Minutes of May 16, 2006
Present were: Louis Calabrese,
Chairman; Marilyn Richards, Vice Chairman;
Donald Anderson, Clerk; and Thomas
Morrissette. Michael Przybylowicz was
not present.
The Board reviewed the ANR for
Ms.
Richards asked when an ANR was approved to subdivide the corner lot (c)? She also stated that, according to the
existing site plan, this lot (c) is incorporated in the landscaping requirement
for the plaza site plan, and asked, with this division of property, what will
happen to the 12% landscaping requirement?
She said that she could not imagine that the Board would have subdivided
the parcel knowing that it was part of an existing site plan without making
sure that the remaining parcels stayed in compliance with the by-laws.
Mr.
Calabrese asked if the property was owned by the same owners could it be
dedicated for a landscaped area now and forever until they replace it with
something else? Ms. Richards said that
was a possibility, but if you look at the proposed subdivision that is not
being designated as a landscaped area.
She said any changes to the existing site plan have to be
addressed. Mr. Calabrese asked if it had
anything to do with the ANR, Ms. Richards said it did for her because the ANR
does not reflect the plan they have.
Mr. Morrissette
suggested that they ask the applicant if they would mind holding off a couple
of weeks until the Board can figure out what occurred and when it occurred.
Ms.
Richards said she thought the applicants would have the answer that
evening. Attorney Ellen Freyman said
that she needs a copy of the plan and asked the Board for one. Ms. Richards
said in all honesty they had a little trouble locating it and she did not even
know if it is the final plan - all there was is a letter signed by Mr. Anderson,
as Chairman dated 1997 when the site plan was approved.
Mr.
Morrissette said that he was only suggesting they wait - they need to have the
information – perhaps the Board could do some home work to better understand
what had occurred. However, he added if
the applicant wanted to go forward, then the members need to talk it over with
Mr. Calabrese to see how he would like to handle it.
Ms.
Richards asked the purpose of adding the corner piece to the parcel. Attorney Freyman said it was for parking and if
they did that they would come back before the Board to change the site plan
showing a change in the parking plan.
Ms. Richards said that the zoning map shows that the commercial zone
starts before
Attorney
Freyman stated that a commercial use is allowed in the industrial zone so if
they had commercial use in the industrial zone they could use it. Mr. Morrissette asked her if she was saying
that the commercial zone can be used for parking for an industrial use? Attorney Freyman said no, however, commercial
uses are allowed in the industrial district.
Ms. Richards said it is not an industrial zone, it is a commercial zone, and that is the
problem.
Mr.
Morrissette wanted to get back to the landscaping issue, and explained that the
parcel 1-A that is being added to the original parcel is a bigger piece then
parcel c – so it would not decease the landscaped area rather increase it and
he felt that the Board should go ahead and approve the plan.
Ms.
Richards said that they do not know if that is the case or whether it is part
of the original buffer area or whether both pieces are part of the original
buffer. She said she looked at the plan
and the landscaped area is not included within the site plan. She also looked at the other parcel that is
now in another zone and it raises some concerns with respect to the plans and
the changes. Ms. Richards stated that it
would probably not effect the decision that the Board makes that night, however
she wanted to make sure all of the issues were being placed on the table for
discussion.
Mr.
Morrissette asked if they do submit another plan to the Board he wanted to make
sure that the Zoning districts were depicted on the plan.
Mr.
Calabrese asked Attorney Donahue, for the purposes of ANR, does it make a
difference whether it is a commercial or industrial district if they were
joining properties together from the standpoint of approving an ANR? Attorney Donahue answered no, but if the
approval of the plan could mislead someone to think that the ANR approval is an
approval of the lot for all purposes, many Boards put a notation on the plan
that says “no representation is made with respect to the findings of the Zoning
by-laws”. Mr. Calabrese asked, when an
ANR is prepared, and two different parcels are being joined together, doesn’t
it get looked at as an ANR and not as the future use of the zone?
Attorney
Donahue said boards are required by the statue to approve an application for an
ANR if the plan shows the required frontage on public streets. However, a problem arises when someone looks at a plan, sees the
approval, often they assume that it is property on which they can build and
they buy the land with that assumption.
Subsequently, they find out when they go for a building permit, and the
Building Inspector denies the permit because of Zoning requirements, they are
surprised. Attorney Donahue added that
it is an effort to avoid confusion and misinterpretation. Attorney Freyman said that they know they
have to come back for site plan approval before they do anything on that site
and they are simply looking to divide the property at this time.
Ms.
Richards said before they even vote on the ANR she thinks they should have a
plan that adequately reflects the zones and maybe they can find out the history
on Parcel c with respect to when it was subdivided, if ever.
Mr.
Morrissette asked Ms. Richards if she was saying that the plan does not
accurately represent the zones? Ms.
Richards said no that it did not. Mr.
Morrissette asked what was wrong and Ms. Richards showed him on the plan where
it was a commercial zone and pointed out that it does not indicate that. Attorney Freyman pointed out on the plan
where the commercial zone was noted. Ms.
Richards said she stood corrected, and would personally like to know if and
when there was ever a subdivision of the parcel. He added that she thought the decision should
be tabled until they do some research to find out what happened to that
parcel.
After discussion and upon motion
duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (4-0) to continue the
decision on this ANR until May 30th and requested an extension letter from
Attorney Freyman (who agreed to the extension).
Attorney Larry Levine presented a
request for an ANR and explained that Tamarack Drive has been excepted to the
town line. He continued by stating that
the existing parcel as shown on the plan has 49.72 feet of frontage on an
accepted way, and that 140 feet of frontage is required in that zone. However, Attorney Levine explained that in
the research he has done, Planning Boards have the discretion and latitude to
waive the requirements of frontage. He
said that basically, the cases deal with the issues of public interest, access
issues, emergency vehicle accessibility and whether a deviation from the
frontage would be in the best interest of the town. Attorney Levine provided copies of case law
showing the latitude of other boards. He
then explained that his client’s intent was to build 2 single family houses
with footprints within East Longmeadow, acquiring additional square footage on
the lots from Wilbraham. Attorney Levine
said his client approached the Town
Planner of Wilbraham who has said they would go along with whatever East
Longmeadow decides. Attorney Levine
continued by stating that his client would agree to bring up the width of
Tamarack Drive to meet all town standards.
Mr. Morrissette asked Attorney Levine why would the Board be inclined to
provide such a waiver? Attorney Levine
said in the alternative the applicant could come back and present a new
subdivision plan with more than 20 lots.
Ms. Richards said that they could still do that in the future. Mr. Morrissette asked Attorney Levine if the
subdivision would be in Wilbraham and not effect East Longmeadow? Attorney Levine answered correct, although
there may be access issues as the houses would be built in East Longmeadow and
only have access from East Longmeadow into Wilbraham.
Ms. Richards said you are
proposing this the plan - to end the extension of Tamarack with a dead-end as
opposed to some type of cul-de-sac?
Attorney Levine said that it was
a dead end currently. Ms. Richards said
true, but the 2 houses that are at the end have service on Sutton Place and if
there people living in the back it would require delivery vehicles to drive
down Tamarack Extension and then we are going to be faced with the same issues
as we were on Orchard Road. Attorney
Levine asked if the Board would feel better is they made the road end in a
cul-de-sac? Mr. Morrissette said that
would require a subdivision in Wilbraham, which he does not think they can get
approved, because others have tried it before and have not succeeded. He continued by stating that you cannot
create a subdivision in one town with the only access coming from another
town. All town services are affected by
cross-town subdivisions.
Mr. Anderson said that he would be
comfortable with an extension of the street with a cul-de-sac on it, but he
thinks it has to go through subdivision control laws.
Mr. Calabrese said that would be
creating a way in the town of Wilbraham.
Mr. Morrissette added that they could not create a way in Wilbraham with
access only through East Longmeadow.
Attorney Levine said they have no problem with what they are proposing
but there was no requirement for a cul-de-sac when Porterwoods went in. Mr. Morrissette said that was a different
issue – no house was built at that site, it was planned to extend it into
Wilbraham and that never took place because they could never get an exit to
Porter Road to have fire, school bus or trash services.
Attorney Levine asked the Board if
Wilbraham were to agree to let us put in a cul-de-sac and the houses are
totally within East Longmeadow - the services would be provided by East
Longmeadow - would that be permissible?
Mr. Morrissette asked who would plow the cul-de-sac? Attorney Levine said they could enter into an
agreement that the owner or subsequent owners would be responsible for the
maintenance of the road. Mr. Anderson
said it would never be an excepted street.
Attorney Levine said he did not know if they would even ask for that,
but they would have to ask for an approval in East Longmeadow and in Wilbraham
(pointed to the areas on the plan). He
said as he understands Wilbraham does not normally except streets as public
ways if they do not receive the fees in the roads. Mr. Anderson said then that would be an issue
if the cul-de-sac started falling apart, would Wilbraham be responsible to do
repairs on it or would it always be a private street? He asked if Tamarack as it stands has been taken
by the town? Ms. Richards said up to the
paved point. Mr. Anderson said Tamarack
Drive is a public way and adding anything to it would be creating a new
subdivision.
Mr. Calabrese asked Attorney
Levine if the case history he found lets the Board vary the frontage. Attorney Levine said that the Board has the
discretion to waive the frontage requirements.
Mr. Calabrese said essentially the problem they are dealing with now is
if they do allow something like this,
then it would create the same situation that the Board had in the
Chapdelaine subdivision.
Attorney Levine asked the Board if
they would hold their decision until they approach Wilbraham whether they would
allow a cul-de-sac into Wilbraham without access or egress in Wilbraham? Mr. Calabrese said they could do that. Ms.
Richards asked if they need a formal extension?
Ms. Macdonald said, because it was an ANR the applicant could withdraw
and re-file it, or in the alternative, grant the Board an extension of time in
which to make their decision. Attorney
Levine said he would rather do an extension for a month and would provide a
letter so stating.
At 6:30 Mr. Calabrese explained
that a quorum was not present and that the hearing would have to be
re-scheduled. Attorney Fran Mirkin
understood that they needed the quorum and asked for ½ hour on May 30, 2006 to
discuss the subdivision on the property.
After that, he explained that it was the applicants’ aspirations that
the Special Permit and Site Plan Review could be completed at the next meeting
to be held on June 13th.
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously
(4-0) to continue the hearing until May
30th at 6:00 p.m. and further to June 13th at 7:15 p.m.
Public Hearing – Special Permit
for Ryan Ochoa, 653 North Main Street
The Chair, Louis Calabrese
introduced the members of the Board.
Clerk, Donald Anderson read the legal notice into the record. Mr. Calabrese welcomed Ryan Ochoa and asked
that he present his proposal to the Board.
Mr. Ochoa explained that the back
porch egress on the stairs is not up to construction code and he was proposing
adding enough space to create a safer environment for the employees as well as
to enclose the area. Mr. Anderson asked
if any parking spaces were being taken away.
Mr. Ochoa said no.
Mr. Calabrese asked if the second
floor porch stairway was what he wanted to increase? Mr. Ochoa said yes, the width of it.
Mr. Calabrese asked if they were
dealing with a pre-existing non-conforming structure and if so asked the
non-conformity. Ms. Macdonald showed him
on the plan that the setback was less than required, creating the
non-conformity. However, she added that
Mr. Ochoa was not increasing the non-conformity, nor was he creating any new
zoning infractions. Mr. Calabrese asked
if it was being done to make it comply with the state building code. Mr. Ochoa said yes that was correct.
Mr. Calabrese addressed the Board
for any questions, there being none, he addressed the audience for any
questions. There being none and upon
motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (4-0) to close the
hearing. With further discussion and upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board
voted unanimously (4-0) to approve the Special Permit finding that the
alteration to the existing structure would not be more detrimental to the
surrounding neighborhood.
Public Hearing – Special Permit
for Romito’s - 21 North Main Street
The Chair, Louis Calabrese
introduced the members of the Board.
Clerk, Donald Anderson read the legal notice and correspondence into the
record. Franklin Miorandi DPW, wrote
that he reviewed the site plan for the project and no changes have been
proposed regarding access, egress and drainage therefore the site plan is
approved by the DPW. The Fire Department
had no recommendations and the fire hydrants are sufficient. The Police Department recommended that the
exit from the site remain one lane to eliminate multiple vehicles attempting to
exit the site at the same time. They
also recommended that the current non-conforming handicapped only parking sign
be replaced with a conforming sign, any pavement markings be repainted for
improved visibility and recommended to allow the business owner to install
pavement grooves if necessary to reduce vehicle speed at the site.
Mr. Anderson read correspondence
from Mrs. Yermakov, 43 White Avenue who wrote that they live across the
street from Romito’s and so far have
enjoyed having them as a neighbor. She said
however opening a bar in the restaurant is not something she would like to see
because late night traffic will increase as well as the noise and a multitude
of other problems. Her letter also
stated that it would be a lot more dangerous to go outside in the evening
because of the chance that there might be intoxicated people on the
street. Mrs. Yermakov wrote that one of
the reasons she moved to East Longmeadow and has stayed here for so long is
because of the quietness, and she feels having a bar in the city, especially so
close to her house, would negatively affect her usually quiet evenings.
Mr.
Calabrese informed the applicant that on a Special Permit there is usually 4
out of 5 members that have to vote in favor of it and there are only 4 members
present this evening, explaining that all 4 members would need to be in favor
of it for approval. Ms. Macdonald added
that Rosemarie Romito and Sean Carey sat down with us during the work session
and spoke with the police and fire and were aware of all of the issues and she
believes all of the concerns have all been addressed. Mr. Morrissette added that the applicant has
the option to continue the hearing if they wanted to wait for the entire Board
to be in attendance.
Ms.
Romito felt that was not necessary. She
explained that they are not doing a bar, rather it is their proposal to have a
service bar behind the deli with no seats, it will be strictly for people who
are having dinner. She said they would
never operate a bar as long as she owns the property – it is not something they
want to do, they are a family that lives in town and they live here because
they like the smallness of the town. Ms.
Romito said that they keep a clean business and there is a Romito present
during all of the working hours. Mr.
Carey said it will be a service bar and if will be just for the people having
dinner who might want a beer, glass of wine or a drink with their dinner.
Ms.
Richards asked if their liquor license requires that the kitchen remain open
for the service of alcohol. Ms. Romito
said absolutely.
Mr.
Calabrese asked if 11:00 p.m. would be the latest they are open. Mr. Carey said yes. Ms. Romito said under the license, they can
stay open until 11:00 p.m., however, that does not necessarily mean that is how
late they will stay open. She added that
in case - on a Saturday night they want to stay open later if it was during the
holiday season – they would stay later, but it was required that they had those
hours of operations on their license so they could extend the hours legally if
they needed to on special occasions.
Ms.
Romito said realistically they are looking at staying open until 9:30 p.m., but
they need to stay competitive within the other businesses in town. She said they are moving the dumpster from
the area on the building site, and it will be relocated and backup to the other
dumpster at the mobile station location.
Ms. Romito also stated that she had Don Smith make up new plans so that
they can fit the pad in properly and that the dumpster will be emptied at a
proper time after 7:00 a.m. and will not cause noise in the middle of the
night. Sean said that it will have a
fence around it along with trees so it will not be visible. Ms. Romito said that they will also be able
to pick up 2 more parking spaces by moving the dumpster. She added that the seating will be for 45
seats with the retail portion open until 5:30 p.m. and then changeover to the
nighttime café after 6:00 p.m. At that
time, there will be no retail on the site and the seating will then be
transformed to 60 seats. With the retail
businesses closed at that time, there will be plenty of parking for the café
patrons. She said that currently there is an empty tenant space and they are
looking for a office type situation rather than retail because there is not
enough parking for another retail location and they are going to require that
the tenants are closed by 6:00 p.m. thus making the entire parking lot
available for the café patrons.
Ms.
Richards said there are 45 seats which requires15 parking spaces and 27
additional for the retail use, for a total of 42 - which are provided so the formula is met
whether they are open or not.
Ms.
Romito said that she was actually looking to be able to put in more than 45
seats, when Don Smith did the drawing for them he did it from the parking and
they would like to be able to go upwards until 60, with just an additional 5
tables.
Mr.
Calabrese asked if the retail facilities will be closed at the times the café
was open? Ms. Romito answered yes. Mr. Calabrese said as a condition of the
Special Permit we could make the parking spaces available as long the retail
shops were not open at those times. Mr.
Carey said they are looking for some type of Tax Office or Real Estate office
that is not retail for a tenant and would make the available hours part of the
lease.
Ms.
Richards said that it was a unique request but it is also a unique situation in
that they have control over their tenants.
Mr.
Morrissette asked if they were going to shield the deli and the retail
area. Mr. Carey said yes the deli will
have tri-fold shutters. Ms. Romito
presented a floor plan and reviewed it with the Board. Mr. Carey said there will not be any huge
renovations they are just looking to expand with the times.
Mr.
Anderson asked if they had any issue with the comments from the Police. Ms. Romito said they did not have any
outstanding issues – that they had made every change that the police department
recommended.
Ms.
Richards asked when the dumpsters are emptied.
Sean said every Monday and Thursday between 7:30 – 8:30 am.
Mr.
Calabrese addressed the Board for any further questions, there being none
addressed the audience for any questions.
Maritza
Smidy, 21 Elm Street said she had some concerns with her house being right across the street
from Romito’s. Ms. Smidy felt that there
is going to be more traffic around 9:00 – 9:30 p.m. and the dumpsters are
sometimes picked up around 4:30 – 5:00 a.m.
She added that maybe it is the Mobile station dumpster and not Romito’s
but she hears them. She said she
understood that they need to keep up with other businesses, however it is a
town and it is in a residential area and she lives there and asked if they would
want a restaurant in their backyard? Ms.
Smidy said it was just she and her husband, however her daughter, her husband
and child live next door and she is just worried that it is going to get out of
hand.
Mr.
Calabrese said the two concerns are the dumpster and your peace would be disturbed
if it’s too late at night when they are emptied. Sean assured Ms. Smidy if she has any
problems with the dumpster he wants her to tell him right away so that he could
take care of it immediately. Mr.
Calabrese said essentially, your plans are to be open until 11:00 p.m. but more
than likely it is probably not going to be that late? Mr. Carey said it not going to be open that
late on a normal basis and that the only reason they asked for their license to
allow them to stay open to 11:00 p.m. is in case they have a Christmas party or
special occasion. He assured the Board
that some nights will be earlier and most restaurants around the area are quiet
by 8:30 p.m. Mr. Calabrese said of
course as a condition of your Special Permit should there a problem where it is
getting noisy in the evening you would be agreeable if we had to call you back
to discuss the problems?
Ms.
Smidy asked when they plan to start doing this?
Mr. Carey said probably not until August with a few trial runs through
the month of July. He said there is not
going to be any music outside and it is not going to be a big bar scene – that
the whole purpose of the liquor license is for people to come and have a drink
with their dinner.
Mr.
Morrissette asked if any of the seating will be outside for dinner. Ms. Romito said there will be no service
outside and people might wait outside for their take out orders. She also said that if patron’s ordered take
out, they may eat at the outside seating area.
Mr.
Calabrese said, as part of one of the conditions - the Board needs to address
the certainty that there will be no nuisances such as noise or safety hazards
created, and if that becomes a problem, the Board would have to address it with
the petitioner.
Ms.
Richards said that they have addressed the issue with respect to the
appropriate screening by walls, fences, planting or devices shall be provided
for parking areas with the idea of expanding your use until later into the
evening. She asked if they anticipate
having any problem with the house that is directly on the side of the property
when people come in to park with their lights on? Ms. Romito said when they originally built
onto the existing bank building, it was brought up as an issue and they were
required at that time to put in arborvitaes, so they did - they also added
trees and other plantings that the environmental people requested.
Ms.
Richards asked if this became an issue as they became more operational would
they agree to plant more bushes? Ms.
Romito said they would do the best the could within their budget
Sid
Starks, 28 Elm Street said they are great neighbors and he asked
would outdoor dinning be at the discretion of the customer? Mr. Carey said yes, if they ordered, they
could choose to take the food outside, however, there would be no outside
service. Mr. Starks also said that it
would it be a good idea to plant a few more arborvitaes further down the buffer
area to block the sound from people sitting out and the headlights from the
cars after dark. Ms. Romito said
financially they will do the best that they can and said that the change was
major for their family and they will do whatever is necessary to be good
neighbors.
Mr. Calabrese addressed the Board
for any further questions, there being none, and upon motion duly made and
seconded, the Board 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
Special Permit - finding that the seating could increase to 60 seats after 6:00
p.m., based on the fact that there will be an agreement with the tenants that
they will close at 5:00 p.m. or 6:00 p.m. and their parking spaces would be
available for the restaurant use. The
Board further found that the requirements/criteria for approval of a Special
Permit would all be met.
Mr. Carabetta presented a request
for an ANR for Allen Street. He
explained to the Board that he made a deal with the neighbors to take some of
their frontage in exchange for square footage in the back and in doing so
brought all the lots into conformity as far as square footage and frontage.
The Board reviewed the ANR dated May, 2006 for the creation
of five new lots on Allen Street. The plan represented the creation of Lot D
consisting of 47,159 square feet; Lot E consisting of 27,59 square feet; Lot F
consisting of 25,176 square feet; Lot G consisting of 48,317 square feet; and
Lot H consisting of 25,065 square feet . The lots all meet the frontage
requirements on Allen Street – a public way.
After discussion and upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted
unanimously (4-0) to approve the ANR as presented.
Mr. Anderson read a letter from
the owner of Pasquale’s Restaurant, Joseph Santaniello requesting to bring
tables and chairs outside the lounge area.
He will not be adding to the seating capacity and would be removing the
seating from the inside and he plans to do it from March through October. He
said whatever he needs do in order for this to happen he will do it and he
knows he will need to fence the area in.
Mr. Calabrese asked Mr.
Santaniello how many tables he would like to have. Mr. Santaniello said no more than 6 tables.
Ms. Richards asked if it was for
take out? Mr. Santaniello said he would
like to be able to serve outside. Ms.
Richards asked if he has requested an extension for his liquor license? He said no but he was mostly concerned about
everyone hanging around the door and smoking, so this would give them a chance
to sit down at tables to smoke outside and eat outside and possibly have a
drink. Mr. Morrissette said that the Selectmen
will need to address the alcohol and fencing issue.
Mr. Calabrese said he would feel
comfortable as long as he had a current seating plan for the inside. Ms. Richards said they should not make a
decision until they know what they are looking at. Mr. Calabrese said we need a plan showing
where all the tables are currently. Mr.
Santaniello said he does have one and that he will provide it. Mr.
Calabrese advised him that he could choose which inside tables would be
moved to the outside area.
Mr. Morrissette asked Mr.
Santaniello if he had spoken with the Selectmen and informed him that if he
wanted to serve alcohol outside, then he would need to apply for a Special
Permit with the Planning Board. Ms.
Richards said it changes the impact of what they are asking for and that the
current use would be extended which would require a Special Permit. Mr. Morrissette agreed and said that was his
question - whether at that point - would he still need a Special Permit to do
it? Ms. Richards said she thinks the
Board needs to get all of the information before they make that decision. Mr. Morrissette said he understood but if he
was denied from the Selectmen to serve alcohol outside and he still wanted to
have his tables outside, he would not need a Special Permit. Ms. Richards said then they would probably
review it differently. He advised Mr.
Santaniello that if he wanted to do that
step first, to go talk to the Selectmen and see if they will even consider
expanding the liquor license - if they will not consider it, he could go a
different route.
Mr. Santaniello said his first
step was to get the tables outside with umbrellas and no alcohol served
yet. He added if he can get permission
to move the tables, then he will take the next step for outside liquor service.
Mr. Anderson said merely moving
the location of tables is not a big deal to him. Ms. Richards said if we send that message to
the Selectmen saying that we approved this, what if we approved and there is no
division between the service of alcohol inside and outside? Mr. Anderson said it is not under the
Planning Board’s purview – rather an issue for the Selectmen.
Mr. Calabrese said he would be
satisfied with a floor plan of what is there now or what will be there in the
future. Ms. Macdonald said if they were
so inclined to make a decision that
evening they could make it contingent upon Mr. Santaneillo bringing in the
plan, because she believed she has looked at it – she may have reviewed a
parking plan – she would double check.
Mr. Calabrese said he did not have a problem with it, Ms. Richards said
as long as there was no permission for alcohol in the decision. Mr. Anderson said that it would not be
impeding people traffic or parking.
Mr. Anderson said that they can
take the existing seating plan to allow a modification that no more than 6
tables, tables being of equal or lesser number of seating per table, from
inside being moved outside.
Mr. Santanellio asked would they
be able to eat outside. Mr. Anderson
said yes, but no alcoholic beverages, that would be the Selectmen’s issue.
The Board granted the applicant’s
request to move six tables with four seats each from the inside to the outside
to allow customers to have a smoking area where they can sit and not congregate
at the lounge door, as well as bring food outside if they chose to.
Attorney Steve Manning said that
the parcel was an odd configuration and that with respect to the frontage he
did want to point out to the Board the 1987 plan that was approved by the Board
for the same parcel. He said another ANR
was approved that wiped out the line but now he wants to put it back. Mr. Calabrese said he looked at the property
with Mr. Czupryna and he found no problem getting onto the lot.
The Board reviewed the plan dated March, 2006 for creation
of two new lots. Lot 101 containing 15,086 square feet with frontage on
Pecousic Drive and lot 102 containing 63,295 square feet with frontage on
Boulder Street.
After discussion and upon motion
duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (4-0) to approve the ANR.
Mr.
Anderson asked if there was ever a floor plan submitted. Mr. Falcone said that the original plans were
filed with the Building Inspector, and did not know why the floor plan was not
filed with the Planning Board. The Board
explained to Mr. Falcone that they could not address the request without the
seating plan and they could not address the signage request because there was
no application filed with the request.
Signage
– Rocky’s Ace Hardware
Mr. Falcone
requested to replace the existing signage on the façade of the Rocky’s
building.
After
review of the application, the Board voted (4-0) to approve
the replacement sign as presented, conditioned
upon obtaining a sign permit from the Building Inspector. The Board understands that the sign as
present will be attached to a background of white spaces attached to the brick
façade of the building and will be internally lit – having no moving parts or
LED displays and measure a total of 97.5 square feet. The measurements approved for this sign (97.5
square feet) must be inclusive of the entire sign – measuring as an oblong and
not as individual lettering.
The Board reviewed the plan dated April 16, 2006 for the
creation of one new lot on Prospect Street combining approximately 1.57 acres
of an existing parcel into another parcel creating a new Parcel A consisting of
100,764 square feet (4.61 acres). The
lot meets the frontage requirements on a public way named Prospect Street
After discussion and upon motion
duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (4-0) to approve the ANR.
The plan is dated May, 2006 and shows the combining of old
lots into two new lots. The plan creates
Lot C consisting of 10,688 square feet and Lot D consisting of 12,704 square
feet. Lot C is a pre-existing
non-conforming lot as it does not have the required amount of frontage on a
public way. However, any building on
said lot must meet the Zoning set-back requirements. Lot D, although having the required number of
feet for frontage, is a pre-existing non conforming lot in that the said
“frontage” is not on a public road, rather on a private road. These lots were formed prior to the enactment
of the Zoning by-laws.
After discussion and upon motion
duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (4-0) to approve the ANR.
The Board reviewed the minutes of
March 7th and, upon motion
duly made and seconded, voted unanimously to accept them, with edits.
The Board reviewed the minutes of
March 21st 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 10:30 p.m.
For
the Board,
Donald
J. Anderson, Clerk