Minutes of June 13, 2006
Present
were: Marilyn Richards, Vice Chairperson; Donald Anderson; Clerk,
Thomas
Morrissette and Michael Przybylowicz.
Louis Calabrese was absent.
Ms. Richards, acting Chair,
welcomed
1.
Developer put in
writing their notification that specific streets were ready to be taken by the
town.
2.
Upon receipt of said
request, the Planning Board will notify
the Department of Public Works of the request, and ask that they inspect the
roads in question and report back to her their findings.
3.
Upon receipt of the
findings of the DPW, the Planning Board will notify the developer of any
concerns and instruct the developer to complete the required items and report
back to the Planning Board that the items listed by DPW have been completed. In addition, the developer shall provide the
Planning Board with a check covering the costs of recording the street taking
document with the Hampden County Registry of Deeds.
4.
The Planning Board
will ask the DPW to then make a final inspection and report back if the road is
ready to be taken.
5.
Upon notice that the
road is ready to be taken, the Planning Board will prepare the warrant article
for town meeting and make the presentation at that time.
6.
The Selectmen will
then prepare the taking documents, endorse same and record the documents.
7.
Town counsel will
notify the Planning Board within 60 days of the acceptance at town meeting that
the taking documents have been endorsed and recorded.
Mr. Przybylowicz asked at any point will the Planning Board
advise the Selectmen that the streets are
ready to be taken. Ms. Macdonald said
not until it is a warrant article because they really do not get involved until
town meeting - the request would be just another petition to them because they
look to the Planning Board and to DPW for recommendations as far as the
acceptance is concerned. Ms. Macdonald
also stated that she had previously spoken with
Mr. Morrissette asked if it is
Planning Board’s rules and regulations that would be changed and whether or not
the Board of Selectmen would have to change anything? Ms. Macdonald said no, the difference would
only be that street takings would not be petitioned articles, rather articles
submitted by the Planning Board. Ms.
Richards asked if it had anything to with the list of streets that have been
approved at Town Meeting but not actually taken. Ms. Macdonald said yes.
Mr. Maybury said over the years it
seems like there is always something going on that adds some kind of layer of
complication to the process and therefore, time becomes our enemy. He said DPW would definitely support helping
or working through the process with the Planning Board because it turns into
money for the Town. He said it seems
like there are some things that slow the process down. Mr. Maybury continued by stating that it was
unfortunate that at the last town meeting it was just a matter of some people
standing up and saying take our street, which did not happen.
Mr. Maybury added that the town
(through DPW) is missing out on money which would go to the town if this
process could be streamlined. He
explained that the town receives Chapter 90 money based on the number of miles
of streets it owns. He said the second
part of it is that the DPW cannot make repairs on private ways and the
taxpayers are paying taxes on the roads and have an expectation that the
roadways will be maintained. Mr. Maybury
added that the quicker the town can accept the roads, the better off the town
is. He explained that if the town owns a
street, they can make repairs before they become major, rather than letting the
roads sit and begin to deteriorate – with the town’s hands being tied because
the roadways are still private. He
added that the residents of these streets certainly are not willingly pay for
the repairs.
Ms. Richards said she did not see
a problem with the proposal in terms of the procedure. She added that she was fully aware of all the
outstanding streets that the Town has voted to take but somehow fell through
the cracks and were never taken.
She asked Mr. Maybury if the town
is willing to take on the responsibility of repairs of these streets because
the town will receive Chapter 90 monies?
Mr. Maybury said he thinks, with unfortunate regret, that they have to
spend that kind of money to get the streets in good repair, that the DPW has
not voted on it, however, we need to move something forward. He said the bottom line is that everyone needs
to get their heads together and make a decision as to how we can make this
work.
Ms. Richards asked how many
streets are on the list that have been accepted by the Town at least once or
twice? Mr. Maybury said 15 streets have been
accepted for taking at previous town meetings and were never recorded.
After discussion, and upon motion
duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (4-0) take the lead with
respect to street takings and take petitioned articles out of the procedure. Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board
voted unanimously (4-0) to dedicate the funds to pay for the recording costs of
the streets that have been accepted and not taken to date. Further, the Board agreed that, from this
point forward, the developers will provide the town with the recording fees for
the taking documents related to their developments.
Ms.
Richards welcomed Chief Mellis and Sergeant Driscoll to the meeting. She welcomed Mr. Rinaldi also. Ms. Richards explained to Mr. Rinaldi that his
request for waiver of site plan was discussed at the last meeting and that
there were concerns regarding his request.
She further stated that the Board was not comfortable with approving his
request until the issues with the police department were addressed.
Ms.
Richards asked Mr. Anderson to read the waiver of site plan request again. At
that time, Mr. Anderson read the request into the record. Ms. Richards told Mr. Rinaldi that the Board
was struggling with the request - there were no business hours given, no
merchandise would be at the location, and that it does not seem quite clean
what type of arrangement he was proposing.
Mr.
Rinaldi said that the new Police Chief wants to comply with the Town
regulations about businesses. However, the
prior chief never saw a problem with what he did at his house. Ms. Richards commented that it did not matter
what the previous Chief did, as the new Chief is in charge.
Mr.
Rinaldi said he can understand that and that was why he was there. He said basically he is asking to do what he
has been doing since the early 1980’s.
Ms. Richards asked him what that was.
Mr. Rinaldi explained that he had been selling an occasional firearm -
that he gets in on the cutting edge of new materials that come out – that he sells gunshot, gun powder and accessories. Mr. Rinaldi said the last hand gun he sold
was to his uncle’s son-in-law about 3 years ago, and the last rifle he sold was
to his uncle’s son.
Mr.
Rinaldi also stated that he wished he could tell the Board he was doing a
billion dollars in business but he does not.
He also stated that it would cost him money for his permit and gas money
for traveling and he only charges his friends what it costs him - the idea is
to defray the cost of having to go to a store and buy the stuff. He said that it has gotten impossible in
Ms.
Richards asked if he would have a store front.
Mr. Rinaldi said it is just an address and he was trying to comply with what
the Town wants. Mr. Anderson asked where
his firearms sales ledger would be. Mr.
Rinaldi said it has to stay at his house.
At this
time, Mr. Anderson asked Sergeant Driscoll to inform the Board what his
concerns were. Sergeant Driscoll said
that Mr. Rinaldi did operate a business out of his home prior to the changes of
the gun control act. He said when the
gun control act was enacted by the legislature they made sweeping changes to
the firearms licensing laws. He added
that dealer licenses require that the licensee maintain a permanent place of
business -not a residence or dwelling.
He said clearly their intent was to get the mom & pop operations out
of the residential areas and put them in a commercial setting.
Sergeant
Driscoll also stated that he thought that Mr. Rinaldi wants to be able to keep
his inventory at his home – that he is required to keep his ledger and records
at a business office. He said that the
Police Department is required to inspect the ledger once a year to make sure
that the applicant is in compliance with all the regulations of the license.
Mr.
Anderson asked if he was saying if the Board gave permission for Mr. Rinaldi to
use a satellite address or a desk with no signage identifying the business, keeping
the ledger and any other weapons at his house - would not be in compliance with
Mass Law? Sergeant Driscoll said that
was correct, that would not be in compliance with the laws. He also said that Mr. Rinaldi has a federal
firearms license and can sell up to 4 hand guns or rifles a year without a
dealer’s license. He added that sales of
over 4 guns per year requires a state
dealer’s license. He said if Mr. Rinaldi
had a store he would be in compliance with the law, and that would be
sufficient for the licensing authority to inspect the ledger as well as the
business.
Mr.
Morrissette asked Mr. Rinaldi if he knew of other people similar to himself who
buy & sell a small number of guns and work out their house? Mr. Rinaldi stated that the old chief did not
look at his business as being a business and did not have a problem with
it. He said now that there is a new Chief
and he has an issue with it and that was why he came before the Board. He added that he is not trying to do anything
illegal. He said he was trying to comply
by getting a place that was zoned business.
He added that if the Board does not want to grant him a waiver at
Mr.
Rinaldi asked what if he only applied for an ammunition license? Sergeant Driscoll stated that the
requirements were different, however, he would have to do some research on that
and get back to the Board. As a result of
this, and upon motion duly made and seconded the Board voted unanimously (4-0)
to table the issue and wait for Sergeant Driscoll to provide the Board with
information relating to ammunition licenses.
Clerk, Donald Anderson read a request for Waiver of Site Plan
Review from
New
England Financial/Gent Financial/Sid Starks to open their business at
Ms. Richards addressed the Board
for any questions. There
being none and upon motion duly made and
seconded, the Board voted unanimously (4-0) to approve the request for
waiver of site plan review.
After
review of the sign application, the Board voted (4-0) to approve the sign (which is to be placed on the glass on the door) as
presented and conditioned upon obtaining a sign permit from the Building
Inspector.
Public Hearing – Katherine Reilly,
At 7:00
p.m., Acting Chair, Marilyn Richards opened the Public Hearing and introduced
the Board members. Clerk, Donald
Anderson read the legal notice and correspondence into the record. Rick Bates, Police Department recommended
that a local license be issued. Paul
Morrissette, Fire Department said that he inspected the home at
Katherine
Reilly explained that she would like to open a Family Home Daycare in her home
at
Ms.
Richards addressed the Board for any questions.
Mr. Anderson asked if Ms. Reilly was in compliance for carbon monoxide
detectors? Ms. Reilly said there has to
be a carbon monoxide detector in every sleeping room and that she has provided
same and has had them inspected by the Fire Department.
Ms.
Richards asked Ms. Reilly how many children of her own she had. Ms. Reilly said one. Ms. Richards asked if that meant she would be
caring for a total of 6 children? Ms.
Reilly answered yes.
Ms.
Richards addressed the audience for questions.
There being none and upon motion duly made and seconded, the board voted
unanimously (4-0) to close the hearing.
Upon motion duly and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (4-0)
to approve the Special Permit based
on the fact it meets the criteria for the Special Permit Section 6.
Ms.
Richards said that the subdivision has been approved and now the Board needs to
review the Site Plan and the Special Permit.
She said that she had an opportunity to review the plans and has a couple
of questions. Ms. Richards asked Mr.
LeBeau how many total units there would be.
Mr. LeBeau said 130 suites, 152 bedrooms. Ms. Richards asked if they were single or 2
bedroom units. Mr. LeBeau said mostly
single units with a maximum occupancy of 152.
Ms. Richards said that they do need to talk about the height requirement
and the Board would be allowed to approve, through the process, a 45 foot
height which would include the 3rd story. She said that the plan shows a cupola on top
of the structure which brings it to 48 feet, so they need talk about that
issue.
Ms.
Richards stated that the plan was originally filed for the use as a congregate
care facility with meal service for 3 meals daily, and there would be no
kitchens in the units. Attorney Fran
Mirkin said correct, there will be no
individual kitchens within the suites.
Ms. Richards said the only other thing they need to make sure that they
do is to address the condition relating to the roadway being held private.
Attorney
Mirkin said that they submitted a Declaration of Owners Association which
specifically states who is responsible for taking care of things including the private
road.
Mr.
Morrissette asked who would be a member of the Owner’s Association? Attorney Mirkin said it would be whomever
owns the 4 lots in the subdivision with the developer being the head of the Association. Ms. Richards asked the Board if they had any
questions on the agreement keeping the roadway the private. She said that the plan showed 82 parking spaces
and the formula that was used was the 1 space per 3 beds, which is the nursing
home standard. She said that 18 spaces
are being put under a car port and they need to talk about that.
Mr.
Morrissette asked why they are constructing a car port? Mr. LeBeau said it was being made available
for a premium rent. Ms. Macdonald
advised the Board that the Fire Department had put restrictions on these
structures – it must have two means of access/egress and there cannot be an
outside wall (no door). Mr. LeBeau
showed the members that these conditions had been met. After discussion the Board agreed that no
more than five (5) vehicles would be permitted under each carport and that no
more than four (4) carports were to be constructed, making that a total of twenty
(20) vehicles have the ability to be under a carport.
Mr. Przybylowicz
asked if there was going to be any signage? Mr. LeBeau showed the Board some color
renderings. Ms. Richards asked if they
would have interior or exterior lighting?
Mr. LeBeau said exterior lighting that would be on the ground shining
up.
Ms.
Richards said that Ms. Macdonald received some information from Pete Punderson,
a member of the East Longmeadow Design Review Committee, who could not attend
the meeting but wanted to provide some insight.
Mr. Punderson questioned the reason for square pillars and asked if they
could be rounded like a column. Mr.
Punderson suggested that grids be installed in the windows – making the project
look more residential rather than like an institution.
Ms.
Richards asked the Board what direction they wanted to take. Mr. Anderson asked if the Board could address
the issue of the carports under the Special Permit. Ms. Richards said yes. Therefore, upon motion duly made and
seconded, the Board voted unanimously (4-0) to approve the Site Plan subject to
a five (5) car maximum per carport, a maximum of twenty (20) cars total and
subject to recommendations from the design review. Upon motion duly made and seconded, the
Board voted unanimously (4-0) to approve the Special Permit for Congregate Care
Facility at
After
review of the application and upon motion duly made and
seconded, the Board
voted unanimously
(4-0) to approve a non-illuminated sign, measuring 13.3 square
feet in total that will replace the existing sign, conditioned upon review and
approval by the Building Inspector with the issuance of a permit by the
Building Inspector.
Ms. Richards explained that the
Chairman was in
Clerk,
Donald Anderson read a letter from
At this time, Nat Arai with
Baystate Environmental provided an overview to the Board. He stated that it was a preliminary
subdivision plan of Pecousic Park which would utilize approximately 48 acres of
land along North Main Street and Westwood Avenue. He explained at 13 acres of the property
consists of the Heritage Park Shopping Center.
Mr. Arai explained that the proposal is to bring two subdivision roads
with cul-de-sacs, meeting the subdivision standards, one from North Main Street
and one from Westwood Avenue. He added
that this would allow the applicant to divide the property into six (6) parcels
and provide access from both ends of the property.
Attorney
Ellen Freyman said the purpose is to maximize the options available with the
property and the different development opportunities each parcel would
present. She said although they do not
know who the end user will be, they will be obviously in compliance with zoning
and what they are proposing is to design the definitive plan for the full
capacity for the parcel. Attorney
Freyman said that they are proposing some office uses and they would design the
roadway to be sufficient for traffic for offices. Further, she said that if they decide to put
some retail at this location, they would provide the traffic report showing
that the development would satisfy the requirements for retail. Ms. Freyman also stated that they would provide
information showing compliance with the design standards and requirements in
the definitive plan. Mr. Morrissette
asked if the definitive plan will show the building envelopes and uses? Ms. Freyman stated that whatever the design
standards required, they will provided. Mr. Przybylowicz
asked at what point would a traffic study presented. Attorney Freyman said it would be part of the
definitive plan.
Ms. Richards stated that she had
concerns with regard to the Board’s discussion during a prior request for an
ANR, those being the fact that there is an existing site plan for the shopping
plaza. She added that it is apparent
that parking spaces are being disturbed at that site. Ms. Richards said the concern of the Planning
Board is not to place that particular parcel into a non-conforming status so
the parking requirements based on the established use - which could be changed
– are affected. She added that she is
not sure where to go with it. She asked
if the definitive would show these changes?
Ms. Freyman stated yes it would address the existing site plan. Ms. Richards said another concern she has is
the issue with wetland boundaries - Mr.
Morrissette pointed to an area on the plan and asked if it was the Pecousic
Brook. Mr. Arai stated, no it was the
wetland border marker and they would be going before the Conservation
Commission. Ms. Richards added that the
flood plain map shows the area to be a flood zone and she is not sure who
initiates that review because a special permit is required through the Planning
Board for any development within the flood zone. Ms. Richards said she was not
even sure if it was going to be impacted or not. Mr. Morrissette stated that would not have an
impact on the subdivision plan. He added
that some of the lots look like they are not buildable because of the wetlands,
however, that was not the concern of the Board – the Board was there to approve
the roadways. Ms. Freyman said when they
are ready to develop there they would apply to the Planning Board for a Special
Permit as one of requirements.
Mr. Anderson said that Ms.
Macdonald raised a good question in that if a change is being made to the
shopping center another site plan would have to be approved at that
location. He added that they would be
dealing with the traffic issues there and removal of the parking spaces on the
existing shopping center issue. Mr. Arai
said they would be addressed at the same time through a definitive plan. Ms. Richards said that was something that
they had talked with Attorney Donahue about that changes cannot be made to the
existing site plan without bringing it into conformity. Mr. Morrissette advised that the members look
at the issue this way – you have an applicant that wants to subdivide their
property – in doing that, the applicant has to take away some of the parking on
the existing plan – in order for the developer to do the subdivision, they must
show this – it is all going to be part of the changes – the site plan will be
modified as part of the new plan. When the Board approves the subdivision, they
will have to approve the site plan. He
explained that the applicant will have to submit all the changes to the Board –
subdivision and site plan. Mr. Anderson
stated that if it is creating a non-conforming site plan they cannot approve
the subdivision. Ms. Richards stated that the applicant is
assuming that parking can be moved. Mr.
Morrissette stated that he understood that, conservation would have to approve
- he was stating that while the subdivision project is under construction – the
total project (site plan) would have to be under construction. Mr. Morrissette added that, literally the
moving of the spaces would be required, but the fact of the matter is that the
spaces being discussed are never used by anyone – there is way too much extra
parking now – if they have to modify the site plan – they will. Mr. Anderson discussed the difference between
the site plan and a Special Permit and designating parking spaces to employees. Mr. Morrissette stated that his thought was
that he did not feel the Board had to go to that point – there is parking all
over the place – the Board is jumping ahead of the game – they need to deal
with the subdivision plan.
Ms.
Richards asked, if in their long range plans, are they still looking to widen
North Main Street? Attorney Freyman said
they might potentially with the design they are doing. Ms. Richards stated the reason why she was
bringing it up was because the town would like to keep a treescape along North
Main Street as you come into East Longmeadow from Springfield.
Mr.
Anderson asked if the cul-de-sac was going to be temporary? Mr. Arai said it was a permanent
cul-de-sac. Mr. Anderson asked would
there be only one driveway regardless of the uses? Mr. Arai said that was the intent.
Mr. Przybylowicz asked if the
cul-de-sac off of North Main Street (where it extends behind the Stop &
Shop building currently) is just pavement?
He added that there is a lot of traffic movement around the back of the
store and asked if the developer will be able to segregate the cul-de-sac from
the parking area and still have the traffic movements allowed? Mr. Arai said yes because there is sufficient
width to provide motion between the loading area and the cul-de-sac. He added that the street width was extra wide
– 36 feet. Mr. Morrissette stated that
it would be better because presently, tractor trailers drive right through the
parking lot. Mr. Przybylowicz said he
was not so much concerned how it goes
down between the building and the cul-de-sac, rather the traffic movement
behind the building. Mr. Arai said it is
possible that trucks would pull in and
reverse, but a lot of them pull straight in and the shorter trucks back up to
the loading dock. Mr. Przybylowicz asked
if the roadway would be distinguished from the parking area? Mr. Arai said he thinks it will – it will be
slightly depressed and have a driveway cut in it - that is a detail that needs
to be worked on. Mr. Anderson asked about
the existing parking spaces – Mr. Arai stated those would be relocated.
Mr. Anderson said one of his
concerns is when there was talk with whatever the project is going to be, there
would be 780 parking spaces with no access for emergency vehicles - and he
still has a problem with the various vehicles, commercial vehicles and snow
conditions and truck jack-knifing - effectively blocking everyone in there – he
also sees the roadway from Westwood to North Main being a cut-through. Mr. Arai said that they could explore it with
some kind of emergency egress. Mr.
Anderson said but a practical emergency egress, something that - in the middle
of winter where it is not going to be maintained or plowed because it is for
emergency - then a fire truck cannot get into the site – but also not one that
would be used as a shortcut. Mr. Arai
stated it could not be a regular roadway.
Ms. Richards stated that she was
more concerned and while she understood the nature of the preliminary process
which is based on the value of a preliminary plan, the plan becomes more
valuable based on the information you have and the more recommendations we are
able to make, but we see roads, we see the brook, we know there are wetlands. .
. . She questions the ability of them to
develop – they have nothing else to look at and she is not sure what the
developer is looking to get from the process.
The lots are subdivided, they know they need to do the modification of
the site plan – the roads need to meet the requirements . . . . She said she was not sure what they were
trying to get from the process other
than for the Board to say the roads are okay.
She said the lots are already subdivided and you know you have to modify
the site plan. Additionally, she added
that, other than the roads meeting the standard for the Town, she is not sure
what else the Board can give them.
Attorney Freyman said that they
understand that and a lot of their answers are going to be provided once they
submit the definitive plan and that once Board looks at design standards which
will show how they satisfied them – as well as a lot of the issues you have
commented will be addressed. She said
that they are ready to move on - that they understand what the Board needs to
see – is the next step is the definitive plan which requires more engineering
work – that will all be explained in the definitive plan.
After discussion, the Board agreed
that they need more information before making a decision. Mr. Morrissette showed Mr. Anderson some
specifics on the plan with relationship to access from North Main Street and
pointed out the most viable portion for building.
Mr. Anderson stated that there was
insufficient data to make a decision – if it was put to vote, he would vote to
deny based on insufficient data – Mr. Przybylowicz agreed.
Ms. Freyman stated that most of
the questions really related to the site plan approval and it was difficult for
them to give more information at this time.
All the questions would be answered at the definitive plan level. Mr. Morrissette stated that this is a
preliminary concept. Mr. Anderson stated
that the preliminary plan is prefaced on changing the site plan for the stop
& shop plaza.
Mr. Morrissette stated that the
town allows them to have the ability of filing a preliminary plan to begin
with, how can the Board not approve the comments that we have given to the applicant. Mr.Anderson stated that it is absurd to have
the process if they cannot say it is good or bad. Mr. Anderson stated that plans they have seen
in the past do not show making changes to existing site plans rather usually
cutting through raw land – not your typical preliminary plan. He said there was high traffic issues and
other concerns.
Attorney Freyman stated that you
either approve or disapprove by comment and conditions – that way they could
move on and address the issues. Mr.
Anderson said he could not think of approving with the changes being made to
the site plan. Mr. Morrissette asked why
someone would come to the Board with a concept if this is the way the Board is
going to look at it? Mr. Anderson stated
that he will give comments but not approve – Mr. Przybylowicz agreed.
Ms. Macdonald explained that the
plan before them is a preliminary subdivision plan showing roadways only and
that is what the Board needs to address.
The applicant cannot move forward until the Board approves and their
definitive plan is approved – Mr. Morrissette stated that yes, one of the
comments would be that they have to straighten out the existing site plan . . .
.they cannot go further.
Mr. Anderson still did not
agree. He said when you have a
preliminary plan going through an existing site . . . . . . Attorney Freyman stated that will all be
addressed at the time of definitive.
Mr. Anderson stated that they were part and parcel . . . he could not
separate the preliminary subdivision from the site plan. Mr. Anderson stated that if it were raw land
it would be different. . . . not cutting through a parking lot of a significant
shopping center in East Longmeadow. Ms.
Richards stated that the preliminary plan
- that the Board has the right to a higher degree of information - Ms.
Richards said she has a lot of issues, the proposed use, the access, the
existing wetlands, the flood zone and the existing site plan. She said she would not know what to tell a
consultant if they felt they needed more information before they made a
decision because she feels there is not enough information. Ms. Richards asked how could the Board be
expected to approve something without knowing how the existing site plan is
going to change?
Attorney Freyman said that they
will have that information, as part as their definitive plan. She explained that the idea for a preliminary
plan is the 45 days to allow all the interested parties to comment and that the
definitive plan would incorporate all of the comments, changes, revisions and
whatever they need to do to address all the issues in the definitive plan –
they simply want to move forward with the conceptual plan to go forward with
engineering and prepare the definitive.
Ms. Richards said the only thing
is if the Board gives them an approval that evening and the developer comes
forward with changes on the definitive plan, what if the changes are not
acceptable to the Board? Attorney
Freyman said then the Board would not approve the definitive plan. Ms. Richards asked if it would be
inappropriate for them to say that they want to see what the proposed changes
of the site plan are going to be first?
Attorney Freyman said she would do it with - as part of the definitive
plan. Mr. Morrissette stated that would
have to be – that is what is required.
Mr. Morrissette stated that it makes common sense – if it is not
approved then they would be out the door.
He added that he applauded them for coming before the Board with a
preliminary plan because it works – that is what it is for. . . . Mr. Anderson said it is too preliminary to
approve the preliminary plan with what they have out there . . . . Mr.
Morrissette disagreed. He said it
obviously was going to be a three to one vote because the Board does not get
the concept of a preliminary plan. Mr.
Anderson stated that yes, he gets the concept.
He added that when would you ever vote no then? Mr. Morrissette asked what was the negative
to voting yes? If that is the case he
stated, why have a preliminary? We
should eliminate the whole preliminary process.
Robert Michaud, asTraffic Engineer
for Edens & Avant, has been engaged to look at the traffic issues, to
address issues that have been stated by the Police Chief and at this stage,
this preliminary plan is the first doodle on the map - in order to get to the
next stage of development of that plan
they need to solicit that information both from the Police, Fire, DPW and
Planning Board. He said what he would
be doing is to illustrate how he thinks the process is moving forward - they
will be doing a limited traffic study that focuses on the entrance points to
both ends of the subdivision and will address the specific concerns the Chief
has the signal improvements, pavement stripes and entrance ways. He said he could not get to that point
without information from this process.
Certainly there needs to be changes to the existing plaza, however, they
could not get to the next step without this process. The conditions cannot be
addressed until the next step in the process - he said assuming, at some point,
the definitive subdivision gets approved it will only be approved once the
Board is comfortable with the actual changes look like – they will have a full
review process to protect them.
Ms. Richards asked if the Board
voted not to approve the plan that night what would be their next step? Attorney Freyman said that they would look at
all other comments they had and incorporate them and move forward, addressing
those conditions. Ms. Richards then stated
that there really was no change in what their action would be. Ms. Freyman stated that actually she did not
know what she would do.
Mr. Morrissette stated that before
that happens, he would recommend that they withdraw their plan - before the
Board rejects it – withdraw it and go straight to definitive. Ms. Richards asked if they deny it does that
preclude them from coming back? Mr.
Morrissette stated no but it might hurt the applicants financing, it might hurt
some of the way they structure their business – it does not have anything to do
with anything. He added that they
brought the concept to the Board, and asked if all the issues were addressed,
would the Board approve the definitive plan?
Mr. Anderson said yes, there would be more information. He added that last year another preliminary
plan showed much more information – a cleaner approach. He added that his big issue is the site plan.
Mr. Morrissette stated that the
way he sees it is the developer is coming to the Board stating, we own all of
this – we want to make some changes – we are going to work it out on a
definitive process – make your driveways – but right now, we are asking
conceptually if it works - Ms. Freyman
added with the conditions that all the issues are addressed. Mr. Anderson stated that because it calls
for a vote – there is a possibility of a no vote – he has issues – all
preliminary plans he has seen goes through raw land – this is a plan disturbing
a high volume shopping center.
Mr. Arai suggested they look at it
another way – he asked the Board to consider that it was raw land and a
residential subdivision and they were proposing to build x number of
houses. He added that a proposal for so
many houses – the Board would require a preliminary concept showing the layout
of the lots. At that point, the Board
would approve it and the developer would be able to go forward with the
definitive. He added that with that,
they would still be required to apply for site plan approval. Ms. Richards said that was absolutely correct. Mr. Arai said so this was very similar, you
could treat it as raw land in that we are going to submit a site plan for
review concurrent with the review of the definitive plan. He said he knew that it was hard for them to
look at it that way, but essentially that was what they were doing and they
would not be approving any changes to the site plan.
Mr.
Anderson said he would have rather had them come in without calling it a
preliminary subdivision plan and have an informal meeting, but being pushed to
an affirmative vote on a preliminary subdivision plan where they have their own
set of rules and so forth, that is the issue – he said it would also be a vote
on the existing site plan.
Mr.
Morrissette stated that he still recommended that they withdraw their
plan. Ms. Freyman asked if they could
continue to the next Planning Board meeting at which time they could possibly
give the Board more information? Ms.
Richards asked the Board’s pleasure but added that she thought, based on the
information in front of them, unless the applicant came back with a
modification of the site plan, and she thought that should be done first - -
for the Board to vote on something that impacts on an existing site plan –
without knowing the impact – she brought it up with the ANR and landscaping –
she does not know the total impact and she wanted to call for a vote – she
asked that someone provide a motion – Ms. Freyman asked again if they could
continue the meeting – Ms. Richards stated that she cannot see – unless the
petitioner comes up with uses and structures or a site plan modification –
which would be separate from this anyway . . . .
Keith
Hague, of Edens & Avant suggested that they come back with a conceptual
plan that addresses the Board’s concerns to allow the Board an easier route to
making a decision on the preliminary plan - so that the developer could go
forward to the definitive plan – could they defer it to the next meeting? Mr. Anderson asked if they were going to be
in a situation where it would be
automatically approved because of the
timeline? Ms. Macdonald said not if the
petitioner is asking for an extension.
Ms. Richards said the problem is the makeup of the Board will be
different next time - she did not know
who would be here who would not - and she felt they should vote. Ms. Macdonald stated that it would be the 27th
and Don would still be here.
Mr.
Morrissette stated that he felt they should continue it – he asked if the Board
had ever denied anyone to continue. Ms.
Richards stated that Mr. Morrissette had recommended that the petitioner
withdraw it – Mr. Morrissette stated yes, and now the petitioner has asked that
they be allowed to continue the meeting to submit more information - has anyone been denied a request to
continue their meeting and he felt that the Board owed it to the developer to
be fair. Mr. Anderson again asked if
they would be in jeopardy – Ms. Macdonald stated no – the petitioner has
requested the extension. Mr. Anderson
asked when they could be squeezed in since Dan Roulier’s plan could not
be? Ms. Macdonald explained that Mr.
Roulier’s project is a full site plan that needs to be reviewed by all the
departments – Mr. Morrissette stated yes, it was a full site plan – different
from this.
Therefore,
the Board agreed to continue until June 27th, 2006, at 7:45 p.m. at which time the developer
would provide more information to the Board.
Mr. Hague stated that they would be back with more information to allow
the Board a better feel for what the plan was.
Mr. Anderson asked if they could also send the information as a pdf
file? Mr. Arai stated yes, he would send
it to Robyn who could forward it.
Mr. Anderson read a letter from Lawrence Levine requesting
approval of a temporary banner to be placed under the existing sign at 53 North
Main Street at Fusion Café. The
temporary sign 3 feet by 10 feet for 60 days that will say “Open Sunday 2 p.m. – 9 p.m.”.
Upon
motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (4-0) to allow the display a temporary
banner sign to read “Open Sunday 2 p.m. to 9 p.m.”. The banner will be allowed to be displayed
for a period not to exceed two weeks, measuring 3 feet by 10 feet and will be
displayed under the existing sign at the above-mentioned property.
The
Board reviewed the ANR for Chestnut Street submitted by John Hasley
showing the revision of lots 2 & 3 on Chestnut
Street. The new Lot 2-R will consist of
32,866 square feet and the new Lot 3-R will contain 39,469 square feet. Both new lots have the proper frontage as
required by the East Longmeadow Zoning By-Law and fronting on a public way,
namely Chestnut Street. After discussion and upon motion
duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (4-0) to approve the ANR.
Amendment to By-law
Ms. Macdonald told the Board that
more and more people come into the office looking to put in-law apartments in
their homes. She asked the Board if they
would want to make an amendment to the by-law to allow it. Ms. Richards said that previously a similar
amendment was put to the town and it did not pass. Mr. Anderson said if the members thought that
they should take another shot at it, they could try again. Ms. Macdonald stated that she was simply
bringing the matter before the Board.
Starbucks
Ms. Macdonald advised the Board
that Steve Duncan from Starbucks was asking if could erect a “now hiring” on the trailer on
their site. The Board agreed that the
sign could be displayed for two weeks.
Minutes
The
Board reviewed the minutes of April 25, 2006 and upon motion duly made and
seconded, voted unanimously (4-0) to accept them.
There
being no further business and upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board
voted unanimously to close the public meeting at 10:45 p.m.
For
the Board,
Donald
J. Anderson, Clerk