ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES APRIL 23, 2015
MEMBERS PRESENT: David Beaudoin, Frank Carey Ronald Fussell and Tere Hrynkiw.
MEMBERS ABSENT David Jarvis and John Martin.
7:30 Frank Carey moved to accept the minutes of March 25, 2015 as presented.
Ronald Fussell seconded the motion.
It was so voted, unanimous.
7:45 Chairman David Beaudoin convened a Public Hearing for a Variance from the Dimensional and Density Regulations of the Monson Zoning Bylaws for Bell Atlantic Mobile of Massachusetts Corporation, Ltd., d/b/a Verizon Wireless. The applicant seeks a variance to erect an equipment shed within the required front yard setback on property located a 5 High Street, owned by the First Church of Monson. The property is zoned Residential Village.
Frank Carey read the legal notice as it appeared in the Republican Newspaper the weeks of April 6, & 13, 2015, Case No: A – 2015.
Present representing Verizon Wireless: Ellen Freyman, Esq., Shatz, Schwartz & Fenton P.C., Douglas Roberts, Hudson Design Group, LLC, Jay LaTorre, Verizon Wireless.
David Beaudoin stated the description equipment shed is misleading, a better description would be an open equipment enclosure.
Atty. Freyman stated Verizon is asking to pour a cement pad on which a generator and two condensers would be located, a six foot fence would surround the equipment and arborvitae planted around the fence. Verizon Wireless has antennas located in the church steeple, but there is no room in the church for the emergency generator and condensers. The configuration of the site forces Verizon to locate the enclosure in the required forty (40) foot setback. The proposed location would still leave twenty (20) feet between the enclosure and Fountain Street.
Atty. Freyman stated the three circumstance that the Board must find in order to grant a variance, 1. “Circumstances that relate to the soil conditions, shape or topography of the land or structures, and especially affecting such land or structure, but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located.” 2. “Literal enforcement of the Bylaw would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise.” 3. Desirable relief may be granted, without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the Bylaw”, are addressed in the Request for a Variance but briefly the shape of the site and existing development on the parcel as well as the two front yard requirements dictates the proposed location of the enclosure.
Verizon Wireless selected this site to locate its antennas in the church steeple because it would have the least visual impact on the surrounding area. If Verizon were unable to locate the equipment enclosure and consequently the antennas at the site it would result in a hardship to Verizon Wireless. The equipment enclosure is to be located on the side of the church within the side yard requirement and will be buffered by a six (6) foot fence and a row of arborvitae, any detriment to the neighborhood with respect to visual intrusion would be minimal.
David Beaudoin read a letter from B. J. Church Building Commission/Zoning Enforcement Officer that questioned the need for a variance because there is space on the property to locate the slab. The issuance of a variance may place an unfair burden on the residents of Fountain Street with regards to noise from the equipment. The Building Commissioner stated if the Board grants a variance the proposed arborvitae must at the time of planting be the same height as the proposed six (6) foot stockade fence. The equipment to be installed must comply with Section 5.1.3 Noise of the Monson Zoning Bylaws.
Frank Carey questioned how often the generator would be tested?
Atty. Freyman stated the generator would be tested once a week for approximately 15 to 20 minutes with one of the two condensing units running at one time.
David Beaudoin questioned if the location of the generator and condensers could be swopped around?
Douglas Roberts stated the generator and condensers are within the proposed enclosure changing them around would not make any difference to the request for a variance.
Frank Carey questioned if the proposed enclosure could be slid over closer to the Church?
Douglas Roberts stated he would not want to go to close to the Church because of undermining the foundation.
Frank Carey stated pouring a slab and installing a fence should not impact the foundation.
Douglas Roberts stated the purpose of the fence and the arborvitae was to avoid a clear view of the equipment and to try to contain some of the noise. He stated he could take another look at the site to see if he could come up with a plan to move the slab over.
Peggy Paine 11 High Street questioned what she would hear from her home?
Atty. Freyman stated it would be less than a motorcycle.
David Beaudoin stated to clarify the fence would be six (6) feet in height and the arborvitae at the time of planting would also be six (6) feet in height.
Atty. Freyman stated she would like to request a continuance to allow further review of the site to see if the equipment enclosure could be moved to comply with the setbacks.
Frank Carey moved to grant a continuance to Thursday May 28, 2015.
Tere Hrynkiw seconded the motion.
It was so voted, unanimous.
8:45 Tere Hrynkiw moved to adjourn.
Ronald Fussell seconded the motion.
It was so voted, unanimous.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda A. Hull
| 
