Minutes of March 21, 2006
Present were: Donald Anderson,
Chairman; Michael Przybylowicz, Clerk; Marilyn Richards and Thomas
Morrissette. Louis Calabrese was not
present.
Mr. Anderson reopened the public
hearing, introduced the Board and explained the hearing procedures.
John Tomasszewski, Engineer from
Ecotec said the reason they were back was because of the sizes of the parking
spaces. He continued by stating that the
first submittal proposed spaces measuring 18x10 parking and after speaking with
the Board, Gary Weiner, his partner, re-designed the site to provide the
required 20’ x 9’ parking spaces, and the revised plan shows the required 44
spaces at the required size. Mr.
Tomasszewski said the only major change made is one space was moved to the
lower part of the parking lot. He then presented
the Board the sample boards showing the proposed exterior of the building.
Ms. Richards asked if there were
any Police or Fire issues. Ms. Macdonald
said no, all the recommendations from the police and fire had been addressed
and shown on the revised plan.
Mr. Anderson addressed the
audience for any questions, there being none addressed the Board for comments
or questions. The Board having no further questions, and upon motion duly made
and seconded, voted unanimously (4-0) to close the hearing. With no need for further discussion and upon
motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (4-0) to approve the
site plan as presented.
Ms.
Macdonald provided the Board with the application and color rendering for
People’s Bank’s request to change the colors of the existing signage. Upon motion duly made and seconded it was
unanimously voted (4-0) by the Board to APPROVE the signs as presented conditioned upon obtaining a sign permit from the Building
Inspector and that LED
was not used for the lighting.
Chair, Donald Anderson opened the
Public Hearing and Clerk, Michael Przybylowicz read the legal notice.
Mr. Anderson explained that the
legal notice explained the purpose of the presentation and then asked the
audience for any questions.
Tom Stevens,
Mr. Stevens said he went to the
Town Hall to find out what he could do with his property and based on
conversations with the former building inspector he went ahead and paid to have
plans drawn up for an industrial building.
Mr. Morrissette said that this matter was not relevant to the public
hearing being held and that the Board would be happy to address this issue at
another time. Mr. Anderson said all that
was being addressed that night was reaffirming what was done in the last year
on the zoning map and new amendments to the Zoning By-laws. Ms. Macdonald advised the Board that she had
met with Mr. Stevens and thought, based on the research done and copies
provided to Mr. Stevens, he understood.
However, Mr. Stevens does not agree.
Ms. Macdonald offered to meet with Mr. Stevens on the next day, stating
that she would be happy to go over the information again.
Mr. Anderson asked the Board for
any comments. Ms. Richards clarified
that the Board was revising the zoning map simply to reflect the actions that
took place at the last town meeting regarding the new district for adult
housing. Ms. Macdonald asked if the
Board was satisfied with the proposed language for the signage. She also asked that in dealing with the
language for LED did they think that it was clear by specifying display or
graphics. Mr. Morrissette said the Board
can allow a backlit sign provided by LED, however no exterior LED displays
would be allowed. Ms. Macdonald said if
the Board presents the information at town meeting stated that way she thinks
it would be clear to the voters. Mr.
Anderson asked if they should have something so that they can make a waiver on
a case by case basis. The Board said no. Ms. Richards said the signage she likes the
most is an exterior lit with light from above or below with a goose neck lamp
with a nice classy sign.
Ms. Richards asked if the Board
wanted to be specific stating that no digital reader boards are allowed. Mr. Przybylowicz said to make sure nothing
falls through the cracks why not add “similar or not limited to”. Ms. Richards
said she wanted to talk about the clause that all illumination should have a
source of light from within. She added
that she knows that means lighting from
beneath or above but asked it the Board should further clarify it to make sure
that people understand that lighting doesn’t have to be all white.
Mr. Morrissette said a definition
for exterior lighting could be created.
Ms. Macdonald said she felt the language was very clear as proposed and
opined that the less it is changed at town meeting the easier for the voters to
understand. The members agreed.
Upon motion duly made and
seconded, the Board voted unanimously (4-0) to
close the public hearing. Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board
voted unanimously (4-0) to approve the Zoning by-law changes and to support
these changes at town meeting.
Tom Morrissette recused himself
due to having a business relationship with the applicants.
Clerk, Michael Przybylowicz read a
letter from Premier Limousine requesting a waiver of site plan for 1 Panama
Street which will employ a staff between 3 - 8 people. Office hours will be from 7:30 am – 9:00 pm.
and they will also be looking to park between 4-6 vehicles at the site.
Wayne Roberts, President of
Premier Limousine explained that they were
a ground transportation provider currently located in Glastonbury, Ct. He said they provide transportation to mostly
major corporations and currently there are a number of corporate clients in the
Western Massachusetts area, and they need to provide service to them from a
more conveniently located base.
Mr. Anderson asked if motor
coaches would be coming to the new location.
Wayne Roberts said that the buses would be stationed in the Glastonbury
location with town cars and limousines mainly in the East Longmeadow location.
Ms. Richards asked if he would
have a problem if the Board conditioned the waiver on no storage of large
vehicles on site. Wayne Roberts said
that would not be problem because there really is no room at the site for
larger vehicles.
Michael Przybylowicz asked if they
have access from both Westwood and Dewey Avenue. Bob Fleet from Premier Limousine said just
Dewey Avenue. Mr. Przybylowicz asked
approximately how many cars a day would be moving in and out of the site? Wayne Roberts said between 4 –6 cars. Mr. Przybylowicz asked if any repairs would
be taking place at the facility. Mr.
Roberts answered no, they do that at the Connecticut site.
Marilyn Richards asked how many
vehicles could be housed inside of the structure on the site? Bob Fleet said probably 3 inside and the
remaining would be stored outside.
Upon motion duly made
and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (3-0) to waive Site Plan Review
subject to 4-6 vehicles to be stored on site, no motor coaches or buses on the
site and no vehicle repairs are to be done on site.
After
review of the application, the Board voted (4-0) to approve
the sign as presented, conditioned upon
obtaining a sign permit from the Building Inspector. The grate in the front door has been moved to
the inside and the Board would like a letter sent thanking Mr. Miller for
moving it.
Donald Anderson welcomed Attorney
Simon Brighenti who introduced Scott Heffernan, Radio Frequency Engineer and
Matt McQuaid, Real Estate Leasing Specialist.
Attorney Brighenti explained that they were trying to provide a network
that would allow for signals to be transmitted, received and carried from one
point to another in areas of town that have trouble with cell coverage.
Attorney Brighenti said there are
challenges to determine how to service the customers in the town and they are
trying to increase the level of service that is available. He explained the majority of the Town of East
Longmeadow does not allow for cell towers and basically there are 2 sites
available. He further explained that Mr.
McQuiad has been working with Sean Kelley on a RFP submittal to place a tower
at the pumping station off of Vineland Avenue.
He also stated that they were looking at another site behind the Police Department.
Attorney Brighenti said that they
took some photos of the existing conditions at Pine Knoll Golf Course and super
imposed to scale the height of 150’ uni-pole and that is a stick that goes up
in the air 150’ all antenna and cabling are inside of it with no exterior
antenna. He said it would provide
coverage to the northeast quadrant of town and up in to Springfield allow for
emergency and non-emergency communication and said they are trying to see what
they could do to comply with the demand from the town and also the requirements
of the FCC license that was granted to T-Mobile. Attorney Brighenti said the main object is to
see what kind of cooperation could be expected by showing the town what they
are trying to do and see what the town might have for ideas.
Mr. Heffernan said that a stealth
pole is an option T-Mobile uses and that T-Mobile generally tries to space the
towers any where from a 1 ˝ to 2 miles from each other and they are trying to
go on the Town tower behind the police department. He said the trouble is the areas lie in
residential zones so it is a juggling act to know where to put in something
that is not visually intrusive, but still provide the coverage to the T-Mobile
customers as well as customers of other carriers.
Mr. Anderson said that Attorney
Freyman was telling them that there are plans to put new towers in Wilbraham
and he was wondering if they knew the status on that whether or not T-Mobile
has calculated that impact. Mr.
Heffernan said the trouble with the towers in Wilbraham is that they lie in
tricky terrain areas and they are looking at towers at the golf course on Stony
Hill Road. He also said that technology
is very different between Verizon and T-Mobile.
Mr. Przybylowicz asked if it was
their intention to find antenna locations to fill a specific gap in
coverage? Mr. Heffernan said the areas
circled on the map are areas that would probably need towers.
Ms. Richards asked if neighboring
communities have telecommunication by-laws.
Attorney Brighenti said they do but Agawam, East Longmeadow and
Westfield are very restrictive. He
continued to state that most cities and town’s allow facilities any place in
town but gives certain priority as to what to look for.
Ms. Richards said she felt that
the Board had come up with a reasonable by-law that prohibits towers in the
residential areas while encouraging them in others. Attorney Brighenti stated
there are a lot of towns in the same situation.
Mr. Morrissette asked if they were
able to work something out with the town to go on the town’s tower behind the
fire department? Attorney Brighenti said
they have been working on it for the past couple of years but there was last
minute situation that came up with the DEP because what was done there
previously, but it has been ironed out.
Attorney Brighenti said the point
of the presentation was to try to look for whatever direction that the town
might have in helping them to get through this.
Mr. Anderson said he thought if
they were looking to go to town meeting and modify the present by-law it would
probably be beneficial to have counsel for all the providers.
Attorney Brighenti said he could
speak with representatives from the other companies if that be would be valuable to the Board.
Mr. Morrissette said he feels the
best way to move forward would be to talk with the other representatives of
other providers, and present something to the Board to present to the
town. Attorney Brighenti said he would
speak to his clients to see what they want to do and get back to the Board with
the results of those conversations.
The
Clerk, Michael Przybylowicz, read a letter from Anthony Franco Commercial Loan Officer for Monson Savings Bank requesting
a temporary advertisement sign to be located on the property at 586 North Main
Street announcing the relocation of the U.S. Martial Arts Academy financed by
Monson Savings Bank. After
review of the request for temporary signage, the Board unanimously voted (4-0)
to approve the signage to be displayed approximately 60 days, upon receipt and
approval of a color rendering of same.
The Board reviewed an ANR plan combining two pre-existing
non-conforming properties at 603 North Main into one less non-conforming
parcel. The new parcel will have
approximately 9,273 square feet and approximately 87.5 feet of frontage on North
Main Street. After discussion and upon
motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (3-0) to approve the
ANR with Thomas Morrissette abstaining from the vote on possible conflict of
interest grounds.
Ms. Macdonald informed the Board that the Natural Heritage &
Endangered Species Program is requesting that the Chestnut Street Housing for
55 & over project provide egress for the spotted turtles. She said that Baystate Environmental and Dan
Roulier are looking for the Planning Board to advise the State that the Board
would not allow two separate phases on this property with one-way
access/egress. The Board so moved that the project would need to have two
entrances/exits in order to assure police and fire safety issues could be met. Ms. Macdonald will provide a letter to the
State stating the Board’s decision.
Ms. Macdonald told the Board that Ed Pesce had contacted
her in response to her call reminding Mr. Pesce that no changes are to be made
to the plan or the site of the Center Square Project without appearing before
the Planning Board and receiving their approval. She also e-mailed the building inspector as a
reminder not to allow anything to be done at the site before the application
was approved and the Special Permit amended by the Planning Board. She added that she had reminded Mr. Pesce
that Spoleto’s knows they have to come before the Planning Board for a Special
Permit and he informed her that the principals are working on it.
Ms. Richards said the pylon sign that Center Village wanted
was huge and that the size does not meet any requirements of the by-laws. She said the approved plan shows the location
of the sign, which violates the zoning by-laws and when Jayson appeared before
the Board he said that someone told him the sign only needed a 12 foot
setback. She said the business district
requires a 25 foot setback for signs and the planned business development
requires a 50 foot setback. Mr.
Morrissette agreed with her that 50 feet is unreasonable for this development
because it would not be visible from the roadways. Both Ms. Richards and Mr. Morrissette stated
that that particular component of the by-law would present a reasonable request
for the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant a set-back variance. Ms. Richards said the sign they are proposing
is huge and not covered in the by-law and she wants to make sure that the
developers know that. She continued by
stating that she felt that Mr. Falcone should be notified that there has been a
discussion about the setback and what the by-laws requires and that the
Planning Board would be happy to further discuss the issue and also support a
request for a variance in this instance.
Ms. Macdonald said that she would write a letter to Mr. Falcone and
e-mail the Board before she mails it out.
There being no further business
and upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously to close
the public meeting at 10:00 p.m.
For
the Board,
Michael
Przybylowicz, Clerk