MONSON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES MAY 28, 2015
MEMBERS PRESENT: David Beaudoin, David Jarvis, Frank Carey, Tere Hrynkiw, Ron Fussell and John Martin
ALSO PRESENT: B. J. Church, Zoning Enforcement Officer and Theresa Martin.
7:30 Frank Carey moved to accept the minutes of April 23, 2015 as presented.
David Jarvis seconded the motion.
It was so voted, unanimous.
The Board received a written request from Antonio & Elizabeth Fernandes to extend the Special Permit for Earth Removal on Boston Road issued by the Board on December 2, 2013.
Frank Carey questioned if there had been any complaints regarding the earth removal?
The Zoning Enforcement Officer stated her office was not aware of any complaints.
Frank Carey moved to grant an extension for one (1) year with the conditions and limitation imposed by the Board in the decision to remain in place. He also suggested a reminder to the applicant to make sure the site is secured at the end of work each evening.
John Martin seconded the motion.
It was so voted, unanimous.
John Martin stated his intent to resign from the Zoning Board of Appels after the June meeting due to work conflicts.
David Beaudoin stated it was with regret that he would forward the letter to the Board of Selectmen and thanked Mr. Martin for his service to the Board.
Theresa Martin stated she has become familiar with the workings of the Board during her husbands’ time on the Board and would like the opportunity to join the Zoning Board of Appeals.
David Beaudoin stated he would happily forward the letter to the Board and on behalf of the Board would recommend that the Board of Selectmen appoint Theresa Martin to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
7:45 The Chairman reconvened the Public Hearing for Bell Atlantic Mobile of Massachusetts Corporation, Ltd., d/b/a Verizon Wireless for a variance from the required front yard setbacks of the Monson Zoning Bylaws for equipment to support antenna located in the First Church steeple, 5 High Street..
David Beaudoin read a letter from Ellen Freyman, Esq., stating Verizon has moved the location of the cement pad for the generator and condensers to comply with the forty (40) feet front setback from Fountain Street. A stamped and signed plan accompanied the letter demonstrating the setbacks from the property line. Based on compliance with the Monson Zoning Bylaws setback requirement Verizon Wireless was requesting approval from the Monson Zoning Board of Appeals to withdraw its petition for a variance without prejudice.
Frank Carey moved approve the request.
Tere Hrynkiw seconded the motion.
It was so voted, unanimous.
8:00 P.M. Public Hearing for a variance from Section 3.1 Dimensional & Density Regulations (Table 2) of the Monson Zoning Bylaws for property located at 16 Lakeside Drive. Property owners Jessica & Mickey Lister are requesting a variance to construct an addition to the front of their existing home that will not comply with the forty (40) feet front setback and an addition to the rear of an existing non-conforming shed. The property is zoned Rural Residential. Case B – 2015 advertised May 14, & 21, 2015.
Following comments from the Chairman regarding the powers and purpose of the Zoning Board of Appeals, the time constraints the Board must meet to hold a public hearing, and issue a decision, the manner in which the hearing would be conducted and introduction of the members of the Board, the Clerk of the Board read the legal notice as appeared in the Republican Newspapers the weeks of May 14, & 21, 2015.
Jessica Lister made a presentation to the Board stating her home has frontage on two Town ways, Lakeside Drive and Hilltop Drive. The front of the house faces Lakeside Drive and the variance is requested to add a 12’ x 12’ entry way to the front door, surrounded by a 24’ x 16’ deck, and a 24’ x 16’ addition to the rear of an existing non-conforming shed that faces Hillside Drive. The addition to the shed is to allow the installation of a garage door to store a vehicle.
Ronald Fussell questioned the setbacks of other homes in the neighborhood?
Jessica Lister stated many of the homes are closer to the road than her house will be even after the addition. If the Board were to grant the variances the property would still be in keeping with other homes on Lakeside Drive and Hilltop Drive.
David Beaudoin stated the members who made a site visit saw that the granting of the variances would be in keeping with the existing neighborhood because there are many homes closer than Mr. & Mrs. Listers’. The addition to the shed is going away from the road, and he personally saw no problem with the proposed additions to existing buildings.
Tere Hrynkiw questioned the easement shown on the plan?
Jessica Lister stated the easement allows access to the lake.
There was no one present to speak in favor or in opposition to the petition.
The Board received a letter from abutters Carrlane & Linda Quackenbush, 17 Lakeside Drive stating they had spoken with Mrs. Lister and as proposed have no objections to the granting of the variances.
Ronald Fussell questioned if the homes on Hilltop Drive consistently met the front setbacks?
Jessica Lister stated no, there was no consistency.
With no further questions from the Board members Frank Carey moved to close the hearing at 8:20 P.M.
David Jarvis seconded the motion.
It was so voted, unanimous.
Frank Carey stated he had no problem with the petition, the property is located on a hillside and the addition to the front of the home will not be easily visible from the road. The front addition would make for a safer entry into the home and would make it more visually attractive. The addition to the rear of the shed would not be easily visible from Hillside Drive.
David Jarvis stated he had no issues.
David Jarvis moved to grant a variance for a front porch/deck and 12’ x 12’ front entry way that would be no closer to Lakeside Drive than thirty three feet two inches (33’ 2”) and for a variance for an addition to the existing shed that will not increase the existing non-conformity.
Tere Hrynkiw seconded the motion.
It was so voted, unanimous.
.
8:30 Public Hearing for a Special Permit as provided by Section 3.1 Schedule of Use Regulations Table 1 of the Monson Zoning Bylaws for Dwellings and housekeeping facilities for employees and non-paying guests of owner or lessee in accessory building. The applicant and property owner Judy Van De Geer is requesting the special permit to construct a barn with two (2) apartments on the second floor for student interns and farm workers on her property located at 23 Munn Road. The property is in the Village Residential and Rural Residential zoning districts. Case C – 2015 advertised the Republican newspaper the weeks of May 14, & 21, 2015.
Also Present: James Brown, Esq., 118 Washington Road, Brimfield, MA legal counsel for the applicant.
Atty. Brown stated his client proposes to construct a barn approximately 70’ x 112’ to accommodate horse stalls, bathroom and three garages on the first floor and two apartments on the second floor. The apartments would be occupied by university/college interns studying sustainable growing practices. The students would earn credit hours and no money would be changing hands.
Present and speaking in favor: George Pigeon 12 Munn Road, Anita Pigeon 12 Munn Road and Sarah Lopes 12 Munn Road.
Present and speaking in opposition or to express concerns: Paul Hatch 53 Munn Road Linda Hatch, 53 Munn Road, David Hatch 35 Munn Road, Mark Schwartz, 18 Munn Road and Sylvia Schwartz, 18 Munn Road.
Atty. Brown stated the applicant also runs an animal rescue operation that is growing and has a non-profit to run that. He stated the programs are not set in stone, students would be studying growing sustainable food crops in urban settings and small scale rural settings. The applicant is looking to partner with the University of Massachusetts or some other institution.
David Hatch questioned if the programs were already established with U. Mass or some other institution?
Atty. Brown stated they are not established at this location.
David Hatch questioned if there was an agreement in place with U. Mass?
Atty. Brown stated the applicant is also in talks with Holyoke Community College as a backup plan. He reiterated no money would be changing hands.
Paul Hatch questioned the location of the proposed building?
Atty. Brown stated the barn would be tucked behind the existing barn.
Mark Schwartz stated there is nothing substantive in the information being given, neighbors want to know exactly what is proposed on the property. Mrs. Van De Geer has a relatively new shed on her property that is air conditioned and she refers to it as the visiting center. What type of people will be there? What kind of traffic flow will be generated? There are no comprehensive plans detailing exactly what Mrs. Van De Geer proposes.
Atty. Brown stated the building is a shed.
Judy Van De Geer stated it is a playhouse for her grandchildren.
Atty. Brown stated there would be four cars and four students staying on the property.
Mark Schwartz questioned where the unpaid farm workers fit into this?
Atty. Brown stated when he was at University he was a Clerk for a law firm that he received credit hours for but no payment.
Mark Schwartz stated Ms. Van De Geer has not offered any solid information regarding what she proposes on her property. The potential for something may be there but without concrete plans there is no way to know. He questioned if Ms. Van De Geer would be moving into the barn whilst work was done on her home?
Judy Van De Geer stated she was a professor and would oversee the academic work and the behavior of the students living on her property. Blue Star in Palmer has rotating students on the property looking after the horses.
Atty. Brown stated the renovation to her existing home is a separate issue.
B J Church Building Commissioner stated she reviewed the information provided and after listening to the presentation from the applicant could not see how this meets the bylaw. The students staying on the property would be paying fees to the institution they are attending and Ms. Van De Geer would be receiving a salary from that institution as the professor teaching the course. The bylaw reads employees and non-paying guests.
Atty. Brown stated employees can mean farm workers.
Mark Schwartz questioned if the people occupying the apartments would be students or farm workers?
Atty. Brown stated this is the filing that most closely fits what his client would like to do.
B J Church stated in her experience enforcement of the Special Permit would be difficult based on the lack of information. It would appear there is no definite plan in place.
David Hatch stated his question regarding a definite agreement between the applicant and U. Mass or any other institution was not answered?
Atty. Brown conceded there was no concrete plan in place.
B J. Church stated her concern that the facility could be built with the two apartments on the second floor and the program with U. Mass or another institution does not happen. The obvious answer would be to rent out the apartments and that makes enforceability of the bylaw a concern.
Judy Van De Geer stated the apartments are not meant to be rented out. The existing barn is not in good condition, the rescue animals must have a safe environment. The proposed building will be totally solar with a stable capacity for 10 animals. If U. Mass or Hampshire College deems it a good property to put interns on the details of the program could be worked out. There would be maximum of four students.
Mark Schwartz questioned the design of the barn and length of time the construction for the barn and renovation to the house would take?
Craig Sweitzer stated the discussion should be kept to the Bylaw and how the project meets or does not meet the bylaw.
Mark Schwartz stated the length of time and amount of construction on the property is of concern to neighbors. There will be noise, dust and a lot of heavy equipment in and out of the property.
David Beaudoin stated he would agree that the discussion stay on track but he would not stop anyone attending the public hearing from voicing their opinions or concerns. This is their neighborhood and they will be living there through the construction of the project and after.
Paul Hatch stated he agreed with the Building Commissioner that as proposed the project does not correspond to the bylaw.
B J Church stated she did not want to argue or challenge the interpretation of the Bylaw by Atty. Brown, but her interpretation of this section of the bylaw was that the project did not meet the bylaw.
David Jarvis questioned if Ms. Van De Geer had anything from the school she is working with?
Atty. Brown stated it is a matter of interpretation and he was ready to argue his interpretation of the bylaw.
Judy Van De Geer stated she did not, she had to have the apartments in place before she could put anything in place with a school. Currently she runs an animal rescue from her property and needs help to do that.
Atty. Brown requested a continuance of the public hearing to June 25, 2015 at 7:30 P.M.
Frank Carey moved to approve the continuance.
David Jarvis seconded the motion.
It was so voted, unanimous.
9:15 David Beaudoin moved to go into executive session to discuss litigation not to return to open session.
David Jarvis seconded the motion.
It was so voted, unanimous.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda A. Hull
| 
