The Town of Monson
Zoning Board of Appeals
29 Thompson Street
Monson, MA 01057
413-267-4111
Fax 267-4108
MONSON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES 10.24.2013
MEMBERS PRESENT: David Beaudoin, David Jarvis, Frank Carey, Tere Hrynkiw, John Martin and Ronald Fussell.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Scott O’Neill
Frank Carey moved to change the dates of the November and December meetings because of the Thanksgiving and Christmas holiday as follows:
Change the November meeting date from November 28, 2013 to Thursday November 21, 2013.
Change the December meeting date from December 26, 2013 to Thursday December 19, 2013.
Tere Hrynkiw seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
David Jarvis moved to approve the minutes of September 26, 2013 with a change to read Mr. Morris stated they propose to construct an addition to their existing home.
Frank Carey seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
7:45 Public Hearing continued for Antonio & Elizabeth Fernandes for Special Permit for earth remove for property on Boston Road.
Michael Mocko stated he talked briefly with Donald Frydryk on Wednesday October 23, 2013 with regard to Mr. Frydryk’s comments to the revised plan. Mr. Mocko stated he believed basically the comments came down to the minutia of engineering and can be easily remedied. He stated he was confident that all of the issues could be addressed to satisfy Mr. Frydryk and suggested the Board give its conditional approval subject addressing all of the issues raised by Mr. Frydryk.
Michael Mocko stated they would like to discuss the bonding for the project. This is not an earth removal project associated with a gravel pit. The material is being removed for the sole purpose of constructing a building and parking area.
David Beaudoin stated the Board has heard this argument before, Section 6.6.3.2. states “The Board shall require, as a condition to the granting of a special permit for the removal of earth material, that the applicant for the permit furnish cash, certified check, surety bond or other security in a sum sufficient to insure compliance etc..” The Monson Bylaw does not give the Board the authority to waive this requirement. If the applicant feels that the amount of the bond suggested by Mr. Frydryk is too high and cares to put forward quantities and costs the Board would take the amount of the bond under advisement.
David Beaudoin suggested Mr. Mocko address the remaining issues raised by Donald Frydryk.
Section 6.6.3 (c) Hours of Operation: The applicant submitted correspondence with the revised material indicating hours of operation to be 7:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Monday through Friday and 7:00 A.M. to 12:00 Noon Saturdays. The second sheet of the plan indicates hours of operation to be 5:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. Monday through Saturday.
Michael Mocko stated the hours of operation for the earth removal operation are proposed 7:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Monday through Friday and 7:00 A.M. to 12 Noon Saturdays. The hours of operation on the second sheet of the plans are proposed for the operation of the business and repair of machinery 5:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. Monday through Saturday because Mr. Fernandes business sometimes requires him to leave earlier than the normal 7:00 A.M. All repairs will be done inside the building and there will be times when he has to complete machinery repair that will require working later than the normal 5:00 or 6:00 P.M. Mr. Mocko stated he wanted to reiterate that all equipment/machinery repairs would be conducted inside the building that Mr. Fernandes proposes to build.
6.6.3 (f) The revised information shows a distance of 15 feet to the limit of the proposed boulder reinforced slope on the south and east side of the project, however it appears some excavation is required outside the limits of the boulder slope closer to the property line.
Michael Mocko stated some grading is proposed 10 feet from the property line but the grading proposed is more to smooth out the slope. The work involves smoothing out the grade of a foot or two.
Frank Carey questioned if the grading work affects the railroad property.
Michael Mocko stated the grading will not affect railroad property. He stated there was some discussion with his client about grading on the National Grid property but Mr. Fernandes decided against that because he wants to leave the hill to create a natural berm.
Antonio Fernandes stated the elevation when the project is complete will be approximately the same as the rail line but the natural earth hill will remain.
Michael Mocko stated all grading for the excavation is 15 feet plus from the property line and there will be minor smoothing of grades involving less than a 1 foot cut that will be within 10 feet of the property line.
Section 6.6.3.(i) The revised plans show a constructed stormwater wetland in place of the original infiltration basin to address the issues previously raised. DEP’s Structural Best Management Practices Specifications for this type of installation indicates the following:
- Never use constructed stormwater wetlands to manage runoff during site grading and construction.
Michael Mocko stated it is not the intent to use constructed wetlands as a sediment basin during construction and grading. It is proposed to establish a temporary sediment trap, excavate the site and grade, once that is complete the constructive wetlands will be built with silt fence around until vegetation has been established in entire disturbed area. The bottom of the constructed wetlands will be planted and then catch basins and piping to the constructive wetlands, at that point the temporary sediment trap will be phased out by filling to grade.
- Design the forebay with a capacity of a least 10% of the total treatment volume, normally 4-6 feet deep.
Michael Mocko stated he checked the capacity and final pool on the outlet and believes the design exceeds the requirement. The site is only 33,000 square feet if this was a large site with a large parking area a 4-6 feet deep forebay would be required. The proposed forebay pool 2 feet in depth is more than adequate for this application. The primary purpose of a forebay is to have access to dig out the sediment, the Monson Conservation Commission wants two catch basins with deep sumps and hoods to catch any sediment before it goes into the forebay.
- Access for maintenance with a minimum width of 15 feet and maximum grade of 15% is required to the forebay and outflow, which never crosses the emergency spillway unless the spillway has been constructed for this purpose.
Michael Mocko stated the access for cleaning is off of the edge of the parking lot which is 35 feet wide. The structure has been designed to require minimal maintenance. The outlet should be checked twice a year to make sure there is no floating debris and most of the maintenance can be done by hand with a rake and shovel.
- The construction of a stormwater wetland should follow all applicable portions of the DEP’s specifications.
Michael Mocko stated he believed he has been careful to follow the DEP guidelines.
- The DEP’s specifications require specific operation and maintenance requirements for constructed wetlands. The operation and maintenance plan shown on Sheet 2 of the plans should be revised, or a separate plan submitted that complies with these requirements.
Michael Mocko stated he could add more specifications but a little common sense on the property owners’ part is all that is needed.
The revised submission includes infiltration trenches to help meet the required groundwater recharge volumes; however the following should be noted:
- The Site Criteria for infiltration trenches indicates a minimum of 2 soil borings should be taken for each infiltration trench. Infiltration trenches over 100 feet long should include at least one additional boring for each 25 foot increment. Only one test pit is indicated near the proposed trench.
Michael Mocko stated he would he happy to do two more test pits if the Board required it. The soils in test pit 4 approximately 50 feet away are essentially the same as test pit 5 and he was confident that the soils are good for what was designed.
Antonio Fernandes stated a test pit was dug on the other end of the property and the soils are consistent throughout the property.
- The required setback from an infiltration trench to a private well is 100 feet, the proposed on site well is 50 feet.
Michael Mocko stated they would move the well site to comply with the 100 foot setback.
- The calculations submitted for the sizing of the trench do not appear to follow the requirements for this standard.
Michael Mocko stated the numbers have been corrected and the revised calculations do not affect the bottom line of the leaching trench.
- The calculation of required volume within the proposed trench appears to over estimate the available volume.
Michael Mocko stated the calculation has been corrected.
- According to DEP’s Capture Area Adjustment for infiltration trench design, additional information is required if only a portion of the proposed site is directed to the infiltration area.
Michael Mocko stated the Capture Area Adjustment calculations have been double checked. The total impervious area is 33,800 feet the requirement for that impervious capture area is to show .25 inches of volume going into infiltration area.
6.6.3. (k) Fencing and signs necessary for public safety: No fences are proposed along the easterly or southerly limits of excavation.
Michael Mocko stated he did not believe fencing around entire site was required. The slope is 1-1 and in order to access this area you would have to be on the railroad property.
Frank Carey questioned if the entire front of the property was fenced?
Michael Mocko stated it is with a gate.
Antonio Fernandes stated there is one area that is open the rest has a wire guard rail then the gate. He stated he would do something from the gate across the front to prevent access to the property.
Ronald Fussell questioned the length of the 1-1 slope?
Michael Mocko stated it is a little short of fifteen feet at the widest point.
(n) Provisions for Proper Access: The revised submission indicates that an application has been submitted to MassDOT for access to the site.
Michael Mocko submitted a copy of the permit issued by MassDot.
General Comments:
- No additional information has been submitted confirming the entire locus property is within the Town of Monson otherwise additional permitting may be required from the Town of Palmer.
Michael Mocko stated the surveyor checked in the State Map of Town Lines published in 1912 that surveyors defer to all the time and the book shows the Town line corresponds to the Mass State Highway boundary on the south side of Route #20.
- Provide a copy of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan to the Town of Monson when completed.
Michael Mocko stated they would provide a copy of the plan to the Town of Monson.
David Beaudoin stated he was not an engineer and speaking personally would like Mr. Mocko to respond to Donald Frydryk in writing.
Michael Mocko stated he had not had a chance to address in detail the issues raised by Mr. Frydryk but thought they were all solvable issues. He stated the verbal justification he had just given the Board would be the same he would give to Mr. Frydryk in writing and asked that instead of beating a dead horse the Board issue a conditional approval subject to satisfying the issues raised by Donald Frydryk.
Frank Carey stated he was not in favor of the Board taking a vote until the Board knows that Donald Frydryk is satisfied.
David Jarvis stated he would agree with Mr. Carey.
Antonio Fernandes stated he would provide the required bond.
Frank Carey moved to continue the hearing to November 21, 2013 at 7:45 P.M.
Tere Hrynkiw seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
Ronald Fussell moved to adjourn at 9:00 P.M.
Frank Carey seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda A. Hull
| 
