Minutes of January 24, 2006
Present were: Donald Anderson,
Chairman; Louis Calabrese, Vice Chairman:
Michael Przybylowicz, Clerk;
Marilyn Richards and Thomas Morrissette.
Mr. Anderson reopened the public
hearing and welcomed the developer, Michael Carabetta.
Mr. Calabrese read a letter from
Felix LaRosa,
·
With regard to the drainage issue. Don Smith of Smith Associates certified the
plan and the plan submitted matches the information relating to the 15 foot
drainage easement from Redstone Drive on
the Town’s tax map (see attached) as well as the records filed with the
Department of Public Works on a plan entitled easement and right of way for
storm drain and storm water discharge dated August, 1957, recorded at Hampden
County Book 2570, Page 182. This
easement measures 415 linear feet and runs along the property lines of Varelas
and (now) Carabetta and creates a natural drain (swale) thus directing drainage
toward the quarry pond.
·
The other 15 foot drainage easement
discussed is located at the rear properties at
·
The proposed extension of
·
The developer has agreed to revise the
plan and change the cul-de-sac radius from 43 feet to 45 feet.
·
The developer has agreed to revise the
plan to add “water easement” to the sanitary sewer easement running between lots
2R and 3. This easement will service
sewer and water to lots 4 and 5.
·
We met with the developer to discuss
the sidewalk issue regarding the relationship of the sidewalk and the proposed
paved drainage swale. It has been
decided that the sidewalk will end at the driveway to
·
George Kingston determined that the
area is not under the jurisdiction of the Conservation Commission (see e-mail
attached hereto and dated January 23, 2006).
·
The drainage plan for this proposal was
again reviewed and based on the design prepared by Robert Cafarelli, PE, the
plan shows that the sizing of the retention basin will handle the required 100
year storm event.
·
The roadway drainage as designed meets
the requirements of Department of Public Works.
The creation of the public way, as designed, will not negatively impact
the existing drainage at this site.
Mr. Anderson addressed Mr.
Carabetta for any additional comments.
Mr. Carabetta said he felt that the letters that were written pretty
much said it all and he feels that all of the requirements have been
fulfilled. Mr. Carabetta presented the
revised changes in the cul-de-sac showing the new radius of 45 degrees and
showing the sidewalks stopping short of the paved swale.
Mr. Przybylowicz asked Mr.
Carabetta if the ponding of the water was going to be addressed. Mr. Carabetta said there were a couple of
problems, one was that the drainage easement wasn’t working and the run off
from that was affecting it and by right someone should clean it out, but it is
private property and he was uncertain as to how to address it.
Mr. Anderson addressed the
audience for any questions.
Keith Lindner, 36 Redstone
Drive said with regard to the drainage,
more of it goes through his property and affects it. Mr. Carabetta said he thinks that the
easement should continue down and go toward the quarry and would like to be
able to clean it out so it could flow the way it was designed to. Mr. Linder said it may appear that the
drainage goes into the quarry but nothing does because of the way of the rock
formations are underneath it.
Mr. Anderson said that
Conservation went out to the site the previous day and are aware of the issue
but it is not a Conservation issue.
Mr. Lindner asked Mr. Carabetta
where the detention pond was going, and Mr. Carabetta showed Mr. Linder the
location on the plan. Mr. Lindner said
the abutter who was worried about the deer - he never saw any deer when he was
growing up, but sees them all the time now.
Ms. Richards asked Mr. Carabetta
if the corner part of the parcel is filled to redirect the flow of water, would
the water coming from other parcels make there water problems worse? Mr. Carabetta said no because their elevation
is much higher.
Mr. Lindner said he would like to
make sure that the water was not going to be redirected onto his property. Mr. Carabetta said that they were going to
try and redirect it to the existing easement.
Mr. Anderson addressed the Board
for any further comments or questions.
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to
close the hearing. Two members who did
not vote were Don Anderson and Michael Przybylowicz because they were not in
attendance at the first vote. Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board
voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the subdivision for the extension of
Dearborn Street subject to DPW’s recommendations and changes – noting that the Conservation
Commission ruled it was not in their jurisdiction – not conservation land, and that the developer provide the required
stop sign and street sign (Police Department) at Dearborn Street & Harwich
Road.
After
review of the application and the diagrams/pictures, it was unanimously voted
(5-0) by the Board to APPROVE the sign as presented conditioned upon obtaining a sign permit from the Building
Inspector with an
interior lit ground sign and no LED lighting.
After review of the sign application,
the Board unanimously (3-0) voted to rescind their previous decision regarding
two signs. Upon motion duly made and
seconded, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the one sign submitted,
conditioned upon obtaining a sign permit from the Building Inspector and that lighting
of said sign is not by LED.
Mr. Anderson reopened the public
hearing and welcomed Peter Levesque.
Mr. Calabrese read a letter from
Franklin Miorandi, Assistant Town Engineer who said that he reviewed the
updated plans and found that all concerns have been addressed.
Mr. Anderson addressed the
applicant for questions or comments. Mr.
Levesque informed the Board that a request for waiver for traffic study and
covenant for the maintenance of the drainage system has been submitted for
review.
Mr. Anderson addressed the
audience for any questions, there being none addressed the Board for comments
or questions. Being none and upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board
voted unanimously (5-0) to close the hearing.
With no further discussion and upon motion duly made and seconded, the
Board voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the subdivision for the extension of
Mr. Stone explained that his
partner, Jim White, was at the previous meeting and showed the Board a picture
of the signage they would like to have on the front of the
Ms. Richards said in fairness to
the process and situation this particular parcel is located in the industrial
district, it is a multi-zone district with the front part of the parcel, where
the parking is, is business zone, and the structures were built at the back of
the property which is the industrial zone.
Ms. Richards added that that there was different criteria for the
industrial district as opposed to the business zone. However, she continued, Tom DiMarzio
appropriately applied the business zone standards to this the structure because
it was a business use on a multi-zone parcel and using the industrial sign
requirements would have had much too large signage for each business.
Mr. Morrissette said the unit was
shaped strangely because it is partially underneath the overhang and partially
outside the overhang. Mr. Stone agreed
and stated that they have frontage in both spots so the question is are they
entitled to two signs as they both would face a street. Mr. Stone said when they looked at the
property it was a big disadvantage to be recessed the way they are because when
driving by the plaza Business Partners cannot be seen. He added that they submitted the signage to
the landlord who approved it. However,
he admitted that he and his partner never thought that they would have a
problem with the Planning Board. Mr.
Stone explained that when you look at the whole picture, they are a corner
store and visibility is a big issue with them so that was why they wanted to
talk with the Board to see if they could have the two signs. Mr. Stone said when reading through the
bylaw the part that he interpreted was that the each portion of the business
faced a street.
Ms. Richards asked why not put the
main sign on the far side if visibility was a concern. Mr. Stone said the reason was because it just
looked bare so they needed a sign over it.
Mr. Morrissette asked Mr. Stone if they were planning to use the marquee
sign on the directory next to Panera Bread?
Mr. Stone said yes they were.
At that time Mr. Anderson read the
draft minutes from the January 10th regarding the signage for
Business Partners. Ms. Richards asked if
they have thought about plan B in terms of a sign that might be their primary
Business Partners sign, and advertise some of their services which would be an
accessory to the primary sign. Mr. Stone
said it had to do with the space they were provided and it had to fit in a
certain area. Mr. Stone also stated that
he and his partner had spoken with a sign company about the size of the letters
and they could not make them so they could fit onto the sign and be acceptable
to the landlord.
Mr. Morrissette said the sign is
limited to the primary name of the business, that the logo is fine but the rest
of the sign is advertising. Mr.
Przybylowicz asked if was possible for the main sign to be placed on the front
of the building with the logo in the back.
Mr. Stone said that was possible and they could limit the second sign to
“Business Partners” with the logo. Mr.
Przybylowicz suggested that Mr. Stone take the sign on the right and move it to
where the one is on the left and where the one is on the right now just put the
logo on it over the doorway. This would
provide people with a sense if where the entrance is. Mr. Stone said that would work for them and also
possibly help them with their visibility.
Ms. Macdonald asked the Board how
they felt about them requesting a variance because of visibility like Big Y
did? Ms. Richards said variances are
handled by another Board and if hardship could be documented then maybe they
could.
Ms. Richards asked if they could
think about what they wanted to do and asked what their time frame was. Mr. Stone said they were actually in the
building now doing the build-out so time is of the essence. Mr. Morrissette recommended that they go
ahead with the sign that was approved, and come up with a design for the other
sign. Mr. Stone asked if they redid the
picture with the other logo would that help in the decision making process? Mr. Calabrese said the main issue was 1 sign
or 2 signs, and unfortunately the bylaw is very clear that only one sign is
allowed. He also suggested that the
owners look into the idea of incorporating both signs into one.
Mr. Anderson suggested to Mr.
Stone said they try requesting the variance.
Mr. Stone said he would talk to Ms. Macdonald about the variance and
what they could do. He thanked the Board
for their time and contribution.
At 7:48 p.m., Chair, Donald
Anderson opened the Public Hearing and introduced the Board members. Louis Calabrese read the legal notice and
correspondence into the record. Paul Morrissette,
Fire Department said they had no issues with the proposed changes.
Present were Ed Theirault,
Designer; Peter Williams and Melissa Webster, Westbank Representative.
Mr. Theriault explained that there
is an existing drive up island that the bank would like to take out and replace
with a full service ATM. He explained
that only the equipment would be changed and in order to that the island needs
to be 17” wider towards the street. He
also said that the existing vestibule would be removed and dry wall would be
added.
Mr. Morrissette said they are
under a special permit issued in 1994 to allow the construction of a canopy
over a drive up window. Mr. Calabrese
said the only issue he would be concerned with is the side yard setbacks and
whether they would still be maintained because by bringing the island out it
might change the set back. Mr. Morrissette
explained that he believed that the special permit was only for the canopy.
Ms. Richards asked if the building
pre-dates the bylaw and she said she was trying to figure out why the original
special permit was applied for and granted for - probably a pre-existing non-conforming
structure.
Mr. Anderson asked if the extra
foot and a half of driveway would be more difficult for someone heading away
from the rotary up
Mr. Calabrese read comments from Sergeant
Richard Bates who said he took a look at People’s Bank for comparison and it
appears that their drive up lanes are pretty skinny and asked Ms. Macdonald to
look at their plan to see what their lane widths are. He said if the alteration is approved the
lanes would probably have to be marked “left turn only” on the exit to
Mr. Williams showed the Board a
picture of the actual ATM that would be installed and the armored people would
service it. He said the move in the
industry is away from the branch handling cash or deposits to people with ski
parkers and guns in the winter.
Mr. Morrissette asked if the space
from the previous ATM inside ever going to be made into additional bank space
or just remain a vestibule. Mr.
Theriault said he thought it was part of their break room and he did not
believe they have any intentions of turning it into a office. Ms. Webster said it was their break room and
the ATM takes up part of it currently.
Mr. Morrissette asked what the
original Special permit was actually for – Ms. Macdonald brought up the GIS
with Ms. Richards and it was clear that the structure sat too close to the
property line – thus, a pre-existing, non-conforming structure.
Mr. Anderson addressed the
audience for any questions. There being
none and upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (5-0)
to the close hearing. Upon motion duly
made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the Special
Permit, Section 6 with the Police Department’s recommendation with “left turn
only” sign, determining that the changes are not anymore detrimental then the
pre-existing non-conformity.
Mr. Falcone explained to the Board
that next month he would be before them for the Center Square directory signage
and updated them on the progress of the project. He added that with the good weather they were
able to make great progress.
Mr. Falcone continued by stating
that he wanted to specifically discuss the LED display and the size of the
Walgreen signage as to where they were and where they were going. Initially, Mr. Falcone provided a copy of the
plan that accompanied the sign application submitted in March of 2005. He added that they were looking at making some
potential changes to this copy. Further,
he stated that the mission the Board put forth to Jerry at the last meeting,
was that the Board did not like the LED reader board and the question was to
talk internally with the Walgreen people and find out what it would take to
make that aspect of the sign go away.
Mr. Falcone stated that Jerry did consider that and the thought is that
the LED reader Board is incredibly important to their business. Walgreen looked into eliminating the portion
LED of the reader board – and substitute it with a manual reader board of
similar size – and they proposed to move the Walgreen script portion of the
sign to the directory sign to be presented by the Center Village as a whole,
for approval. Mr. Falcone added that the
size would meet the 100 square feet maximum as required by the by-law.
On a different note, Mr. Falcone
continued by stating that Walgreen was looking for an interpretation of the
by-law from the Board as to what was meant by “goods for human consumption” with
the definitions dealing with drive-throughs.
He stated that Walgreen would like to carve out “pharmaceutical
products” as something that would not be considered as goods for human
consumption. He explained the reason
being that Walgreen could cater to their elderly customers and moms with
babies.
Ms. Richards stated that this was
specifically the reason for this change in the by-law. Mr. Anderson also stated that was the reason
it was changed – because of pharmaceuticals – there was a specific town meeting
for that.
Mr. Falcone stated then there
would be no precedent or any opportunity to discuss that? Mr. Anderson stated that the specific town
meeting was addressed to expand this definition because of issues in the past
such as McDonald’s and they were not allowed to have a drive-through. The “human consumption” includes consumption
through the skin, by the mouth . . . . to expand from just food to other items.
Mr. Falcone stated that Walgreens
associates itself more to the bank situation rather than to a fast food analogy
when you are looking at the goods for human consumption. Walgreen sees people coming in sick from the
doctor, mothers with babies in the car. . . stating this is not a fast food.
Mr. Morrissette stated that with
all due respect, it was not what Walgreen thinks that they are, rather what the
town of East Longmeadow and the Planning Board thinks that they are. Mr. Anderson added that the townspeople
voted unanimously at town meeting. . .
Mr. Falcone asked if there was any way to widen it to include drugs . .
. Mr. Anderson stated that the state encourages less use of cars and the
thought of the center village is pedestrian oriented and this will encourage
pedestrian traffic rather than idling vehicles cuing up into the roadways (from
Mr. Morrissette).
Mr. Morrissette stated that he
took exception to the fact that Walgreen is now coming before the Board to
request a drive-through window – changing the rules again. When Walgreen came before the Board, they had
no problem (and this was discussed) with not being able to have a drive-through
and now they are coming in the back door to get a change. Mr. Falcone stated that it was not an effort
to back-door it, rather get it before the Board – Mr. Morrissette responded
that Walgreen knew the rules from the start -
Ms. Richards stated that it would have been part of the entire project –
however, it is a non-issue – do not go there.
Mr. Anderson stated that this had
been an issue in the past – that is why it went to town meeting and it was
approved by the Attorney General’s office.
Mr. Falcone asked did not the Board feel that this is a different
scenario than McDonald’s? Mr. Anderson
responded by stating that a bank is a bank, however, human consumption is just
that . . . . not even to mention the idling vehicles and stacking
automobiles. He added that the
convenience issue is understood however the town needed to address
environmental concerns related to such an use.
He added that he applauds the town – they definitely said no –
Mr. Falcone then went back to the
sign issue. He wanted to know the best
way to move forward? He added that the
best way to move forward would be to remove the LED entirely and Walgreen did
their homework and from that point, the situation remains the scaled down size
of the sign base - keeping the existing LED reader board – is that acceptable?
Mr. Przybylowicz stated that he
was not against the LED – rather the brightly lit LED – Mr. Anderson stated the
brightness bothers him too and that the primary message needs to identify the
building – not the goods that are on sale.
He expanded by saying that the purpose of the sign is for safety reasons
for the fire and police department to be able to identify the business – not
the goods found in the business – the purpose of the sign is to identify the
business.
Mr. Falcone stated that the by-law
does not restrict the language – Mr. Anderson stated that there is something –
that a sign is not to be used for the purpose of advertising. Mr. Przybylowicz stated that the limitations
in square footage does not allow for all the goods to be advertised – the
purpose is to identify the business anything else is secondary and needs to
take a secondary role.
Ms. Richards then stated that she
was a little frustrated because over a month ago these issues had been
discussed. She continued by stating that
when they talked about the sign and when they voted on the sign, they talked
about a sign to measure no more than 18.7 square feet – the application stated
interior lit – no mention of an LED – she stated that the Planning Board has
learned a lesson – that the sign is an illegal sign and the Board has let it
sit there while they are working to make other arrangements – they have to
respond to comments from the public that they are working on a new by-law . . .
. Ms. Richards added that Jerry had even stated that this is the first time
that they have used an LED sign and wanted to know why in East Longmeadow? She added that the Board had met with Jayson,
Frank Fitzgerald and Jim Falcone to come up with a plan that would identify our
town center – they do not want the town center to be identified by coca cola
99¢ - or whatever you are selling this week – we know that you are there and
she thought that they were going to come back with another sign application and
the Board would make a determination on that sign - what they have is illegal
and she felt that the Board is wasting their time – spinning their wheels. She then asked the representatives why they
simply do not just use this sign at another location? Ms. Richards then stated that the Board had
been dealing with this over and over and that the Board has been telling the
townspeople that the center is going to be a village look – this is not a
village look – and she is surprised that Jayson and his dad would allow this to
happen.
Mr. Falcone then stated that he
knows there is a perception that there may have been deception with regard to
the application - that is why he brought
the architect. He also highlighted LED
reader board which is on the application – Mr. Falcone also stated that it is
an interpretation issue – Ms. Richards stated that 18.7 square feet was part of
the ruling and they did not get that – she also stated that Ms. Macdonald had
numerous discussions with many people and that they (Walgreen) knew exactly
what they needed to do. Ms. Richards
stated that any business who wanted to be welcomed and supported by the
community would take the information very seriously and say it is not that big
a deal – move it some place else and let’s come up with something the town will
accept. Ms. Richards also stated that
the Board had denied more than one sign since the Walgreen signage – who had
applied for LEDs. Those applicants were
denied.
Mr. Falcone asked what are the
legal grounds for such a denial? Ms.
Richards told him not to go there – the Board is working on a by-law – Mr.
Anderson stated that there is a basis for it – under section 5.825 illumination
– deals with lighting inside and outside – LED is right on the surface so there
is a basis. Ms. Richards stated that the
message is clear in terms of where the Board would like to go with this. Mr. Przybylowicz stated that he did not feel
that it was a matter of who is at fault, rather that it is clear that it is
something that does not fit the town at all.
There is nothing like it in town.
He continued by stating that the purpose of the sign is to identify the
business, and the Board does not see that at all in this case. Mr. Przybylowicz added that as far as he was
concerned, he was not in favor of what exists at all.
Mr. Falcone asked that as far as
the usage of the LED and the reader Board – could they use it to identify the
business more and advertise the product less – if that is something they would
consider. Ms. Richards stated that it is
the intensity of the sign, the “honkey-tonk” look of it, it is for major
highways – the town is trying to promote a pedestrian walkway, a village center
and a ground sign is not even needed at that location – everyone knows where
Walgreen is.
Mr. Morrissette stated that it was
not a hoop hall – the Basketball Hall of Fame – their signage is a similar LED
– and distracting – Mr. Przybylowicz stated that the police department has
concerns about this and they have discussed it on a number of occasions. Mr. Telson stated that they had addressed
that issue and had turned down the intensity.
Mr. Przybylowicz stated that he
still feels that it is not in keeping with the town’s intentions – that there
is not a sign like it in town. Mr.
Morrissette stated that when they were finished with the by-law, there never
would be another sign such as this. He
added that Walgreen should not want to be the only business in town that was
“odd” – the sector alone – (to Mr. Falcone) you have chosen a nice design for
the pylon signs that are being presented,
you have chosen nice facades of the buildings, nice roofs and things
like that - it just does not fit - it is completely out of character with the
rest of the center. Mr. Morrissette
continued by stating that it is the Board’s hope that they get their point
across that the LED sign is not the right way to do it.
Ms. Richards stated that it had
been brought up before, however, Westbank had put a sign that turned the center
congregational church pink and the community complained. Westbank immediately changed the lighting and
the signage in order to keep in harmony with the wishes of the town – they
heard what the community had to say. Mr.
Morrissette added that St. Mark’s Church had the same issue – they were
notified of the dissatisfaction of the community with regard to their signage
and lighting, and they also changed the lighting and reinstalled a wooden carved sign that is now area
appropriate. Mr. Przybylowicz added that
as soon as the church was contacted, they (at their own expense) took the sign
down and replaced it – the unacceptable sign sits in the basement of the
church.
Mr. Falcone then stated that he
was hearing that even if the size is brought down, it will still not fit what
the Planning Board is looking for. He
asked what the next step would be? Ms.
Richards stated that now is the perfect time to make a change – because they
were going to have to dramatically alter what is there to begin with because
they have to take away everything around it to meet the 18.7 square feet
(except the base) so why not go forward and come up with an 18.7 square foot
sign that would be more area appropriate?
Mr. Falcone responded by stating
that because if the sign is brought to 18.7 square feet, there is no question
as to conformity with the by-law – it cannot be a traffic hazard in the opinion
of the building inspector – it cannot flash -
as far as the size – it would be in conformance. Ms. Richards stated that Walgreen would have
to bring a new sign application before the Board – it would be a new decision –
a new vote. She continued to state that
what exists is illegal and that a new sign application would be dealt with appropriately. Mr. Morrissette added that point in time you
need at least three Board members to approve it.
Ms. Richards stated that there are
Walgreens all over the place – Westbank used their sign somewhere else – Mr.
Jason stated to Jerry Telson that the last time they spoke about the fact that
this was the first sign in the territory.
Mr. Telson stated that the two panels are new to this area – this was
made special for this small location – they use these signs all over the place. Ms. Richards stated then you can use this one
someplace else because she was sure there were Walgreen’s located in more
densely populated, mall type, commercial areas where they would have to compete
with signage around them. She added that
we (the town) does not want it there.
She also stated that the Board would not be quiet about this – at the
town meeting they would say that this is why we are doing it – we will use the
Walgreen’s name – and she was not sure if that would set well with . . . .
Mr. Morrissette stated that they must be building another store
somewhere – they could use the sign there – it is obvious that the signage is
not what the Board bargained for . . . they were looking for a change.
Mr. Falcone stated that they would
take what the Board was saying under advisement . . . and submit a plan – they are in the position
now where talking about what is on the table now . . may not go – we may have to file for a permit
. . .
Ms. Richards added that before
Walgreen first opened the Board had to deal with a building that was different
from the plan that was approved in terms of the delivery entrance, the façade
on the building, and the signs that appeared on lamp posts – the Board had to
struggle with all of these issues – it made the Board uncomfortable in terms of
the expectations as to what was happening at this location. At the time the signage was being built, it
was obvious that it was too big, however, it went up very quickly. Those are the experiences that the Board has
had so far. . . .
Mr. Falcone added that he would
not disagree with the facts, but at the same rate that he did not want the
intent to seem that this group was trying to build a sign bigger than what the
by-law permitted – this group was working off a permit from a building
inspector – who is no longer with the town – they have documentation from him
and that was relied upon when putting up the sign – Ms. Richards reminded Mr.
Falcone that the application was approved after the building inspector left and
the Planning Board took action and signage is not legal until the Planning
Board approves it. She added what the
old building inspector said did not matter.
The sign that was approved was 18.7 square feet. Mr. Falcone contended that what was built
was what was put before the Board – approved as attached to the application –
nothing else was built. He added that if
the sign was built as approved in the application – how can they be told to
take it down?
Mr. Przybylowicz stated that the
applicant is responsible for it. It
always comes down to that – he gave an example –a building inspector that
approves something out of code, does not exempt a builder from the requirements
of the code – our by-laws are no different – the by-law overrides any mistakes
made in the past. Mr. Morrissette added
that there were a couple of homes built in the community whose foundation walls
were poured and the contractors were ready to start building. The measurement was 10 feet too close to the
road. They had to dig them up and move
them – it was an error (the building inspector had signed off) however, it was
not allowed to go forward – there is plenty of precedent for that.
Mr. Falcone said they were back to
zero – Ms. Richards stated it does not have to be that as the Board would
welcome a redesign of a sign more appropriate to the area. Mr. Falcone asked what they wanted to
see. Ms. Richards stated that he had
given great designs for the pylon – they would like something that would
complement that – they do not have to have bright turquoise and red - Mr. Morrissette stated – it just is not right
for this area – they have a lot of nice signs and if they took that flavor and
continue it with this sign, it could be nice – ground lit or back lit –
Doug Heinan stated that he
understood that the Board is admitting that they made a mistake in not
understanding what this was . . . and that the sign that was built, other than
inappropriate, just too big. Ms.
Richards stated that they deal with square feet, interior lit signs, exterior
lit signs or non illuminated signs. The
portion on the application that was checked stated interior lit. She added that was what they looked at and
they look at the picture for the aesthetics of it – they do not measure – that
is not their job. She added that she
thought at the time it was going to be a small sign – and had she also knew
that Robyn had numerous telephone conversations with a variety of people – no
one from Walgreen’s had appeared until Jerry appeared four weeks ago.
Mr. Heinan added that the process
– that the developer hires the architect of record and that they need to
provide the corporation with the requirements for specific stores. All of the iterations were passed through him
– saw the sign change and get smaller – with a measurement of 18.7 square feet
– that is why the sign got smaller. All
that back and forth – the structure of the sign was presented in keeping with
the whole development that is why it has the features on it – they went through
a lot to get to this point.
Ms. Macdonald stated that the
measurements were presented in centimeters – and the engineers even had trouble
trying to measure the signage as presented.
She added that he was correct, there were many people involved and it
was very confusing and that is why the letter stated specifically the size that
would be allowed. Mr. Przybylowicz
stated that the rounded cap was attractive and the brick was attractive,
however, the core of the problem was the LED display and it was quite evident
with members of the Board that it would not fly.
Mr. Heinan stated that he believed
that the sign was presented to the Board and approved, permitted and built
based upon drawings presented to the Board.
Mr. Przybylowicz asked him who was responsible for reviewing the
requirements of the town, the developer or the architect? Mr. Falcone responded it was his
responsibility. Mr. Przybylowicz stated
that the by-laws are clear that the framework is included and it is obvious
that someone did not check the bylaws.
He added that you could not tell by the illustration – there is no
dimension of the frame itself – that in itself blows the theory out of the
water that the Board made a mistake or missed.
Mr. Falcone stated that when one
is moving forward with permitting and relying upon in writing that the sign has
been approved and measured by the town official – the structure being called
“sign” – there is a disconnect - then the question is who bears the burden of
having to own that risk? Mr.
Przybylowicz stated it would be the applicant.
Ms. Richards reminded Mr. Falcone she attended the hearing with Walgreen
before the Zoning Board of Appeals in January and a consultant to the project
was looking to get a variance to increase the signage for the building – the
understanding was that the ground sign and the building signage could not
measure more than 100 square feet. The
request was denied and the decision was made that Walgreen would go forward
with whatever they had to meet the requirements of the town. Mr. Falcone stated that an alternative was to
have one sign bigger than the other, however, the signs on the building are the
same. Ms. Richards also mentioned that
the way the town measured signage was questioned, however, the town sticks to
its methods of measuring.
Ms. Richards stated that the
Planning Board backed into that decision and made the calculations which would
be allowable for the ground sign. She
added that she felt the Board worked very hard on that decision and that there
were no secrets as to what their position was as to signage.
Mr. Falcone asked the representatives
if they had anything else to add. They
responded no. Ms. Richards asked who had
the authority to make a decision. Mr. Heinan
replied corporate has the authority. Mr.
Falcone added that they would have to go back and talk with corporate offices
to determine their legal opinions as to what has been said at this meeting and
what the by-law says, where we are right now, what an alternative would be for
them. Ms. Richards asked why go that
route when they could better spend their energy on something more creative for
that location than struggling with how to finagle their way through the by-law
and find a loophole in the by-law.
Mr. Falcone stated that these are
things (signs) that are incredibly important to Walgreen and their success at
this location. Ms. Richards stated that
an LED sign was not discussed at the time of the application. Mr. Przybylowicz added that there was never a
mention that there would be multiple products displayed on the Board – no one
ever said that this would change often.
Mr. Morrissette stated that throughout all the meetings – no one ever
said that the LED signage was extremely important to the well-being of
Walgreen. Mr. Falcone responded that the
interpretation was it was something that they were entitled to as of
right. Ms. Richards reminded Mr.
Falcone that the entire project was under Special Permit . Mr. Morrissette mentioned to the
representatives of Walgreen that he would advise them to let corporate know all
the issues that the Board and town have had to deal with from the onset of this
project. All of the issues dealing with
the façade of the building, the dumpster, the loading docks on Crane Avenue,
the signage on the poles etc. Mr. Telson
stated that they have reacted to local issues as soon as they are made aware of
them. Ms. Richards stated that this is a
local issue.
Mr. Morrissette stated that the
sign just does not fit – the other issues should be brought up to corporate to
give them a history of this project.
Reader boards in our next by-law change will be gone. Mr. Heinan mentioned that the board changes
only once a day and he understood that was fine. Mr. Przybylowicz stated that the
advertisement of the products were never disclosed on the original
application. Mr. Heinan stated that any
developer knew how important the signage is.
With regard to the materials on the building – they are the normal
products used. He continued by stating
that as far as the dumpster up front, we needed to make that work . . He added that they have made many
concessions on this store alone. Mr.
Przybylowicz stated that he took exception to Mr. Heinan stating that this is a
“special building”. He continued by
stating that exterior view of it is one of the cheaper designs, that it looks
crummy in comparison to the other stores.
He stated that the “concrete block façade” looks just like concrete
blocks – how much simpler of a building could you get? Mr. Heinan stated that the product is not
concrete block. . . Mr. Przybylowicz stated that it looks like it . . . . Mr. Morrissette added that you could
ask anyone in town what the material was and anyone other than the people that
work with stone, would know the difference.
All it would take would be a nice coat of stucco and it would look
beautiful. Mr. Heinan explained that
was “material” and as far as the building itself, was designed to fit in with the development
itself. Mr. Przybylowicz stated that
they could have done a much better job – the building has no volume to it – all
they did was take a little shed roof off and put some columns on it. You have much better buildings with taller
roofs, metal roofs, and this was a probably a fraction of all other costs.
Mr. Falcone stated that there was
a lot of time and expense in designing this building. Mr. Przybylowicz stated – very little when you
compare it to other Walgreen buildings.
Mr. Falcone continued to stated that he thinks when the project is all
tied in together, they will find that when they are done, it will work as far
as what else is going on. Mr.
Przybylowicz stated that there is a distinct difference between the Healthtrax
building and the Walgreen building – for curb appeal. Mr. Falcone stated that the Healthrax was a
lot cheaper to build – Mr. Przybylowicz stated it looks a heck of a lot better.
At this point, Mr. Falcone thanked
the Board for their time and explained that he would take what was discussed,
see what could be done and keep moving forward.
Upon motion duly made and
seconded, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to endorse the subdivision plans
for Ruffino Road, previously approved.
The Board reviewed the minutes of
December 13th and, upon
motion duly made and seconded, voted unanimously to accept them, with edits.
The Board reviewed the minutes of
January10th and, upon motion
duly made and seconded, voted unanimously to accept them, with edits.
There being no further business
and upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously to close
the public meeting at 10:15 p.m.
For
the Board,
Michael
Przybylowicz, Clerk