Monterey Planning Board
March 22, 2007
Minutes of the Meeting
Members Present: Brian Puntin, Cindy Hoogs, Janet Cathcart, Maggie Leonard, Stephen Rose
Public Present: Vladimir and Dagmar Kubes, Judy Hayes of 23 Tyringham Road, Richard Tryon of New Marlboro Road, Stephen Enoch of Gould Road, Eugene Bounous, Alan Salamon, Wayne Burkhart of Gould Road, and Alice Berke.
Vladimir and Dagmar Kubes arrived with a sign permit application to be located on Route 23. All members approved it.
Judy Hayes came with new plans for her addition. Cindy made a motion to make a favorable recommendation to the ZBA for the proposed addition. All members were in favor.
Richard Tryon arrived with a Special Permit for an addition. Cindy Hoogs recused herself. The house falls within the setback and the work does not. The ZBA hearing is for the 24th of April. Brian Puntin made a motion to make a finding that it doesn't increase the non-conformity. All were in favor.
The Planning Board public hearing started at 7:30. Maggie Leonard began a tape recorder. She read the printed notice of the public hearing. Then she stated the purpose of this hearing; review proposed Common Driveway [CD] bylaws and proposed amendment of 7c setback rules.
Maggie then read Maynard Forbes' comments on the 3rd draft of the CD bylaws. His three points were:
The applicant must apply for a curb cut no matter what.
Street numbering requirements should be spelt out in the bylaw.
Planning Board's approval of a plan does not mean Conservation Commission approval is un-necessary.
Janet Cathcart pointed out that nothing Maynard said is in conflict with the CD bylaws, and are clarifications. They won't substantively change the bylaw.
Maggie Leonard read a letter Richard Nault had sent. He was unable to attend the hearing and supported some kind of regulation that would create a safe and reasonable standard for access to all properties served by a CD. He recommended that a ride to the end of Northeast Cove road be taken. The last 200' of which have never been improved.
Maggie Leonard thought that NE Cove road was a sub-division prior to sub-division control. Janet Cathcart added that any new CD bylaws would not have an effect on current CDs in existence.
Eugene Bounous asked concerning his private driveway. His hope was that the CD bylaws would help him subdivide his land. Janet Cathcart explained that the CD bylaws don't change current subdivision requirements. What they do is set standards for CDs so as to make them safer. He wasn't completely sated and went on to explain that he had hoped they would be more useful to the town. As he saw it now, they were an addition that wasn't very useful.
Maggie offered that it might not be so difficult to go for the subdivisions under the current bylaws. Frustrated, he explained that he had previously tried and not been allowed.
Richard Tryon brought up an issue he foresaw with the curb cut. He said that if you allow a curb cut to be placed at the bottom of a hill, the town has to plow the bottom of the hill. If the cut is on the top of the hill, the town will plow to that point. He used this as an example for his recommendation that more people review the bylaws so that more opinions and conclusions are heard.
Cindy Hoogs returned that when a plan is submitted the board would at that point have the chance to review and allow for changes.
Richard continued on that he felt an engineer shouldn't be required.
Brian Putin took a stand against that idea setting up a "what if" scenario where a shoddy road is build because a builder uses 6" of gravel instead of 12".
Janet Cathcart disagreed, saying that since the Planning Board has to accept plans some standards need to be in place.
Richard stuck to his simple main point that an engineer shouldn't be required.
Janet said that the Planning Board reserves the right to have engineering consultation.
Stephen Enoch brought up an issue with the PB recusal protocol. He felt that when members recuse themselves they should leave the room. "These are guidelines from the state."
He listed changes or expectations he had for the CD bylaws: Include a date specifying grandfathered CDs, state that the CD rules are for new construction, not for repairs, state whether extending a current (grandfathered) CD requires that the bylaws need to be followed, and don't ask the homeowners to do more than what you ask the town to do.
Janet Cathcart answered that the PB's intent is to apply the bylaws only to new construction.
Steve restated that if someday the decision was made to apply the bylaws to repairs that the PB not exceed what is asked from the town. "If the town can do a quick repair without an engineer, than I can do a repair without an engineer."
Wayne Burkhart pointed out that some of the design standards are probably stricter than a lot of the roads in Monterey.
Brian Putin responded that for the most part they mirror the subdivision standards, but are actually less strict.
Maggie Leonard asked for some concrete examples.
Wayne mentioned Gould road that is currently being used as a detour. Wayne furthered that he wasn't against the PB having this initiative. He then asked a series of questions, "Is it clear who does what, who is going to apply the standards, how the standards are going to be viewed?"
Janet Cathcart answered that the building commissioner will be the last man on the spot. The PB will look and approve, and then Maynard Forbes will go out and look to make sure that they are actually following the standard.
Richard Tryon wondered about the maintenance of CDs. Maggie Leonard explained the maintenance association.
Allen Salamon was concerned with how a driveway has to be completed before any building permits are given. He felt that this was too strict and perhaps it should read that a certificate of occupancy be withheld until the road is completed instead. He also recommended that the PB prepare an association or easement agreement so that the town will have one form and not be negotiating on multiple forms.
Allen then asked if it was possible to have a lot that has less than 200' of frontage on a CD.
"Yes", Janet Cathcart said, "if it was a grandfathered lot."
Wayne Burkhart pointed out section VII, paragraph five whose wording excludes grandfathered lots.
Conversation on how to better this portion ensued.
Wayne returned to Allen's point concerning the easement agreement and the maintenance association. He felt that more work should be done so as to add some clarity. He furthered that the work should be to make this tool helpful and not an obstruction.
Maggie asked if he meant that people would have to go to a lawyer.
Wayne answered affirmatively.
Cindy shared her perspective that if someone is going to have four lots to build houses on, that they would already have the money and will be able to go to an attorney to setup the necessary paperwork. "I don't think it should be encumbered upon us to setup the maintenance association. If they are building four lots, they are going to get a lot of money when they sell them."
Wayne answered that that was just one scenario out of many. He wondered if as a safety valve for people doing modest projects an attorney wouldn't be required until three lots were involved.
Brian Putin stated that it potentially leaves the back person unprotected if there is no maintenance agreement or no deeded right of way.
Cindy agreed saying that some sort of maintenance agreement for two lots is necessary.
Conversation continues on with the tension between the two perspectives not abating.
Stephen Rose mentioned a change he favored that maximum lengths should be stated as from access to last lot being served.
Cindy Hoogs said that she wanted to include the Conservation Commission as a recipient of copies that the "Planning Board will distribute" from page two. It was then realized that Planning Board members had old copies and this change had already been made.
Eugene Bounous asked if lots around a cul-de-sac counted that as frontage. Maggie Leonard answered affirmatively and added that some lots in town have that. Eugene stated that the CD proposal was ridiculous and added more problems.
Cindy explained the history of some roads in town, how they are a problem and how the CD bylaws will help prevent similar problem roads from occurring again.
Allen Salamon wondered if there would be any enforcement after the CD is in. "Say it isn’t being plowed, would there be enforcement from the Planning Board?"
Janet explained that the maintenance association would be expected to allow the landowners to deal with enforcement. It wouldn't be added into the bylaws.
Allen asked if that was how subdivision regulations came into existence.
Maggie Leonard answered that there were a bunch of tiny lots being made, and the town decided to setup some regulations.
Maggie Leonard proposed a move to the second part of the hearing. The current bylaw and proposed amendment of VII.C.3 were read:
Existing: Setback - two-hundred-foot (200') buffer surrounding the property to be kept undisturbed except for the entrance and exit roadways.
Proposed: Setback - two-hundred-foot (200') buffer to be kept undisturbed except for the entrance and exit roadways, driveways and walkways, measured from the boundary of any abutter, but excluding road-lines where both sides of the road are owned by the educational use.
Stephen Rose stated that he found the wording of the last sentence awkward.
Cindy explained the situation of Orchard House at Gould Farm, and how that situation was the impetus for this change.
Allen Salamon speculated on different possibilities such as the property on the other side of the road being sold.
Wayne Burkhart agreed with that line of thinking saying that it can be dangerous to make a change for a specific situation and not take into account the other changes in the town it will allow for. He offered the idea of perhaps reducing the buffer or adding into the bylaws a special permit option.
Janet Cathcart wondered why there was a different buffer size than the standard. Maggie Leonard thought that perhaps it was because of the potential intensity (loads of people) of the use. Janet went further that is why you wouldn't do it by right, but allow different distances by special permit.
At this point Maggie voiced Fred Chapman's concerns. He had a quarrel with the whole idea that Gould Farm is an educational use. He didn't like the idea of any less oversight of their projects because he thinks that there is a lot of action going on there, and what they need is more oversight.
Cindy Hoogs pointed out that if the requirement is changed away from a 200' buffer, that didn't mean a special permit wouldn't be required. Using Gould Farm still as an example she said that most things built there would still need one.
Janet Cathcart offered a solution to Fred Chapman's concern over Gould Farm being called educational use. Re-title section VII.C to include "and rehabilitation services".
Stephen Rose continued with his initial assessment that 'use' should be changed. He offered the idea of 'owner'.
Maggie closed the hearing at 8:56pm all citizen's having been heard.
Eugene Bounous asked what the story was on wind generators and cell towers. Maggie Leonard said that those are areas that need work.
Further talk on specific details of cell towers.
Minutes from 3/8/07 read and approved.
Meeting adjourned at 9:32pm
| 
