Minutes of July 25, 2006

 

 

Present were: Louis Calabrese, Chairman; Marilyn Richards, Vice Chair; Donald Anderson, Clerk, Thomas Morrissette and Michael Przybylowicz. 

 

Public Hearing – Site Plan Review - Fields at Chestnut

 

Clerk, Donald Anderson read the legal notice and correspondence into the record.  

 

Franklin Miorandi, DPW wrote:

 

After the review of the plan the following have been addressed.  The stormwater proposed is to be maintained on site with an over flow to a catch basin on Chestnut Street.  The developer proposes town water and sanitary sewer for the entire site and found that the plan meets the DPW’s approval. 

 

The Selectmen wrote that they reviewed the plan and together with reports from the Police Department and Fire Department have voted to recommend approval subject to said departments’ requirements and recommendations. 

 

The Police recommended:

 

Street lights be installed to improve the safety of the site for pedestrian and vehicular traffic.  Illumination will also act as a deterrent to potential criminal activity in the neighborhood.  Sidewalks shown for road “C” need to be extended to a point at least halfway around the proposed cul-de-sac and all proposed crosswalks within the site conform to those currently installed in the town.  Street signs need to be installed as soon as practicable to assist emergency units in locating a specific address.  The site sign proposed for Chestnut Street be located so as not to interfere with the visibility of vehicle operators entering and exiting the site and a traffic count should be submitted to determine the impact of the proposed development on the surrounding streets.  The Expanded Environmental Notification Form submitted by the applicant indicates an estimated 790 trips per day at the site, stop signs should be installed at the exit locations on Chestnut Street and Benton Drive to control vehicular traffic exiting the site and a stop line should be installed on the pavement in conjunction with the installed stop signs at Chestnut Street and Benton Drive.  Any plantings need to be located so as not to interfere with the visibility of vehicle operators entering or exiting the site and the streets within the development are not going to be submitted for acceptance as public ways. 

 

The Fire Department wrote that hydrants must be placed no further apart as shown on submitted plans dated May 2006.    

 

Mr. Calabrese then asked the applicant to make his presentation.  Dan Roulier, developer, explained that they met with Ms. Macdonald to discuss the possibility of building an age restricted community at a time when there were no rules or regulations relative to it.  He said that they went through the process with the Planning Board of writing regulations that matched the other communities in the area for active adult housing and worked through all of the necessary procedures over a period of time, which was quite lengthy and involved.  Mr. Roulier said he was sure that it would result in the best possible planned community that East Longmeadow could have.  He said that they went through a successful zone change and then were told by the DEP that the site had turtles on it, which was a long process involving the study of turtles.  They were then told that they might lose up to 25 units and would have to build a turtle highway under ground, so they paid all of their necessary fees and the next day DEP changed the rules and took the turtles off the endangered species list.

 

Jeff LeBeau, Engineer from Baystate Environmental, explained that the plan was a conceptual preliminary plan of the over-all development the way they envisioned it.  He said that they designed the project to be parceled off to be phased and what they would like to get approved that evening was the zoning layout plan showing 31 units which they would build as the market demands.  Mr. LeBeau said that there would be a boulevard entrance and 90° intersections that T and wrap around and that the project would be high-end with landscaping.  He added that the developer will provide 26 foot wide private roadways with street signs.  He said that the site is sand and gravel so they are able to put infiltration trenches off of all the catch basins with an emergency overflow to go into the town’s system.  He further explained that by doing this, they would not have to cut down as many trees in order to create a detention basin.  He said that traffic counts were performed by Fuss & O’Neil and the level of service for the new intersections are A’s & B’s, which is not very high and is an acceptable level for such a project.

 

Ms. Richards asked what the density of the phase was going to be?  Mr. LeBeau said they were subdividing each section out and market sales would dominate the size of the units.  He also stated that at the present time, he could not give a definitive answer, but assured the Board that they would be well within the parameters of allowable density.  

 

Mr. Przybylowicz asked if all of the units would have 2 car garages and if there would be additional off street parking?  Mr. LeBeau answered yes to both questions and said that they did a similar project in Suffield CT that met the zoning parking requirements which  allows 2 cars in the garage plus 2 per driveway with an additional 8 spaces throughout the project as on-street parking.  

 

Mr. Calabrese addressed the audience for any questions.

 

Grace Hoff, 48 Holy Family Road, Holyoke asked if the units were going to be 1,600 to 2,000 square feet.  Mr. Roulier said 1,600 to 2,300 square feet, not including the garage, deck, basement or maybe a sunroom.             

 

Fred McDonald, 20 Kelsey Street asked if the units would be sold or leased?  Mr. Roulier said that the units would be sold as it is a condominium association so the owner would be responsible from the sheet rock in and the association would be responsible for the outside.  Mr. McDonald asked if he had any idea of the cost.  Mr. Roulier said that they were not sure yet because they want to take it one step at a time, but they have made a commitment to the Town that some units would be under $300,000, but most of the units would be starting above $300,000.

 

Karen McDonald, 20 Kelsey Street asked how many residents would be allowed in

each unit and would a club house or pool, etc be included.  Mr. Roulier said that there was not going to be a pool or club house, but there will be walking trails.  He said the way the regulations were written someone would have to be 55 years or older to be a permanent resident to live in the structure.  He added that children would not be able to live with the residents and go to the East Longmeadow school system.  Mr. Roulier said that that the project is going to be people of the same makeup and that their market place targets ages from 55 to 79 years old.  Ms. McDonald asked if there was a cap on the number of residents per unit?  Ms. Richards said that there is a limit of 3 people that can reside in the residence and that is an aged restricted development.                  

 

Rosanna Wilkins, 160 Stonehill Road asked how would the age restriction be enforced?

Mr. Morrissette said it would be a deed restriction and there would be a homeowners’ association to keep the residents on target with the rules.  Mr. Calabrese added that it was also a zoning by-law.  Ms. Richards said she would hope that when someone moved in that they would follow the rules.

 

Attorney Martin said that there is an existing zoning by-law and that the homeowners condominium association would be in charge of enforcing the deed restriction.  He said  at the time of the sale verification needs to be shown that you meet the qualifications in order to purchase a unit, and that the condominium association would be in charge of monitoring itself.  Ms. Wilkins asked if there were any restrictions regarding pets?  Attorney Martin said in the zoning by-law there was not, however, the condominium association might create one.    

 

Chris St. George, 37 Alandale Drive asked what kind of disruption was there going to be to the existing roadways during construction?  Mr. LeBeau said minimal because there is enough room to get into the site and there is going to be a 5 foot landscaped berm within the 100 foot buffer.  Mr. St. George asked if there would be any interruption of Chestnut Street and Holly Drive when the drainage is being put in?  Mr. LeBeau said the disruption would be minimal as they would be tying into the sewer just west of Marshall Street.

 

Mrs. Thomas, 450 Chestnut Street asked if the sewer connection was going to be close to her driveway?  Mr. LeBeau said yes, it would be close and Mr. Roulier explained they would make things right for her so she would be happy.

 

Mr. McDonald asked what was the tentative completion date be for the first phase?  Mr. Roulier said that their goal is to try and build 20 to 25 units a year, so within the next  year the first phase should be done.  He said that their game plan is once they get started and get the first phase in, then their goal will be to minimize the aggravation to the people living in the area.   

 

Ms. McDonald asked if it would require the raising of the American Saw facility?  Attorney Martin said that American Saw was on the other side of the street and that it would not be affected.  Mr. Roulier said that there is an existing house that is fully depreciated and they have began demolition because it is part of the landscaping area and the existing 2 white barns on the property are also being demolished.

 

Mr. Calbreses addressed the audience for further questions, there being none addressed the Board.

 

Mr. Morrissette asked if they went before the Conservation Commission yet.  Mr. Roulier said that they are outside the 100 foot buffer zone, that he spoke with George Kingston that day and Mr. Kingston asked them to move unit 18 a little, however it is not a requirement.    Mr. Roulier explained to Mr. Kingston that he would tell the Planning Board of their conversation at tonight’s meeting.

 

Mr. Anderson asked if there were any concerns about the comments by Police, Fire or Selectmen?  Mr. Roulier said as far as street lights they plan on putting in their own designer street lights that are more lamp post than street light, they have changed the sidewalk to go around the cul-de-sac and they are in full agreement with all of the other comments and have no issues.   

 

Mr. Calabrese asked if the street lights would be operated by the homeowners’ association?  Mr. Roulier yes everything within the whole project is owned and operated by the association which means that the association is going to pay to water the lawn, for snow plowing and all lawn maintenance.  He added that the entire project will be totally private and the town will never have to maintain it.

 

Mr. Morrissette asked if there was going to be trash dumpster areas?  Mr. Roulier said no, that it will be private trash pick up for be each individual condo.  Mr. Morrissette asked who would be doing the landscaping?  Mr. Roulier said that they have a complete landscaping plan provided by David Pane who is a registered landscape architect and they intend to do a nice job.

Ms. Richards asked when they are developing their 31 units in phase 1 do they have a plan to start at one end and work their way around?  Mr. Roulier said he feels it is going to be under construction quickly and yes, they will work their way to the other phases.

 

With no further questions or discussion, the chair called for a motion to close the hearing.  Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to close the public hearing.  Ms. Richards asked if they need to approve a waiver to allow the 26 foot roadway? 

 

Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the site plan as presented with street lamps to be installed and maintained by the condominium association and that the roadway would have 26 feet of pavement.  

 

Public Hearing - Stevens Drive Subdivision

 

Clerk, Donald Anderson read a letter into the record dated July 20, 2006 from Theo Kindermans, Geller DeVellis Inc. which stated that G & L Realty have decided not go forward with subdivision of the property and requested a withdrawal of Stevens Drive Definitive Plan. They have decided to build an extension to the existing nursing home rather than a separate building on a newly created vacant parcel.  They will be starting the design process shortly and will be contact with the Board to discuss their plans.      

 

ANR – Chester Czupryna, Braeburn Road

 

Clerk, Donald Anderson read a letter from Chester Czupryna dated July 25, 2006 requesting to withdraw the ANR plan for Braeburn Road.   

 

           Minutes

 

The Board reviewed the minutes of June 27th and May 30th, 2006, and upon motion duly made and seconded, voted unanimously (5-0) to accept them with edits.   

 

Ms. Macdoanld said while dealing with July 11th minutes she would like to discuss the decision to disapprove the preliminary subdivision plan of Edens & Avant as she was not at the last meeting.  She said that there were some issues that Mr. Morrissette had raised and Mr. Przybylowicz had responded to and she did not know if they wanted to write a dissenting vote.  Mr. Anderson said he thought when the by-laws call for reasons for disapproval, in fairness to the dissenting parties their comments would be in the minutes not in a formal reason for dissenting because there is nothing in the by-laws that he could see that calls for a minority opinion.  Mr. Przybylowicz said even Attorney Freyman said herself when a plan is not approved the Board must provide detail why it was not approved.  Ms. Richards said when she provided the draft information to Ms. Macdonald to insert into the form B-2 it should go out under Mr. Calabrese’s signature but she did not know how he felt about it, so she asked Ms. Macdonald to create two signature pages, one under the chairman and one under the vice chairman in case he had a problem with it.  She said usually the votes that are taken are not always in the opinion of the chairman but she wanted him to know that they had the discussion and what he wants to do is fine with her.  Mr. Calabrese said he felt that he was obligated as the chairman to sign it regardless of whether he approved it or not and the only thing that he was questioning was should it  say who voted for, who voted against?  Ms. Macdonald said it is in the minutes but not in the decision.   Mr. Morrissette said the one other problem that he has with the issue is when something is disapproved, he feels that it is improper to say when you are asked reasons why we disapproved that we will put it in writing and get it to you.  He said there were some discussions about it and they were minimal.  Ms. Richards said she feels that it was not minimal, the vote encompassed three nights of rather intense discussion on the part of the Board between the Board and the applicant, and between Board members.  She said that the Board took the vote and Ms. Freyman asked if we would please put the reasons for denial in writing and Ms. Richards said she would put something together and that there is nothing in the document that is not in the minutes. 

 

The Board reviewed the minutes of July 11, 2006 and upon motion duly made and seconded, voted unanimously (4-0) to accept them, with edits.   

 

ANR – Lucas and Brounlee, Mountainview Road

 

The Board reviewed the ANR for Moutainview Road submitted by Eric D. & Elizabeth L. Lucas of 121 Mountainview Road and Keith F. & Katherene A. Brownlee of 123 Mountainview Road.  The plan shows the revision of two lots – 18 A and 18 B.  Lot 18B is being transferred from Brownlee to Lucas to be combined with Lot 24, owned by Lucas, to form one contiguous lot with approximately 50,224.7 square feet, leaving Lot 18A containing approximately 31,962.3 square feet, with proper frontage on Mountainview Road, as required by the East Longmeadow Zoning By-Laws

 

After discussion and upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the ANR.

 

Request for Signage – Montessori School

 

After review of the application and upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the sign, conditioned upon review and approval by the Building Inspector with the issuance of a permit by the Building Inspector. 

 

Request for Signage – Maybury Associates

 

After review of the applications and upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the applicant’s request to install the three signs as  presented.  The first sign is the main building sign which will measure a total of 96 square feet; The second sign is a building sign over an additional entrance which will measure a total of 4 square feet which together with the main building sign will be within the required maximum of 100 square feet.  The third sign is a directional sign which will be placed approximately 200 feet off the road way and measure a total of 8 square feet.

This approval is conditioned upon obtaining approval and a permit from the Building Inspector. 

 

Miscellaneous

 

94 Maple Street

 

Mr. Calabrese noticed that Ray LaPlante is on the August 8th agenda to meet with Board to discuss Maple Street and asked if it was the Dr. Quinn property.  Ms. Macdonald said yes and that he wants to put up an office building.  Ms. Richards said that she did talk to the Board about it and the frustrating part is that they all agree that what he would do would probably beef up the parcel, however they know that the town did not accept rezoning it industrial and to rezone it residential will not allow him to do what he wants to do.  She said he was wondering if he could go to the town to rezone it to commercial, they talked about spot zoning and his Attorney Mark Beglane claims it is not spot zoning.  She said she is not going to fight that battle, if he wants to go forward with it and the Planning Board can decide whether they want to recommend it or not recommend a commercial use at that location.  She added that it is really not offensive because on the other side it is zoned industrial. 

 

Mr. Calabrese said the one thing that he was looking at is the very well attended meeting that was against other projects – he believes that the applicant would have a hard time at town meeting.  He reminded the Board that at the public hearing they tried to tell the applicants it was in their best interest to go straight residential and go for a special permit for something that was basically there before such as a doctors office. 

 

Mr. Calabrese said a branch bank is a commercial use and he thinks the people across the street were saying that they did not want to extend anything further that way and perhaps there is someone else that might feel the same way.  Ms. Richards said she thinks that he has the right to go after it.

 

 

High Volume Businesses at Center Village Shops

 

Mr. Przybylowicz asked Ms. Macdonald for a revised trip generation calculation for the  for Spoleto’s based on lunch and dinner.  Ms. Macdonald stated she would ask Mr. Pesce if he based it on lunch and dinner.  Mr. Przybylowicz also said that the number of trips per day for Starbucks was omitted.    

 

Spoleto’s

 

Ms. Macdonald advised the members that she spoke with the building inspector that day and in reading the Special Permit for Spoleto’s #5 he explained that the outside area has to be fenced in but also needs a gate in case of a fire, per code.    

 

Request for Waiver of Site Plan Review – Ralph Rinaldi

 

Mr. Anderson read a request for Waiver of Site Plan Review from Ralph Rinaldi to open a storefront business for gun and ammunition sales and reviewed reports from the Police and Fire Departments.  Mr. Rinaldi is not intending to have an actual business, rather simply a store front at the location, the use does not fall within the parameters of owning and operating a business in East Longmeadow.  Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board unanimously voted (4-0) to deny the request for a Waiver of Site Plan Review to open a storefront for gun and ammunition sales.  The members stated that if and when Mr. Rinaldi intends to open an actual business, he could come back before the Board.

 

Therefore, with no further business and upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted to close the meeting at  9:45  p.m.

 

                                                                        Very truly yours,

 

 

 

                                                                        Donald J. Anderson, Clerk