four stall barn but given the hostility of the neighbors he would have to reconsider his plans.
Carl Strout Stafford Road stated if the applicant had bought the property and built a home and barn on it he would have been welcomed into the neighborhood but that is not the case. The applicant is proposing a full scale earth removal operation in a rural residential neighborhood with little regard for the residents living in the neighborhood.
William Donovan stated the Board received Tighe & Bonds’ report just today and would like time to review it. Similarly Equestrian Hills Estates consultant would need time to respond to some of the comments.
Donald Frydryk made a written request on behalf of his client to continue the hearing to December 20, 2007 at 7:45 P.M.
David Beaudoin moved to continue the hearing as requested.
Frank Carey seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
9:35 Tere Hrynkiw moved to adjourn.
David Beaudoin seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda A. Hull
| 
