Present were Sid Starks, Chair;
Michael Przybylowicz, Vice Chair; Marilyn Richards, Clerk, Donald Anderson and
Louis Calabrese. The Chair opened the
meeting at
Informal
Meeting with Denis Superczynski
Denis met with the Board to
bring them up to date on the progress of the community development plan. He said a community priority workshop should
be scheduled as a forum where strategies and maps could be presented for the
public to review and to provide comment.
The Board agreed that
Public Hearing on Design Review
By-law
At
Mr. Anderson presented the Design
Review By-law and explained that it would merely be a part of recommendations
within the Site Plan Review permitting process. He said the purpose and the goal was
to enhance the natural, aesthetic
quality of the Town; to preserve the value of the land and buildings; and to
protect and to preserve the culture aspects and heritage of the Town. He said the by-law
was not designed to create obstacles for business owners, but rather provide
them the opportunity to join together in an attempt to promote new development
that is aesthetically compatible with existing buildings and the infrastructure
of the town. The by-law is designed to
encourage and assist building owners to restore and rehabilitate existing buildings,
encourage originality and creativity in the design and remodeling of existing
buildings, and to maintain and enhance the appearance and size of signage new
and existing, all of which is good for the Town as well as the business
owners. Mr. Anderson said a very
important point for all to understand is that the new by-law would not extend
the permitting process, nor would it require another public hearing. The design review committee will meet prior
to the public hearing to review the plan much like the work sessions that are
presently in place that Ms. Macdonald schedules with department heads and
developers. The committee is expected to
make recommendations to the Planning Board who will then discuss those
recommendations at the public hearing on the Site Plan Review. In January of 1999, the Town adopted chapter
451, the acts of 1998, which authorized the imposition of fees for the
employment of outside consultants, thus giving the Planning Board the authority
to hire outside consultants to assist the Board in its review with any costs
related to those consultant fees would be paid by the developer. Although this type of review is presently
allowed under the authority of the Board, the members have chosen to verbally
incorporate the language into the by-law under Site Plan Review. This will allow each and every applicant specific
knowledge of this design review at the time of submission of their plans. The Board is
desirous that all new construction and or alterations are proposed showing
architectural qualities that will enhance the overall look of the Town’s
business areas. Although
it may seem the proposal is too subjective, it is the intention of the Board to
relay on the recommendations of the members of the committee who have the expertise
necessary to achieve the goal anticipated.
He explained that the design review was an advisory committee made up of
Planning Board Administrator, a qualified architect or landscape designer, a
person owning and operating a business in
Ms. Richards said the Board agreed
with the business community to revisit their goals in establishing the by-law
and said she was excited that the recommendation for the by-law will be
presented at Town meeting. Mr. Starks addressed
the audience for any questions.
Steve Graziano said that when the idea was originally discussed it was
designed for business zoned property, and questioned whether or not the Industrial
Park is excluded? Mr. Anderson said he
was not sure and if it was an oversight, it certainly was not the intent of the
Board.
Joe Dilk said it was big concern that the
Ken Delude, Westmass Area
Development said that the working sessions
really help Westmass make a more thorough submission and that Westmass has
their own restrictions and regulations that pertain to all applicants planning
to build in the
Mr. Starks said the design review
is not intended for every single project that comes before the Planning Board,
most of the projects are Waiver of Site Plan Review. The proposal is to provide the Board with
expertise if the members feel there is a big project they uncomfortable with. Mr. Calabrese said he felt that every
submittal from the Industrial Development Committee has been presented first-class,
but he is concerned with eliminating the requirement in the entire Garden
Industrial zone as it presents a bit of problem because not everything in the
Garden Industrial zone comes under the jurisdiction of Westmass Development
Area Development. He said it would make
more sense granting a waiver in those cases that are in the park because there
are already deed restrictions in place.
Steve Graziano suggested
that Planning Board should adopt Westmass’s guidelines if they are so good for
all of the
Dan Burack,
Dan Burack asked
at what point does a small business owner have to come
before the Board for Site Plan Review.
Mr. Anderson said if there was any change of use or any alterations over
2,000 square feet. Anything under 2.000
is entitled to a Waiver of Site Plan Review.
John Maybury,
Steve Graziano said
there are a lot situations throughout the Town where
the properties are non-conforming and there needs to be someone representing
that businessperson. He said the whole
purpose of the by-law was to help the businessperson who never built a building
and needed some guidance so they would not hit the obstacles of the Planning
Board.
John Maybury said
that it is not a matter of what you can and can’t do,
it is about how open the line of communication is from the Planning Board. He further stated that as a Planning Board they
need to do what they were elected to do;
to listen to what people want; and to articulate that back and fourth in
a very pro active and positive way.
Mr. Starks addressed the Board
for any further questions. There being
none, and upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (5-0)
to close the public hearing. Upon motion
duly made and seconded, the Board voted (5-0) to waive Westmass Area
Development Corporation and the Industrial Garden District because of the specific
restrictions that have been very effective and the Board would take those suggestions
under advisement.
Public Hearing on Flood Plain
Overlay District
At
Mr.
Przybylowicz presented the proposal for the Flood Plain Overlay District By-law
and read into the record recommendations for changes to the by-law from the
Department of Environmental Management.
Mr.
Starks addressed the Board for any questions.
Ms.
Richards added that a list of definitions have to be submitted that accompany
the recommendations to change the by-law and being presented to the Town voters
under a separate article for definitions, but that the public hearing was
covering the Flood Plain Overlay District and the definitions that go along
with making the by-law more clear.
Mr.
Starks addressed the audience for any questions.
Tom
Morrissette asked if there were any other
changes beside the recommendations.
Mr.
Przybylowicz said no there were not.
Upon
motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to close the
public hearing.
Public Hearing on Zoning Map
At
Ms. Richards presented the new
Zoning Map and explained that section 2.1 of the East Longmeadow Zoning By-laws
addresses the building zone map of 1978, which identifies the locations and
boundaries of all of the zoning districts, with the exception of the flood
plain district. She said the by-law
further states that from time to time the zoning map may be amended by a vote
of Town Meeting. Further, the article for
discussion that evening was a request by the Planning Board to authorize the
amendment of the current zoning map to be discussed at the Annual Town Meeting
on
Marty Kane,
John Maybury said
that the map was done in ARC View CAD System and the information would
only get better.
Mr. Starks addressed the Board
for any questions. There being none and upon motion
duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to close the public
hearing.
Public Hearing Continuance –
At
Ralph Butler,
Jill Shea
Robert
Dobek
Ed Pesce,
Civil Engineer for the project
Rick
Bates, Police Department
Gary Roux
Mr. Pesce
submitted revised plans to the layout and zoning plan and explained that
traffic calming techniques have been reviewed by the Police Department such as
adding the word pavement markings and some traffic calming chevrons. He said that the parking spaces were changed
from a 60 degree angle parking to 90 degree angle parking, a special turnaround
lane was added at the library entrance and 2 parking spaces were deleted near
Sergeant
Rick Bates said he spent a lot of time with Mr. Pesce because of the concerns
the Police Department has with the intersection. He said he feels as though a safer solution
has been determined for the community and the fact that the developer is
willing to amend their Site Plan if a problem arises. Sergeant Bates said that the chevrons
proposed would not cover the entire lane in order to leave an area along the
roadside for a bike lane.
Mr.
Starks asked how much noise would the chevron produce when a vehicle traveled
over it. Sergeant
Bates said he did not have any experience with the raised chevrons and said it should
not be as loud the rumbles strips. Mr.
Saveria explained that the thermal plastic pavement markers are commonly used
especially in urban areas with heavy traffic.
He added that they are used primarily because the material is more
durable than paint, is not a very thick layer and
doesn’t make any noise that could be heard outside of the vehicle.
Mr.
Starks addressed the Board for any questions for Sergeant Bates.
Mr.
Anderson asked Sergeant Bates what his thought was on adding one more stop sign
to the entrance a little further north.
Sergeant Bates said he would have to consider it. He did say that one of the most likely
problems that will occur is a conflict in front of Rocky’s and the intersection
by the bank, so he was not sure that it would be beneficial. Mr. Anderson said at least it would create a
break in traffic and on the computer graphics it gave the appearance that the
traffic flow was straight in, however the entrance is not as clean of
flow as the computer graphic indicates. Mr.
Anderson expressed his opinion that a stop sign would break up some of the
entrance traffic in both areas, plus create a little bit of break for the
people on
Mr.
Saveria stated by placing a stop sign at that location would mean every vehicle
coming southbound would have to stop before the driveway, whether there is
someone coming out or not. Mr. Anderson
said absolutely. Mr. Saveria said there
would be a tremendous back up on
Mr.
Starks said his concerns with the mitigation agreement is that a problem is acknowledged
now however the developer continues to want to have the left turn out of the
project and provide mitigation “if a problem is determined”. Mr. Starks said why not forego the mitigation
agreement and remove the left hand turn out at the onset and not wait for more
difficult problems to occur.
Mr.
Saveria said when studies were done in the past, a temporary stop sign was
placed on the rotary for 90 days, 120 days and lines
were painted along the street, which seemed to work real well. He said why not put it in with a stop sign
for 90 days, study it or without a stop sign when it is first constructed with
the understanding that a stop sign could be placed if it becomes
congested. Mr. Falcone said that would
be part of the mitigation agreement, and said he did not have a problem with
that idea. Mr. Falcone said the Board
needs to give the proposal a chance in order to prove that they are right and
let them have it they it is designed.
Mr. Starks said his concern was how difficult it will be to actually
receive the benefits of the mitigation agreement. Sergeant Bates added that the state
establishes a warrant which allows a Town to install stop signs and there are
only four presently proposed. He did not
think it is going to fit and said most of the time the Police stay within the
State guidelines.
Ms.
Richards asked if there was a stop sign instead of the “Do Not Block
Intersection” would that slow the traffic down as it is entering into the
center and give the people that are queuing in line to turn left across the traffic
an opportunity to go forward, possibly reducing the
vehicles queuing into the center? Mr.
Pesce said they did think that could be an option and but they were not sure
that would be effective or what it would do to the southbound traffic. Mr. Saveria said he thought what is being
suggested is a real reversal of everyone’s normal expectations when they get to
that kind of intersection. He added that
if someone is going to take left into the driveway, they know they will have to
yield to the on-coming traffic, and stay and wait for a gap before they
turn. If all of the expectations the
drivers have are violated and all these controls are put on their normal
behavior they are going to become confused.
Ms. Richards said the center is not like other intersections and she was
proposing something to offer some relief to the vehicles that are queuing to
left into the project. Mr. Saveria said
it was demonstrated that the vehicles do not have any relief, that there are
enough gaps in that southbound flow for the vehicles to turn in without having
a queue that extends back to the rotary.
He said that their position is that it will operate safely and
efficiently they way it is and the Board is wrong to place further restriction
on movement at the beginning as there will be a mitigation agreement which will
address any problems that an issue. Mr.
Przybylowicz asked if the mitigation agreement to revisit the traffic was based
on occupancy. Mr. Saveria said no, but
there are 3 criteria that have been established in the monitoring plan which
must be met to determine whether the situation would warrant revisiting the
traffic pattern.
Mr.
Starks asked if right turn in and right out could be added to the mitigation
agreement. Mr.
Falcone said that legally he would have to provide notice to the tenants ahead
of time that there may be a restriction entering the site. Sergeant Bates added based on what Steve
Saveria and Gary Roux submitted, and, after working with
Mr.
Anderson asked if the area in front of Rocky’s could be angled parking. Sergeant Bates said his experience was most
of the time, if someone parked in those spaces they back out that way
anyway. Mr. Anderson said there are two
high traffic businesses, the bank and Walgreens. He asked if there would be any other high
traffic businesses, and if not, how many more high traffic businesses can the
project handle and still be within the rules.
Mr. Pesce said as many as the by-law requires, which is up to 20% and currently
they are at 15%.
Mr.
Przybylowicz asked Sergeant Bates why he changed his mind about the rail trail
parking spaces. Sergeant Bates said part
of it was the clearing of the area, lighting and
security cameras, and it is his understanding that most of the parking spaces
are going to be utilized by the Healthtrax employees, so by educating the
employees he feels they are reducing the risk along that area.
Mr.
Calabrese expressed that the Board made a good decision and in the best
interest of the town’s people to hire a professional to pass judgment on
traffic as opposed to each of the members doing the job. He stated he was very impressed that Officer
Bates, Gary and Steve worked together to come up with a plan that works and
also an alternative should it not work.
He said a far as the traffic goes he thinks everyone has done a good job
and should move on to what ever else is a problem.
Mr.
Starks asked Sergeant Bates if he was comfortable with the mitigation agreement. He replied he was.
Mr.
Starks addressed the audience for any questions.
John
Romito,
Mr.
Starks stated that Walgreens has not been approved, a special permit was
approved for the non-conformity so a future structure could be placed within
the footprint, however each store will have to come
before the Board for Site Plan prior to construction.
John
Maybury,
Upon
motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to continue
the hearing until
There being no further
business, and upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously
(5-0) to close the meeting at
For
the Board,
Marilyn
M. Richards, Clerk