MONSON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES JANUARY 24, 2008
MEMBERS PRESENT: William Donovan, David Beaudoin, Tere Hrynkiw, David Jarvis, David Beaudoin, Nicola Gioscia and Roger Pelletier.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Kevin Biermann.
7:30 William Donovan convened the meeting at 7:30 P.M.
David Beaudoin moved to accept the minutes of December 20, 2007 as presented.
David Jarvis seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
Chip Lapointe stated he was considering a change to the Earth Removal bylaw relating to Section 6.6.3.5. It does not make much sense where it is located presently and he felt that it belonged in the exemptions. A reading of the bylaw with Section 6.6.3.5 moved to Section 6.6.4 Earth Removal Exemptions makes much more sense.
The Zoning Board reviewed the bylaw and agreed with Mr. Lapointe that it should be moved to exemptions.
Chip Lapointe stated the Planning Board reviewed the submission from Daniel Levesque for a Mixed Use at 96 Main Street and would not endorse the plan. The Planning Board will send a letter to the Zoning Board with a copy to the applicant regarding the proposed mixed use.
7:45 Continuation of a public hearing for a Special Permit for Equestrian Hill Estates LLC for earth removal at a location on Stafford Road.
Donald Frydryk, Sherman & Frydryk, Stephen Savaria, Fuss & O’Neil, and representatives of Equestrian Hills Estates, LLC were present.
Donald Frydryk stated he submitted a letter to the Board dated January 8, 2008 responding to comments from the Board and David Loring, P.E. Tighe & Bond.
1. Mass Highway Department requested a revised submission for a construction permit for earth removal prior to the construction of a residential driveway. Revised plans have been submitted for a temporary access for earth removal and minor changes made to the detention pond based on comments from MHD. A copy of the traffic study prepared by Fuss & O’Neil was sent to MHD. At this time the plans and documentation submitted to MHD are under review but they will not issue a permit until the Monson Zoning Board of Appeals makes it decision.
2. At the last meeting a Board member questioned the grade difference from the
front of the lot to the back. To address that a plan showing the site in question
has been overlaid onto the USGA map. The plan shows approximate overall
grade differences of 150 feet and 146 feet which is consistent with the difference
shown on the USGS map.
3. The grading of the site has been revised to include more filling along the southerly side of the driveway and proposes a three phase removal plan. The original plan proposed removing 115,000 cubic yards of material. The revised plan proposes to remove 90,000 cubic yards of material.
4. Based on the removal of 90,000 cubic yards the estimated number of trucks at the site on a daily basis is 10 entering and 10 leaving. Based on the economic conditions at this time the applicant would like the Board to allow a period of 3 years to remove the material.
5. The petitioner had a traffic study performed by Fuss & O’Neill and the report was submitted to the Board and to its independent consultant David Loring, P.E. Tighe & Bond.
William Donovan stated traveling from Monson in a southerly direction toward Connecticut it is difficult to see this property.
Donald Frydryk stated they know that and MHD had asked them to remove the banking on the petitioner’s property.
William Donovan questioned how much material would that involve?
Donald Frydryk stated he did not have that available. The contours would be pulled back from the edge of the road to increase the line of sight and would solve the problem for traffic traveling south.
William Donovan questioned if this material is to be removed from the site or repositioned on the site? Is the amount of material that is to be removed along Stafford Road calculated into the 90,000 cubic yards?
Donald Frydryk stated MHD has requested the removal of the banking and it would happen at the very start of the process.
Nicola Gioscia questioned how many feet back from the property line would the banking be removed?
Donald Frydryk stated it was close to 30 feet back.
Frank Carey stated he was not convinced that this would make a lot of difference because looking north the abutting property owned by Mr. & Mrs. Strout has a steep bank and that would not be removed.
Stephen Savaria Fuss & O’Neill stated they measured two sight distances, stopping sight distance and intersection sight distance. As it currently exists visibility is restricted by the roadside slope to the north. When material is removed and the slope graded minimum sight distances would be met or exceeded. Assuming the material is removed the stopping sight distances and intersection sight distances would be as follows:
Stopping Sight Distance:
1. Direction of travel northbound - recommended 495 feet - would achieve 525 feet.
2. Direction of travel southbound - recommended 425 feet - would achieve 840 feet.
Intersection Sight Distance:
1. Direction of travel northbound – recommended 610 feet - would achieve 610 feet.
2. Direction of travel southbound – recommended 480 feet - would achieve 840 feet.
Frank Carey stated he stood on the site and watched the traffic and what is on paper is very different to observing it and was not convinced that this would not pose a danger. The sight distances would still be restricted because of the banking on abutting property.
Mr. Savaria stated assuming the banking on the petitioner’s property is removed the sight distances are adequate. Traffic traveling in each direction would have to stop to let trucks go in and out of the site.
Donald Frydryk stated one lane of Route 32 (Stafford Road) would have to be closed to allow removal of the bank. This would have to be approved by MHD as it is a State Highway. It is agreed that there is a sight restriction at this time and MHD wants the bank removed to improve sight distances.
Mr. Savaria stated they also recommend advance traffic sign warnings that this is a work zone.
William Donovan stated for clarification trucks pulling out from the site would have unrestricted sight for 600 feet in both directions.
Donald Frydryk stated that was correct..
William Donovan stated one of his greatest concerns is for school busses traveling the road and whether going at 40 MPH they would have ample time to stop.
Mr. Savaria stated the results of their analysis show they would not have to come to a full stop there is enough sight distance.
Tere Hrynkiw stated different vehicles require different stopping distances how does this minimum standard affect that?
Mr. Savaria stated their report takes into account all vehicles.
Frank Carey stated the large tractor trailer vehicles that come from Lydall’s on Bethany Road and routinely travel Route 32 are going take awhile to stop even traveling the speed limit of 45 MPH.
David Beaudoin questioned if the calculations for determining sight distances were based on removing all of the banking along the 244.52 feet of frontage on this property?
Mr. Savaria stated the criteria used was based on removing the banking 15 feet from the edge of the road.
David Beaudoin stated what he wanted to know was how close to the abutting property to the north was the banking to be removed?
Mr. Savaria stated it was proposed to remove the material almost all the way up to the property line.
David Beaudoin stated material could not be removed within 20 feet of the property line.
John Wilson Stafford Road questioned who defined the safety issue and would Mr. Savaria give a guarantee of safety?
Mr. Savaria stated he would not make any guarantees but based on the standard criteria used to determine stopping sight distances and intersection sight distances. The sight distances achieved once the banking is removed are adequate.
Carl Strout Stafford Road stated traffic volumes differ greatly during the year with the highest volume of traffic in the summer. He questioned who was responsible for tracking the volume of material that was excavated and removed?
David Beaudoin stated there is no way to be exact this is the engineer’s best guess.
Carl Strout stated the amount guesstimated to be removed the number of trucks per day and the length of time it could take is all guesswork and in actuality much more material could be taken involving more trucks and a greater time period. He questioned how the removal of banking right up to his boundary line would affect his property?
David Beaudoin stated they cannot go right up to the boundary line.
Carl Strout stated if anyone was in doubt that this is a commercial gravel operation they only had to pay attention to Mr. Frydryk’s statement that “given the economic conditions and the need for material at this time” the applicant would like a permit that allows removal of the material over a three year period. Mr. Strout stated he was retired and wanted the opportunity to enjoy his home and land throughout the year. If the Board approves this commercial gravel operation he would not be able to open his windows in the summer, sit out in his yard or enjoy any of the outdoor activities that occur in the spring, summer and fall that everyone takes for granted. The dust and noise from an operation this large would be intolerable and not just for him but for all of the abutting property
owners.
Steven Howland 129 Stafford Road stated even with 600 feet of visibility the speed
vehicles travel along the road and in less than ideal conditions such as rain, snow and fog that is not going to be enough..
Mr. Savaria stated the criteria assumes wet conditions, and reduced visibility because of atmospheric conditions will affect everyone.
William Skillman Bumstead Road stated he was an abutter to this property and even with the changes and discussion of safety this project would affect the health and welfare of residents of the Town. He stated he did not believe the stated intent of building a house and a horse barn that is one tenth of a mile away from the house. The bottom line is this is a commercial gravel operation. As a horse owner it is totally unrealistic to locate a barn that far away from the house. The location of the proposed house and proposed barn are based solely on allowing the petitioner to get the most material out of the site. There are no guarantees the petitioner will build a house and barn and based on comments made at a previous meeting it is highly unlikely.
Kelly Howland 129 Stafford Road submitted an aerial view of land to give the Board members another perspective. She stated their house is on the market and the feedback the Realtor has given them is that no one is interested in purchasing it and one of the main reasons is because of the proposed gravel pit next door.
Carl Strout stated his real estate taxes increased this year by $678.00 a year. He contacted a real estate agent who told him that if the gravel operation was approved it would lower the estimated value of his home by approximately $30,000.00.
Kelly Howland stated at the last meeting the petitioner stated he would provide house plans.
Donald Frydryk stated as a condition of approval of the special permit for earth removal the petitioner would provide plans.
William Donovan stated he would like to review the material submitted that included the revisions, the traffic study and David Loring’s response in more depth and questioned if the petitioner would agree to a continuation to February 28, 2008?
Donald Frydryk stated he would look at the question of a buffer from the abutting property for the removal of the bank.
Nicola Gioscia moved with the agreement of all parties to continue the hearing to Thursday, February 28, 2008 at 7:45 P.M.
David Beaudoin seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
8:30 Public Hearing for a Special Permit to allow the operation of a facility to train, board and breed horses151 Upper Hampden Road.
Case A – 2008
Members Voting: Nicola Gioscia, Roger Pelletier, Frank Carey, Tere Hrynkiw and David Jarvis.
Following comments from Chairman William Donovan regarding the power and purpose of the Board, the time constraints under which the Board must operate, the rights of all concerned, the manner in which the hearing would be conducted and introduction of the members of the Board Davis Beaudoin read the legal notice.
The petition before the Board is for a special permit as provided by Section 3.1 Schedule of Use Regulations, Table 1 to allow the operation of an equine facility for the purpose of boarding, breeding and training horses. The property is zoned Rural Residential and owned by Amy St. Germain and David Nichols.
Amy St. Germain stated she owns two horses that she is presently boarding elsewhere and intends to construct a barn for her own horses. The barn that would be built has 5 stalls which would allow the opportunity to board 2 or 3 horses. She stated she spoke with the Zoning Enforcement Officer who told her that a special permit is required. The buildings are set two hundred feet or more back from the road with two driveways, one paved and one not. There is plenty of room for off street parking and easy access for horse trailers. The barn will comply with the Zoning regulations with regard to setbacks. There will be two pastures, a riding ring and in the rear of the property plenty of opportunity for trail riding. The property has in excess of 200 feet of frontage and
approximately 37 acres in area.
David Nichols stated the compost unit would be located next to the barn and have a concrete slab with a cover.
Ms. St. Germain stated in the event of an emergency there is room for the emergency vehicles. A Request for Determination was filed with the Monson Conservation Commission and the Commission has signed off on the project.
William Donovan stated if the Board were to approve the Special Permit it would be limited to five horses and no more. He questioned if the property was all on one deed.
Amy St Germain stated it was on two separate deeds.
William Donovan questioned if much traffic was anticipated?
Amy St. Germain stated she did not anticipate a lot of traffic this would not be a full time business more like a hobby.
David Nichols stated all of the buildings on the property are set well back from the road and with two driveways there would be no reason for any vehicle to park on the public way.
Chip Lapointe stated this was a secluded sight and appeared to be well suited for this use.
Present and speaking in favor: John Tracy, Upper Hampden Road.
Carolyn King 129 Upper Hampden Road stated she was not speaking against the issuance of a special permit but did have one or two questions regarding the total number of horses on the property and was concerned with a possible odor and fly problem.
Ms. St. Germain stated the compost area would have a cement slab and would be kept covered. The manure would probably be spread on the back pasture.
Ms. King questioned if this would affect the wetlands on the property?
Ms. St. Germain stated the wetlands are on the back of the property and the Commission approved where the pasture was marked and there is a buffer zone between the pasture and wetlands.
The Board received correspondence from Health Agent Lorri McCool stating that the applicant must secure a license with the Department of Food & Agriculture as outlined in 330 CMR 16.00: Horses.
William Donovan stated if the Board were to approve the special permit a condition of the approval would be that all State and local regulations must be complied with.
Chip Lapointe stated he did not know if all of the requirements of the Department of Food & Agriculture would apply to Ms. St. Germain.
William Donovan stated if the special permit were to be approved it would issued for 5 horses that would be the maximum.
Carolyn King questioned if in the future the applicant decides she would like more horses would that come back before the Board?
William Donovan stated yes the applicant must come back to the Board to increase the number of horses.
William Skillman, Bumstead Road stated he owned horses and horse manure breaks down quickly and does not have a really offensive odor.
Tere Hrynkiw questioned the size of the pasture?
Amy St Germain stated 4-5 acres.
Frank Carey questioned who was going to do the training?
Amy St. Germain stated she has a trainer come in for her daughter and was not planning on a business of training others to ride.
With no further questions from the Board David Beaudoin moved to close the hearing at 9:00 P.M.
Nicola Gioscia seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
9:00 Public Hearing for an Appeal of a Decision by the Zoning Enforcement Officer relating to Earth Removal on property owned by Raymond Miller, Hovey Road.
Case No: C – 2008.
Member Voting: Roger Pelletier, Frank Carey, Tere Hrynkiw, David Jarvis and David Beaudoin.
Following the Chairman’s comments regarding the powers and purpose of the Board, the time constraints under which the Board must operate to schedule a public hearing and render a decision, the manner in which the hearing would be conducted and the rights of all concerned David Beaudoin read the legal notice as it appeared in Republican weeks of January 8 & 15 2008
Marwan S. Zubi, Esq., submitted a copy of a legal memorandum to each Board member that he prepared setting forth the facts regarding the case.
Atty. Zubi requested permission to record the hearing.
There were no objections from the Board.
Atty. Zubi stated Raymond Miller received a cease and desist order from the Zoning Enforcement Office Chip Lapointe to stop all earth removal at property owned by Mr. Miller on Hovey Road until a Special Permit was obtained from the Zoning Board of Appeals. A copy of the cease and desist order was attached to the application. The removal of the material relates to a land improvement project. The 32 acre parcel of land has been in the Miller family since 1920 and is zoned as rural residential land. The gravel bank was opened in 1931 and the Town removed material to repair roads. At that time the property was owned by Mr. Miller’s father who worked for the Town of Monson. In the 1960’s the gravel bank was used by local contractors who removed significant amounts of material. Raymond Miller acquired the property from his father in 1962. From the middle to late 1970’s through the present time material has been removed at least once a year by neighbors or by the Miller Memorial
Park Association. In 1976 the Miller family established Miller Memorial Park on a parcel of land next to Raymond Miller’s property. In 1990 Raymond Miller deeded the property to the Association and the Association has removed material each year to make repairs at the park. Recently Raymond Miller entered into an agreement with a contractor from Ludlow that allows the contractor to remove gravel from the property. The objective is to convert the land to fields and put up a barn. Part of the work includes removing junk from the property. The Conservation Commission visited the site and told Mr. Miller not to do any work within a certain distance from the stream and Mr. Miller has respected that. It is Mr. Miller’s position that his gravel bank is a continuing pre-existing use and as such does not require him to acquire a special permit. Certainly the material has not been taken out in large quantities in recent years
but the use has continued in some form. The Monson Zoning Bylaws allows an exemption for a gravel operation in existence when the bylaw went into place. Atty. Zubi stated it was their belief that the exemption does not apply to Mr. Miller because the Earth Removal Bylaw is a Zoning Bylaw, not a Town Bylaw. If the Town had enacted the Special Permit for Earth Removal as a Town Bylaw Mr. Miller would not be exempt from complying with the special permit process. The Town chose to make the Earth Removal part of its Zoning Bylaws and because the gravel operation was in existence well before zoning and has continued albeit to a somewhat lesser degree over the years the exemption does apply to Mr. Miller. Mr. Lapointe does not dispute the historic use of the property but contends that the use was abandoned. Atty. Zubi stated witnesses were present to say the use was not discontinued every year an amount of gravel has been removed.
Atty. Zubi asked the Board to overturn the decision of the Zoning Enforcement Officer and allow Mr. Miller to continue the gravel operation to its stated end to level out the area to convert it into agriculture fields. .
Present and speaking to support Mr. Miller in his appeal:
Alice Miller Elkerton stated she was a member of the Miller Memorial Park Association and the gravel has been used constantly at the park.
Linda Santucci Hovey Road, niece of Raymond Miller and member of the Miller Memorial Park Associated stated the gravel has been used at the park and was in favor of her uncle continuing to draw gravel from the property.
Robert Kolokowski Hovey Road stated he was not associated with Miller Memorial Park and has used fill from Mr. Miller’s property to make improvements at his home and Mr. Miller has not asked for payment of the material.
Robert Calkins nephew of Raymond Miller stated he has removed a lot of gravel from the property over the years. The reason for removing the gravel is to improve the property. The plan is to terrace the banks and establish a field at the bottom of the bank topsoil has been stock piled on the property for the field. Mr. Calkins estimated the process would take approximately 3 years.
Clara Dvorchak sister of Raymond Miller stated she was active in the Miller Memorial Park and totally in favor of continuing the gravel removal at Raymond Miller’s property.
There was no one present to speak against the appeal.
The Board received correspondence from John Morrell, Highway Surveyor stating as a Monson Highway employee he remembers removing gravel from the property for Town use. During the last 27 years since he became Highway Surveyor Mr. Morrell does not remember the Town removing any material from the site. A copy of the letter is hereto attached to these minutes and incorporated therein.
The Board received correspondence from Leslie Duthie, Chair of the Monson Conservation Commission. The Commission met with a relative of Mr. Miller at the site to review the work that was taking place because it received a complaint regarding the activity on the site. The Commission was led to believe the only work going on at the site was the removal of trash that had been buried on the property. The Commission examined an area at the edge of the open gravel pit where trash was being removed near the old well house. The Commission requested the family install a silt fence or hay bales to prevent erosion into the wetlands. The Commission also walked along the top of the ridge and noted wetlands and intermittent streams on this part of the site. The Commission stated at this time
protection of the bank and slope from erosion would be a concern. The Commission received another complaint in the fall of 2007 that gravel was being removed from the site. Commissioner Glenn Colburn did not go to the site but spoke with Mr. Miller and his nephew and was assured that the activity that was occurring was removal of old metal and tires. Mr. Miller and his nephew asserted gravel removal was not occurring. The Commission has not seen any delineation of wetland boundaries, confirmed any wetland boundaries or approved any work beyond the removal of old tires, old equipment and trash. The Commission only asked that the area around the well house be protected from erosion of the open gravel and consider stabilizing the steep bank on the opposite site. There is no Notice of Intent or Request for Determination that has been filed for this site, hence there is no Order of Conditions in place for any work to occur at the site. The
Conservation Commission was not aware of and did not approve gravel removal at this site. A copy of the letter is hereto attached and incorporated into these minutes.
Chip Lapointe stated he received complaints relating to extensive earth removal on Mr. Miller’s property late summer of 2006. The work was in close proximity to a stream and there was a concern of erosion into the stream. Mr. Lapointe stated he spoke with Mr. Miller who told him he was not removing any material but trying to straighten out a drainage issue by diverting the run off into a stream with a pipe. Shortly after Mr. Lapointe stated he wrote to Mr. Miller explaining the bylaw enacted by the Town that required a special permit to remove material from the property. Mr. Lapointe stated he assumed none of the material was leaving the property because Mr. Miller said he was not removing material. A year later another complaint came into the office but a fence had been put up across
the entrance although there was evidence of tracking in and out. Mr. Lapointe stated in the previous 8 years of working in Monson there have been several construction project in and around this area but he had not observed any gravel removal operation. When the leaves came off the trees Mr. Lapointe stated he saw large trucks and heavy equipment operating on the property. He went to speak with Mr. Miller and Mr. Miller stated he had never been given a cease and desist order. Until the complaint was received there was no evidence that material was being removed. It is an allowed use under the bylaw to move material around on ones own property. Mr. Lapointe stated he would have noticed this before if the work with the heavy equipment and large trucks had been occurring.
Atty. Zubi stated an agreement has been made that the gravel operation would stop until either the Zoning Board overturns the decision or there is a court ruling. With regard to Mr. Lapointe’s observations the only one who can say with any certainty that material has been removed every year is the person who lives there. It is true that equipment has not always been on site but that does not mean Mr. Miller abandoned the use.
Chip Lapointe stated there is a section of the earth removal bylaw that does not require a special permit if the sand or gravel pit was in lawful operation at the effective date of the bylaw and certain conditions are met. The depth of excavation is not increased below the lowest point of excavation on the date the bylaw was adopted. The total area of excavation is not increased by more than 10% over its area on such date. The amount of material removed does not exceed the maximum removed during a daily operation during the 12 months preceding the effective date of the bylaw. The conditions under which a special permit is not required shall not include removal of earth materials from the premises when major topographical changes or soil stripping of loam stripping activities are involved.
Atty. Zubi stated his contention that the exemption does not apply to Mr. Miller because his use of the property predates the revision to the bylaw in 1988 and 1991. Mr. Miller’s use of the property predates all of the bylaws. He stated his client was willing to work with both Conservation and Mr. Lapointe to address any concerns.
William Donovan stated the Board typically checks with various Town Boards and Departments and when checking with the Assessors Office found that Mr. Miller has 8 acres in Chapter 61 A for agriculture and horticulture and 18 acres in Chapter 61 B for recreation. The reason for someone to put their land in either Chapter 61A, 61B or both is to reduce the taxes paid on the property and in return the property owner agrees to use the land as specified. A gravel removal operation is not an allowed use under Chapter 61A or 61B. The question then is does the excavation occur in the land that is in Chapter 61A or 61B?
Chip Lapointe stated in some of these programs the applicant has to submit a map or description of the land.
William Donovan stated whether the Board upholds the appeal or not it must be sure that they are fully aware of all facts pertaining to this property. With respect to the Conservation Commission’s letter the Board should be sure that whatever decision it makes it does not supersede any requirements the Commission may have.
Atty. Zubi stated he believed the concerns of the Conservation Commission are separate from those of the Zoning Board. The Conservation Commission determines what effect a gravel removal operation would have on the property.
Mr. Miller stated the Commission was on the site and saw that there was a gravel removal operation going on and never told him that they had a concern with that.
David Jarvis questioned if the object of the exercise was to beautify the property why remove the gravel from the site? Why not move it around on site to lessen the slopes and it would still be useful for agriculture. He stated he was not convinced that the gravel removal operation was a continuous one. He would like to see receipts a paper trail.
Atty. Zubi stated they have receipts from the 1950’s but do not have documentation or receipts that shows material was removed every year. Instead they have testimony from Mr. Miller and his family.
David Jarvis stated he was not trying to be difficult but wanted to be sure in his own mind that this is a continuous operation and testimony from family members is not convincing.
William Donovan stated if Mr. Miller received income from the gravel removal every year that should be reflected on his tax forms.
David Jarvis stated that would be a paper trail and show proof of continuity.
Atty. Zubi stated he respectfully disagreed with Mr. Jarvis that the only evidence the Board should rely on is written proof.
Frank Carey questioned if Atty. Zubi would clarify his statement in the Notice of Appeal submitted on behalf of Mr. Miller relating to “selective enforcement of the law and the zoning bylaws”.
Atty. Zubi stated the language he used is standard in court documents.
Frank Carey stated he read the sentence and the implication was Mr. Miller was being unfairly singled out and that is certainly not the case.
Atty. Zubi stated this was not personal and he did not think Mr. Lapointe had singled out Mr. Miller.
William Donovan stated he would like the business of Chapter 61A & Chapter 61B clarified.
Frank Carey questioned when the equipment was brought onto the property?
Mr. Miller stated 2006.
The Board members questioned if Mr. Miller would object to them making a site visit?
Mr. Miller stated he would have no objections as long as he was called prior to the visit. He stated Mr. Lapointe went onto his property without permission and took photographs and he did object to that.
Mr. Lapointe responded that the photographs were taken from the road and that an officer of the Monson Police Department was present when he took the photographs and could testify where the photographs were taken from.
With the agreement of all parties at 10:20 P.M. Nicola Gioscia moved to continue the hearing to February 28, 2008 at 8:15 P.M.
Frank Carey seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
10:30 151 Upper Hampden Road Amy St. Germain and David Nichols petition for a special permit to board, breed and train horses.
Following discussion of the testimony given and a review of the plans submitted the Board found:
1. The proposed horse barn would be situated 75 feet from any property line.
2. Adequate provision was made for the management of the horse manure.
3. The applicants have two existing driveways that would allow access for emergency vehicles should the need arise. The driveways would also allow easy access for a horse trailer.
4. The petitioners own approximately 37 acres of land and easily comply with the required 1 ½ acres for the first horse and ½ acre for each additional horse. There is ample space for off street parking.
Nicola Gioscia moved to GRANT THE PETITION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT with the following conditions:
1. The issuance of this Special Permit is limited to a facility for five (5) horses.
2. The issuance of this Special Permit is contingent upon the petitioner’s satisfying the requirements of the Department of Food and Agriculture.
3. Adequate off street parking shall be provided for horse related events.
4. The proposed horse barn shall be located no less than 75 feet from any property line.
5. A suitable compost area shall be maintained for the storage and management of manure.
6. This Special Permit is issued to the applicants and shall not be transferred or assigned without approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Roger Pelletier seconded the motion.
Each member was polled individually.
Voting to grant the special permit: Nicola Gioscia, Roger Pelletier, Frank Carey, David Jarvis and Teri Hrynkiw.
With no further business David Beaudoin moved to adjourn at 10:45 P.M.
Nicola Gioscia seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda A. Hull
| 
