Minutes of September 5, 2006
Present
were: Louis Calabrese, Chair; Marilyn Richards, Vice Chair; Donald Anderson,
Clerk and Michael Przybylowicz. Thomas
Morrissette was not present.
Starbucks discussion regarding
the seats and company logo on umbrellas
Mr. Przybylowicz
recused himself due to possible conflict of interest.
Mr. Calabrese welcomed Tom Maruca,
Manager of Starbucks to the meeting. Mr.
Calabrese said that there was an issue on the seating and company logos on the
umbrellas for Starbucks. Ms. Macdonald informed
the members that the seats that were approved were along the side of the
building and she spoke with Mr. Maruca about
the placement of same. Mr. Maruca
explained that the location where the
seats were originally be placed did not provide ample room for the public to
walk by and he asked if he could put them on the island area. Ms. Macdonald told Mr. Maruca that for now she did not she a problem with it however, she
would have to discuss this with the Board and, if the Board was not in approval, he would
need to put the seats along side of the building and formally appear before the
members again to further discuss the issue.
Ms. Macdonald also spoke with Mr. Maruca about the Starbucks logo on the
umbrellas. Ms. Macdonald explained to
Mr. Maruca that if the building signage is less than the allowed use and he
would like to include the logo as part of the square footage allowance, he
would have to provide the Board with the measurements to be included in the
total square footage allowed for his signage.
Ms. Richards asked if the
umbrellas had their name only on 1 side.
Mr. Maruca said that the name is on all 4 sides of both umbrellas. Mr. Calabrese asked if he exceeded the limit
would he some how block it out . Mr.
Maruca said that they have two different options of umbrellas, one is with logo
and one is without. He said that the
construction manager inadvertently ordered the incorrect umbrellas, but he
could very easily have them switched if it was necessary. Mr. Calabrese said that he could work it out
with Ms. Macdonald and she could let the members know.
Mr. Calabrese asked the members, with regard to the placement of the tables, does anyone have any problems with it? Ms. Richards asked Ms. Macdonald if there had
been any complaints. Ms. Macdonald said
no. Ms. Richards said she checked it out
and the only problem would be if they had a wheelchair accessible patron who would
wanted to get up and couldn’t get by.
Mr. Marcua explained that the handicapped table was the first table,
allowing easy access for any handicapped person.
Mr. Anderson said he did not have
a problem with there table is and reminded Mr. Maruca to make sure all of the
signs do not exceed the total numbers.
Mr. Calabrese stated that as long
as there are no complaints on the tables in the future we will let ride as it
is.
Continuance Public Hearing - Ron Bretta
The Chair, Louis Calabrese opened
the hearing. Clerk, Mr. Anderson read
the report from the Fire Department stating that they had no recommendations.
Ms. Richards asked if anyone had
heard from Sergeant Bates? Mr. D’Ambrosio
said that his main concern was the parking spots 11 & 12 and that he (Sgt.
Bates) is worried that, if anyone parks there they would pull out into the
proposed parking lot without a clear
site line of the traffic. Mr. D’Ambrosio
said that they have a new set of plans proposing a fence along the property
line so that the 2 parking spaces cannot be accessed through the parking lot
and they cannot access the parking lot from the spaces. He also spoke about parking lot lighting.
Mr. Anderson asked what kind of
fence it would be? Mr. D’Ambrosio said
post and chain fence. Mr. Anderson asked
if it was visible enough so that someone would not hit it trying to cut through to the Meadows? Mr. D’Ambrosio said he would think so.
Mr.
Przybylowicz asked if parking spaces 11 & 12 would only be accessible from
Mr. D’Ambrosio said that he also was
requesting two waivers, one requesting that the non-conforming parking spaces 11
& 12 be allowed because they are going to be employee parking and they do
not expect a high turn over so what they are proposing is adequate. He said the other waiver they are requesting is to waive the
requirement for a full traffic study.
Mr. Przybylowicz asked if the non-conformity would be the length
of the parking spaces? Mr. D’Ambrosio said that they are 8’ x 22’ and what is required is
9’ x 20’ and the drive aisle width is supposed to be 33 feet and they have just
under 32.
Ms. Richards asked if the Board
has the authority to waive the size of a parking space because the criteria is
defined in our by-laws. Mr. Anderson said that waiving the traffic study is not a
problem but he does not believe that the Board has the authority to modify a
determined parking space.
Ms. Richards stated that they
could make the building a smaller and thus lessen the number of spaces needed. Ms. Richards said even identifying the parking
spaces as employee parking is a stretch and there is no way safely to get in
and out if there was a car parked on the other side.
Mr. D’Ambrosio said he has a
reference from the architectural institute on what their minimum space requirement
is for a parallel parking space which is 22’ x 8’ with a 20 foot drive
isle. Ms. Richards said that is not in
Mr. Przybylowicz said that you would have to be very skilled to
get into that spot. Mr. D’Ambrosio said that one could pull up parallel to whom
ever is parked and back in. Mr.
Calabrese asked if a cross easement could be written for the two spots? Mr. Przybylowicz asked why can’t they be positioned differently
so that you could pull straight in? Mr. Bretta said because there is a garage door there and he
has 3 parking spaces to the right.
Mr. Anderson said if they rented
it as an office use the parking spaces would not be necessary, it is only the
retail component that would demand that number of spaces. Mr. Bretta said that he would rather not have
retail and would much prefer an office place.
Mr. Calabrese said that he could
have legal parking spots for the other building, which is the current operation
and they could stay. Mr. Bretta said he
wants to utilize them for employee parking because there will be a gate there
and he does not want them coming through his lot
Ms. Richards asked how large is
the building? Mr. D’Ambrosio said 2,160
square feet. She asked if, when he
talked with Rick Bates, was Sgt. Bates
okay with the fence as long as you weren’t backing out? Mr. D’Ambrosio
said he was concerned about someone not being able to see around the building and
getting into traffic safely and lighting on the site.
Mr. Calabrese asked is there a
need to be able to go back and forth between the two parcels with cars? Mr. Bretta said no. Mr. Calabrese said all the more reason if
they had 2 parking spaces against the property line to be used by Bretta Automotive
on a daily basis he would feel a lot better to have them give the cross
easement to that new building with the spots that are already there. He said for access to the building it makes
more sense and you will have control of the parking spaces. He added that they are not ideal because of
the garage door, but who ever runs the business has control of the keys for
those cars. He said that it would work
because Mr. Bretta would maintain the same parking spots that he currently has. Mr. Anderson added that the police would have
to revisit it to be sure that the door is not blocked or if there is problem,
and the parking plan would need to be updated.
Mr. D’Ambrosio said that was one
of things he wanted to ask if we do take the existing spots and then designate
them for the proposed building, do we have to make sure that the existing
building has adequate parking for the standards now? Mr. Anderson said he is grandfathered with the
existing spots and if you take them away that would be an issue because you are
compromising the grandfather status. Mr.
Calabrese said that they would still have the parking spots because they are
going to be adding 2 more.
Mr. D’Ambrosio said it was
something that he was going to bring up before there was a question about the
number of parking spaces per square or maybe it was per bay. Ms. Richards said per bay for that use. Mr. Calabrese asked what the square footage
is of the old building. Mr. Bretta said
45’ x 48’. Ms. Macdonald said 3 spaces
per bay but not less than 1 space per 100 square feet of gross floor area so 18
spaces would be needed, according to the by-law. Mr. D’Ambrosio asked if they made it so that
the parking spaces conformed and stacked them, would that be allowed?
Ms. Richards said the whole issue
is the fact that you need to address the requirements for the new structure.
She said that they are not bound by anything other than a desire to create a
building a certain size and identify a certain use. She added that if Mr. Bretta was inclined to
say office rather than retail and commit to it , then we would rework the
parking formula for a building of that the size with an office use. She said if he still wants to think of retail
he would have to decrease the size of his building.
Mr. Walsh said that it was an
option that he could make the building approximately 170 square feet smaller and
he would only need 1 of those 2 spaces
back there and there is plenty of room for them. Mr. Bretta said that he would much rather
have the office use because of the traffic and more traditional business hours
and he is almost sure he has a tenant to operate an office. He said it is an option to make it smaller
and then he would only need 1 parking
space on the other lot.
Ms. Macdonald advised the members
that the other issue is with traffic as Sgt. Bates is concerned regarding the
use because with an office space the traffic pattern would be different from a
retail use. She said future tenants have
to come back to the Board for of a waiver of site plan review and the Board
would have to revisit the traffic pattern at that time. Mr. Przybylowicz said only if it is retail. Ms. Macdonald said that retail would increase
the interior traffic flow. Ms. Richards
said an office use would be no problem at all with the parking and she cannot
imagine an office use creating an unacceptable traffic flow at this location.
Mr.
Calbrese asked how many parking spaces are at the garage currently? Mr. D’Ambrosio said
that there 3 marked spaces. Mr.
Calabrese said it is non-conforming right now so if we created 5 spots by
adding 2 more that were conforming spots as far as size goes we would be in the
same boat.
Mr. D’Ambrosio asked if they
provided stacking parking and placing those 2 spaces in the back on top of each
other, if Mr. Bretta does not use the third bay would there be problem?. Mr. Anderson said you need 3 spaces per
bay. Mr. D’Ambrosio said that they would
not be touching any of the existing parking spaces they would be in the same
boat they are now – that he would just be moving the 2 non-conforming
spots. Mr. Anderson said that it is
tough to enforce that. Mr. Bretta said
that he really has enough parking and really does not want to not use the back
bay
Mr. Anderson asked if the Board
wanted to vote on the waiver of traffic study or wait to look at that the whole
plan? Ms. Richards said that the problem
is the Board does not know what the use is going to be. Mr. D’Ambrosio said in his letter he speaks
about anticipated usage and there are certain people that the realtor is
courting. Ms. Richards said that whomever
goes in there would have to come back before the Board for a waiver of site plan
review and, if the Board was concerned about the use, they have the privilege
of requesting a traffic study at that time, if we felt it was necessary. She said it is hard to predict what use would
trigger a traffic study. Ms. Richards
said if the Board could waive the study now, with the understanding that the
Board has the ability to revisit the plan again in the event they found it
necessary.
Mr. Calabrese said that he was
having a difficult time understanding if we are going to be dealing with 3
parking spots that are currently there, and if we are going to grant a cross
parking agreement - that will only leave1
parking spot available. He asked why not
just allow him to add 2 more spots on his property making 5 spots? Mr.
Anderson said that then we will have competing
business for the same spots. Mr.
Calabrese said he does not think it makes sense to have a cross parking
agreement if there are only 3 spots, it makes a lot more sense if you have 5 spaces
on the parcel. Mr. Calabrese said
technically we should not do a cross easement at all and it would make more sense
to him to add more parking on the site where Mr. Bretta has control of it. Mr. Calabrese said that he thinks that makes
more sense.
Mr. D’Ambrosio asked if the
existing spots designated to the proposed use would have to conform with the
current standards? Mr. Calabrese said yes. Ms. Richards said if this was a brand new
site plan the Board would never put a parking space in front of a door. She said if
they are looking to create spaces in order to do a cross easement for
another parcel the Board is actually making his property even less conforming
then it is right now because they would be taking spaces away.
Mr. Calabrese said from a public
safety issue he would agree but if it going to mean that it is going to be more
difficult for him to use that the garage, it’s still a parking spot. Ms. Richards said but it doesn’t meet the by-laws. Mr. Calabrese asked meet the by-laws in what
sense , it’s not emergency exit it’s going to incapacitate him on how his uses
the door.
Mr. Anderson said it seems as if
we need to continue the hearing anyway. Mr. Calabrese asked how the Board would like
to leave it . Ms. Richards said that Mr.
Bretta needs to make the building smaller, if he decides to lock himself into
an office use then we are all set. If he
wants to go for retail then we still have 1 parking space that we need fit in
somewhere.
Mr. Walsh said that the 1 parking space
would fit easily around the building and he would prepare a new plan for the
Board to review.
Upon motion duly made and seconded
the Board voted to continue the hearing until September 18th at 7:00
pm.
Public Hearing – Special Permit
for Thomas Murphy – Section 6 – 88 Parker Street
The Chair, Louis Calabrese
welcomed the petitioners and introduced the members of the Board. Mr. Calabrese then explained the procedure
and rules for the public hearing. Clerk,
Donald Anderson, read the legal notice into the record. There were no reports from any other
departments for this project. Mr. Calabrese
then welcomed Thomas Murphy and asked
that he present his proposal to the Board.
Mr. Murphy explained to the
members that he was proposing to take down his 1 car garage and replace it with
a 2 car garage to a pre-existing, non-conforming structure. He said that he does not have the allowed 50
feet to the back property line and the new structure would not come back any
further, it would sit on the existing footprint and go to the side more where
he has the room and go forward a few more feet.
Mr. Anderson asked if there would be any type of bonus room. Mr. Murphy said yes a bonus room would be
located on top. Mr. Calabrese asked if
it was zoned residential A or AA. Ms.
Macdonald said residential A. Mr. Calabrese
said the plan was pretty straight forward and that time opened the hearing up
to the public for comment.
There being no further questions
from the audience, Mr. Calabrese turned the questions over to the Board.
Mr. Przybylowicz said that he is surprised that the front set
back line isn’t provided.
Mr. Calabrese said if it were it
would be the same as the back not increasing the non-conformity. Ms. Macdonald added that Don Smith probably did
show it because it is behind the actual frontage as it sits right now.
Upon motion duly and made, the
Board voted unanimously (4-0) to close the public hearing. Upon motion duly
made and seconded, the Board voted (4-0 ) in favor of granting the Special
Permit as the alteration to the existing structure would not be more
detrimental to the neighborhood than the present non-conformity.
Request for Waiver of Site Plan
Review – Mark Rosansky, 1 Panama Street, Unit 2
Clerk, Donald Anderson read a Request for Waiver of Ste Plan Review
from Mark Rosansky to open Sparky’s Automotive d/b/a MKR Fleet. Hours of operations will be Monday – Friday,
8:00 am – 10:00 pm, Saturday, 8:00 am –
8:00 pm and Sunday by appointment only.
He will be the only employee.
Mr. Calabrese asked Mr. Rosansky what was there before? Mr. Rosansky said he believes it was a
communications business and before that it was a machine shop.
Mr. Calabrese said then his business would not generate any more
traffic? He said no that it would be
just auto repair.
Mr. Anderson asked if he was moving from another location? Mr. Rosansky said that he used to be at the
East Longmeadow Mobile but wanted to be on his own. Ms. Richards asked if he was planning to make
any changes to the structure itself? Mr.
Rosansky said no.
Ms. Macdonald advised the members that Mr. Rosansky has been dealing with
the Building Inspector with regard to noise complaints. She said on Sunday the general by-law does not
allow any machinery noise. Mr. Rosansky
said that he does not work on Sunday.
Mr. Anderson asked if there was a bay at the facility? Mr. Rosansky said, no just 1 doorway that
opens up to a big open area with a transportable lift.
Upon motion duly made and seconded,
the Board voted unanimously (4-0) approve the waiver of site plan. After review of the sign
application, the Board voted (4-0) to approve the sign measuring approximately
8.75 square feet, non-illuminated and with no LED
display, conditioned
upon obtaining a sign permit from the Building Inspector.
Request for Waiver of Site Plan
Review – Ryan Wilson, 1 Panama Street
Clerk, Donald Anderson read a Request for Waiver of Ste Plan Review
from Ryan Wilson to open a
transportation company named Support Management, Inc. Medical Transportation at
One Panama Street. Support Management
transports the elderly, children and people in wheelchairs to and from medical appointments. Many of the vehicles are housed at the
worker’s homes and there will be ambulances but will not be used as emergency vehicles
so there will be no sirens or blinking lights. Hours of operations are 8:00 am – 5:00 pm, driving hours will be 5:00 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. The number of employees will be up to two 2
office personnel and 10 drivers.
Mr. Anderson asked where the business is presently located? Mr. Wilson said in Agawam that is just an
office. Mr. Anderson asked where the
ambulances are right now? Mr. Wilson
said that they do not have any currently however they are getting into the
ambulance company and probably will start off with 1 or 2 . He said right now they have wheelchair vans
and a regular ambulatory van that are housed at the drivers’ houses.
Ms. Richards asked if they were moving their entire operation to East
Longmeadow? Mr. Wilson said yes that the
Agawam location was going to close. Ms.
Richards asked if 5 vehicles would be the maximum vehicles on the site at all
times? Mr. Wilson said yes there are a
few spots in front of the building that we can have access to but in the very
beginning stages he does not see them using anymore than a few ambulances in
the garage.
Mr. Anderson asked if there was parking plan for the site? Ms. Macdonald said that it is such an old
building she did not believe so. He said
it is one thing to have a 1 employee operation another one to 5 ambulances and
12 employees. Mr. Wilson said hopefully
one day they will have 5 ambulances. Mr.
Anderson said that the Board would approve the plan for now with that in mind
and asked who is the owner of the building or who is he dealing with. Mr. Wilson said Tom Morrissette. Ms. Macdonald said she could see if she can
find anything. Mr. Anderson explained
that the Board has to approve the waiver based on the parking spots out
front. He asked if the ambulances will
have the flashing lights. Mr. Wilson
said that they do not because it is non-emergency transportation, it is only to
bring people from their houses to doctors’ appointments. He then showed the
Board a picture of the proposed building.
Ms. Richards asked if they can put 5 vehicles inside with the doors
closed? Mr. Wilson said yes. She asked what their goal is for a fleet? Mr. Wilson said they are in the beginning
stages and only have one, but hope to have five within a few years. Mr. Calabrese said it would be a good idea to
look at it with the idea that there is an agreement that there will be no more
than 5 business vehicles stored in the garage and if the number of vehicles
increases in the future he would have to come back to the Board.
Ms. Richards asked Mr. Wilson if that was realistic for his operation
for right now. Mr. Wilson said yes very
realistic and said maybe 5 years down the road he could see having 5
ambulances. Mr. Calabrese said he could
come back to the Board, and it sounds like he does not anticipate he is going
to have 5 vehicles in the very near future.
Mr. Wilson said they are starting off with 1 vehicle and that is what it
will be about 6 months down the road.
Ms. Richards said if they limit it
to a maximum of 5 vehicles at that location she would not have any problem with
it as long as there was no storage of vehicles outside. Mr. Wilson said that he could go along with
that.
Upon
motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (4-0) approve the
waiver. Mr. Calabrese asked if there was
any signage? Mr. Wilson said not a this
time. Mr. Calabrese told him that he
would have to come back to the Board when he did want to erect any signage. Mr. Wilson asked if they could put something
on the door. Mr. Calabrese told him yes,
however the Board would have to look at it first.
Attorney Mark Beglane, Bill and
Ray LaPlante regarding 94 Maple Street
Mr. Bill LaPlante said they are
hoping to get support from the Planning Board to endorse a zone change for the
property at 94 Maple Street. He said
that he knew there was a question about whether it would be considered spot
zoning by the Attorney General. They
have asked Attorney Mark Beglane to come and explain his interpretation of the issue of spot zoning and open up the dialog
to see what they have to do to make the Board comfortable enough to move
forward. Mr. LaPlante said that at this
point they have a purchase and sale agreement on the property that is contingent
upon just about everything under the sun.
He said that they have no intention of going forward and spending a lot
of money without first getting an endorsement from the Board. Mr. LaPlante said that they know the track
record on the property and they have no intention of going to Town Meeting without
a favorable opinion and recommendation from the Planning Board.
Ms. Richards said when the Board
looked at the plans it would certainly be an improvement to what is already
there. She said the question is the
whole issue of spot zoning and the fact that one side is industrial and other
side residential and that Mr. LaPlante would be proposing a commercial
zone. Mr. LaPlante presented a rendering
of the proposed building. Mr. Calabrese
asked if it was going to be a commercial building? Attorney Beglane said yes a commercial
building. He said that they look at spot
zoning under current law basically when you change zoning when there is no
public interest and you are doing it as a favor to an individual and not in the
public interest. He said the court has
decided that as long as there is legitimate public purpose for the zoning (and
in this case he thinks there is because you are creating a buffer between a residential
zone and industrial zone), then it is not considered spot zoning. Attorney Beglane continued by stating that the
parcel is useless because of the mixed zones on the property. Attorney Beglane said there really is not
enough room to build a residence because the lot is very narrow. He said they felt by changing the zone to
commercial, it would provide a buffer and would make it a parcel that the Town
could put on the tax rolls, and raise more money, together with being a good
use of the property. He said the buffer
between the residences will always be less intense a use so you will not have
the issue of the noise and smells that an industrial use would emit. Attorney Beglane thinks that is does serve a
public purpose and as long it does, it is not considered spot zoning. He said there has to be public purpose and
the courts are liberal in their definition of public purpose.
Mr. Calabrese said if they were to
extend the industrial zone that would be an extension of an existing zone and would
be permissible. He said you would be
down grading to commercial so he personally does not see a problem and asked if
they have considered the special permit for a medical type operation as opposed
to attempt to change the zone to commercial?
Attorney Beglane said that was one of things they had talked about in
terms of trying to use it and then you are stuck using that building and we did
not want to use the building. Mr.
Calabrese said that they could build a new building. Attorney Beglane said that there were real
issues on that under Chapter 40A, Section 6 for the special permit because you
would be taking a non-conforming structure that had been abandoned and you are
would be changing the use.
Mr. LaPlante said that their only
interest would be to locate their office building. Mr. Calabrese said that a zone change request
was brought before the Board and a public hearing was held, and the applicant
was looking to change the zone to all industrial and proposed a bank, and the
people in the neighborhood were really enraged about that. He said that the Board could only make a recommendation
once a public hearing was held and they had gathered the data, and in his opinion
it is a 50/50 shot. He thinks people
would like to see a nice looking building there and he is sure they would like
to see that mess taken down because the present owners are not doing much to
build good will with the neighbors by not taking care of the place.
Mr. Calabrese said that is a
gamble for them, how the Board would go would be based on how the public
hearing would go and town counsel’s opinion.
He added that the sure bet would be if you zone it all residential then
do a medical clinic or the like, but of course, then your business would not be
able to go there, so that would defeat the purpose. He said so you only have one way to go and if
you want to go for the zone change, then you need go through the process. Mr. LaPlante said that was why they did not
have any intention of spending additional money getting to that point unless
the Planning Board is in favor of it.
Mr. Calabrese said if you go for
the zone change for commercial they will have to do a really good selling job
with the immediate neighborhood and the Town itself. He said if the Planning Board votes to
endorse it or they do not vote to endorse it - either way it could still go
because if you get the Town Meeting votes, it’s a go. Mr. LaPlante said they would not want to go
forward without the Planning Board of backing them up.
Mr. Anderson said the building that
they proposing would be an improvement but he has to play devil’s advocate. He said some of the cases that are cited by
Attorney Beglane - one a water treatment facility that benefits the entire
public. Mr. Anderson said putting in a commercial building that truly benefits
one corporation, one individual that also going to have a second component of
leasing other space in that building, how does the entire Town of East
Longmeadow benefit from this?
Attorney Beglane said he was looking
at this from a planning point of view.
What you have is a site the way it is now which is pretty useless. Mr. Anderson said the present people
marketing it are marketing it for a single family home, child daycare or a church.
Attorney Beglane agreed but he
does not think they could use it for that because the use has been abandoned. Mr. Anderson said that a medical clinic under
special permit is allowed in a residential district.
Attorney Beglane said as an office
building generally it can be used, we would have to go through site plan
approval but you end up with a building that looks more residential, it is a
good buffer from a Planning point of view.
For the Town between a very intense use and a much less intense
use. He said that it probably was not
the best planning in the world to put an industrial district right up against a
residential district to start with.
Mr. Anderson said another theory
just to get it out of the spot zoning is to create a use within the residential
district such as when a residential district abuts industrial property. For example, there could be a limited
commercial use for purposes of creating a buffer and have it structured
properly to fit in, so it will benefit all of theses type of situations. He said so that it could be done in a
residential district with a special permit but a limited use such as commercial
and that would not be spot zoning and would be beneficial to the town. Attorney Beglane said he did not think they
could totally eliminate the industrial use and thinks you could use the
industrial district for commercial purposes.
Ms. Richards said that Town
Counsel does not agree with him as he thinks it is typical spot zoning. Attorney Beglane said that he thinks Town
Counsel is wrong.
Mr. Calabrese said if they were to
take the residential district and extend the current industrial zone to the
next lot. He said that would not be spot
zoning because you would be extending an existing zone, so are they going to
view it is as spot zoning if you are taking a higher one which is industrial
and go down to commercial. Mr. Calabrese
said that they are really looking at two options, do you take a chance and go
for the zone change (hopefully the Planning Board after the public hearing will
see it way and endorse it), or have it all zoned residential.
Ms. Richards said she did not know
what the thoughts were when the by-law was created and it was okay to have a medical
care center in a residential zone under special permit. She said as planners if we are looking at the
impact those buildings have on residential property, in some cases it would
create more of an impact then a bank would.
Ms. Macdonald said she tried to
get to Attorney Donahue to attend that evening but unfortunately it had another
meeting scheduled but that he would provide the Board with a written
opinion. The members thanked Attorney
Beglane and Mr. LaPlante and stated that they would get back to them after they
(the Board) received Town Counsel’s legal opinion.
Gary Weiner – Fisher Avenue
The Chairman welcomed Gary Weiner
from Ecotec. Mr. Weiner said Mr. Fusaro,
the owner of 29 Fisher Avenue would like to build a 60’ x 30’ 1,800 square foot
storage building on Fisher Avenue. He
said in conjunction with that they need 11 parking spaces however, when he and Don
Smith laid out the potential 11 spaces they ran into the 10 foot landscaped
buffer that is required along the street.
He said if they had to provide this butter, half of the parking spaces would
be lost. Mr. Weiner continued by stating
that currently on Fisher Avenue there is an etching facility right next door
that has no landscape buffer and there is a duplex home immediately next door
and beyond that is a another Auto Body Shop with no landscape buffer. Mr. Weiner said they wanted to know if there
was any way because the other building on the site has been there for such a
long time that they could minimize or waive the requirement for the buffer?
Mr.
Przybylowicz asked what were the set back requirements? Mr. Weiner said that there really was none
because it is an industrial zone and one of things they did look at is that
they could move the building to the 10 foot buffer and place parking spaces in
the back but they would have to be stacked spaces.
Mr.
Anderson asked what type of business would it be? Mr. Fusaro explained
that it is going to be for warehouse open storage. Mr. Anderson said so your business is
providing storage to people? Mr. Fusaro
said no that he is in the construction business so they always need space for
storing materials.
Ms. Richards said that is a 25
foot front setback requirement in the industrial zone. Mr. Weiner thought it was 0 and, and stated
that requirement poses an even bigger problem.
Ms. Richards said that there is a 25 feet setback, 12 feet side yard and
25 feet rear yard. She said maybe he has
an old version of the by-law. She
further explained that it has always been a requirement, however, it was not
clear and the table language was clarified at a recent Town Meeting.
Ms. Richards said if they brought
the building forward they would have the 25 feet set back. Mr. Weiner said but they would lose the 4
parking spaces and they would need to stack the spaces in order to gain the
extra parking spaces required.
Mr. Anderson said as they were
talking about minimizing the landscape, what was Mr. Weiner offering? Mr. Weiner said if they have to move the
building forward then would they probably be looking to provide a landscaping
strip probably less than 5 feet in order to accommodate the grass and
plantings. Ms. Macdonald asked Mr.
Weiner to explain to the Board whether this would be the only portion of that
property, or is this strip going across the rest of the way? Mr. Weiner said no that they would provide
the driveway entrance and allow them to continue and then do the plantings
along the area.
Mr. Calabrese asked if the parcel
was going to be made into 2 parcels? Mr. Fusaro said no that Don Smith worked
out all of the possibilities and came up with this plan.
Ms. Richards asked if the existing
building was one level? Mr. Fusaro said
yes. She asked if he was planning a
2-story building? Mr. Fusaro said
possibly for storage for themselves and asked what would be the next step. Mr. Weiner said that the building has to be
laid out based on the true setbacks. Mr.
Calabrese said it might be good if you could pull the whole the building up
closer to the street. Mr. Przybylowicz asked if the building
was going to have one garage door? Mr. Fusaro said yes.
Mr. Przybylowicz
said so they could use the entire side yard and
maybe put a an L shape addition onto the building and create parking in
the back.
Mr. Weiner asked if they could create
stacked employee parking and then have the additional parking coming head on? Ms. Richards said no the Board has never approved
a parking plan that has had parking that was blocked in with other parking. She said that Don Smith might not have the
correct criteria for the industrial zone.
Mr. Fusaro said you would assume he would know that and he seems think
it is feasible. Mr. Wiener said there
maybe another way do it.
Mr.
Przybylowicz said to keep in mind that there are more requirements than just
what the Planning Board requires. He
said if a plan was to be developed and if even though it met the Planning
Boards requirements if you went to Police & Fire and they had comments that
would effect your floor plan you would have to make those adjustments as well. Mr. Weiner thanked the Board and said he
would work on the plan and get back to the members at another time.
Phillips Court
Mr. Weiner explained that the sidewalks
have been added to the plan with wheel chair ramps. The Board endorsed the previously approved
subdivision plan and Ms. Macdonald will have the Clerk endorse the plan prior
to recording.
Partial Release of Subdivision
Bond – Great Woods VII, VIII, IX
The
Board reviewed a partial release of subdivision cash bond presented for Great Woods VII in the amount in the amount of Seventy Thousand
Eight Hundred and 91/100 ($70,891.00) Dollars.
The Town of East Longmeadow will continue to hold Seventy Five Thousand Eight
Hundred and 55/100 Dollars ($75,855.00) in escrow until the project is
completed. The Board reviewed a partial release of subdivision cash bond presented
for Great Woods VIII in the amount in the amount of Seventy One Thousand
One Hundred and 55/100 ($71,155.00) Dollars.
The Town of East Longmeadow will continue to hold Seventy Five Thousand
Two Hundred and 80/100 Dollars ($75,280.00) in escrow until the project is
completed. The Board reviewed a partial release of subdivision cash bond presented
for Great Woods IX in the amount in the amount of Seventy Nine Thousand
and Three Hundred and 82/100 ($79,382.00) Dollars. The Town of East Longmeadow will continue to
hold Fifty One Thousand Five Hundred and 42/100 Dollars ($51,542.00) in escrow
until the project is completed.
Upon review of the information
provided by Ms. Macdonald and the Department of Public Works, and upon motion
duly made and seconded, the Board voted (4-0) unanimously, to approve the
partial releases of bonds.
Miscellaneous
Ms. Macdonald informed the Board
that John Maybury has requested a variance to have a street sign closer to the
roadway. She said because of the design
in the road the building sits 400 feet off the road and delivery trucks pass
the building before they realize it. Mr.
Maybury wants to put the sign 30 feet off the roadway. She said that she could not schedule a
hearing with Zoning Board until September 26th and he is having a
grand opening on September 28th and would like to put up a temporary
sign. Ms. Macdonald assured the Board
that Mr. Maybury has promised that if he does not get the variance he will
remove the sign. Upon motion duly made
and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (4-0) to grant a temporary sign for
60 days.
Ms. Richards asked if the Deer Run
subdivision is going to be paved? Ms.
Macdonald said Charlie Richard told her that the final coat will be done, but
she is not sure exactly when.
Ms. Macdonald said that Attorney Larry
Levine has sent another letter asking for a 30 day extension for Tamarack Drive. Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board
voted unanimously (4-0) to grant the extension until their next meeting of
October 3, 2006.
Ms. Macdonald said that Jayson
Falcone provided the mailbox site for Center Village for informational purposes and they will all be
located behind the building.
Ms. Macdonald asked the Board members
if they were okay with the State Inspection signage at Jiffy Lube. The members all
said yes.
Ms. Macdonald informed the Board
that the Police Station needs to be re-striped and they want to add one more
parking space out front and along the back of the garage apparently there are
some spaces that are not deep enough.
She told them would need a parking plan and they would like to do it
without a parking plan. Ms. Richards
asked what are they are going to do with the parking spaces that are too short? Ms. Macdonald said that they are going to
increase them in size and they have the room to widen the spaces so that they
are safer. Mr. Calabrese said he thinks
that DPW could do the parking plan. Ms.
Macdonald they can do a sketch but Dave Gromaski is not comfortable as signing
it as an engineer. Ms. Richards said the
thing is that they required everyone else to do the same thing. Ms. Macdonald told them that the Town is not
exempt from it’s own by-laws and that the Board would more than likely require
a new parking plan. The members
instructed Ms. Macdonald to obtain a new parking plan for this project prior to
the work being done.
ANR - Lull Street
The Board reviewed an ANR
submitted by Bruce and Roseanne Westcott
showing the combining of old lots 363, 364, 365 and 366 to pre-existing
non-conforming lots 359, 360 and 361 at 5 Lull Street, thus creating a new lot
C. Lot C will contain approximately 14,625
square feet with existing frontage of 75 feet on Lull Street.
After discussion and upon motion
duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (4-0) to approve the ANR.
Therefore, with no further business and upon motion duly
made and seconded, the Board voted to close the meeting at 10:00 p.m.
Very
truly yours,
Donald
J. Anderson, Clerk