Minutes
of October 17, 2006
Present were: Louis Calabrese, Chair; Marilyn Richards, Vice
Chair; Donald Anderson, Clerk, Michael Przybylowicz and Thomas Morrissette.
Public Hearing – Pearson System,
Clerk, Donald Anderson read the legal notice and correspondence into
the record. Franklin Miorandi, DPW wrote
that he reviewed the plan dated October 13, 2006 and approved it for the
Department of Public Works. Sergeant
Rick Bates, Police Department recommended the following:
1.
Exterior lighting be installed to
illuminate the parking lot and sidewalk areas at the site. Lighting will
improve the safety for pedestrian and vehicular traffic and reduce the
potential for criminal activity at the site.
2.
Exterior doors be illuminated to reduce
the potential for criminal activity and to assist patrol officers who will
checking the buildings during the overnight hours.
3.
Lighting be installed to illuminate the
rear of the proposed office building.
4.
Any signage to be installed at this
site be located so as not to interfere with visibility for vehicular traffic.
5.
Northern-most driveway to the site be
separated into two “exit only” lanes.
The Right lane should be marked “right turn only” and the left lane
marked “left turn only”. A center line
should be installed to separate the lanes. See site plan for notations.
6.
A
"DO NOT ENTER" sign be installed at the intersection of this driveway
and
7.
Stop
signs and stop lines be installed at the intersection of this driveway and
8.
Southern-most
driveway to the site be separated into two lanes. One for entrance to the site
and the other for egress from the site. A
centerline should be installed to separate the lanes. See site plan for
notations.
9.
A stop sign and stop line be installed at the
intersection of this driveway and
10. Stop
signs and stop lines be installed at the driveway exits from each of the
separate parking lots. See site plan locations marked "C" for
recommended locations.
11. "DO NOT ENTER" sign be installed at
the Northwest corner of the building to advise motor vehicle operators of the
one-way traffic pattern on the North side of the building. See site plan marked
"A" for the approximate recommended location.
12. Pavement marking be installed to indicate the
traffic flow within the site. See site plan for approximate recommended
locations.
13. A "ONE WAY" sign be installed at the Northeast corner of
the building to advise motor vehicle operators of the one-way traffic pattern
on the North side of the building.
14. It is recommended a one-way traffic pattern
be established at the proposed drop-off circular driveway.
15. It is recommended a "DO NOT ENTER"
sign be installed to advise motor vehicle operators of the one-way traffic
pattern in the circular driveway. See site plan marked "E" for the
approximate recommended location.
16. It is recommended that any landscaping at the
site not interfere with visibility for vehicular traffic.
An
agreement has been reached and the applicant will make all changes necessary to
meet the police recommendations. Another review will be conducted once the site
is established with businesses and vehicular traffic.
Gary
Weiner, Ecotec wrote that the plans reflect the comments of the members
roundtable as well as the review by Rick Bates following the roundtable. They have
also changed stormwater piping to
Fire
Department wrote the overhang for the drive up teller and ATM must be 12’ high
to the underside of the structure.
Chair,
Louis Calabrese introduced the members of the Planning Board and asked the applicants
to make their presentation.
Andrew
Henshon of Pearson Systems explained that Pearson Systems is a locally owned
and operated real estate development investment firm that has been around since
1936. He said some of the projects they
have been involved with are the
Mr. Bill
Keavany of Pearson Systems said that they have a company from
Mr. Gary
Weiner of Ecotec Environmental, explained that they were hired to prepare a
site plan for the proposed 26,000 square foot office building and bank to be
located on the existing site. He said currently
on the site there is an existing small building that houses 4 businesses which
is listed as
Mr.
Weiner said the proposed building is 26,000 square feet, 6,000 of the square
feet is single level and there will a second floor of about 10,000 square feet
for office use. He added that the entrance driveway will be located on the
south side and the most northerly driveway, in conformance with the request of
the Police Department, would be an exit only driveway. Mr. Weiner said that it is zoned business and
there is also a small commercial parcel located on the southeast side of the
site where parking would be constructed, but most of the site is in business
zone. He said currently it is in two
parcels, there’s a property line that bisects the main parcel so a non-sub plan
would have to be filed with the Planning Board to eliminate the property line
prior to the start of construction or issuance of a building permit for that
matter. Mr. Weiner said that the site
requires a minimum of 130 parking spaces and he has provided 142 parking places
including 7 handicap spaces to meet the
He said
that the site has all of the standard utilities available and the stormwater
drainage has been reviewed by DPW. He
explained that, basically, the plan is
to take the water that will flow from the pavement and roof areas and
reintroduce it on the site through the use of 2 infiltration systems with no water
being directed towards the wetland. Mr.
Weiner said that they have provided Pearson Systems with a long term
maintenance plan which requires, at a minimum, the parking lot be swept twice a
year and all of the structures be cleaned a least once a year. He said that they did include in their second
submittal, the locations for on site lighting
and showed that there are a number of locations to provide for illumination for
the parking area, the rear parking areas in particular and also all around the
building.
Mr. Weiner said the applicant has
had a landscaping plan done for the parcel and there are a number of features
to it including street trees that would be placed so as not to obscure site visibility
entering and leaving the site, they would be placed along the green space at
the front of the building. He said that
additional plantings would be done along and into the rear of the parcel. He said in working with the Conservation
Commission and working with Pioneer Environmental (who did the wetlands filing)
a secondary planting plan has been prepared adjacent to the wetlands. He then pointed out on the plan the area that
would be planted is adjacent to the parking area and abutting the residential
area.
Mr. Steve Savaria, Traffic
Engineer from Fuss & O’Neill explained that they where retained by Pearson
to perform the impact traffic analysis and prepare a report in accordance with
the requirements of the site plan approval by-laws. He said that the report has been reviewed by
the Police Department and the conclusions were the additional trips generated
by the project would increase peak area traffic volumes on
Mr. Savaria said that the two
driveways will operate safely and efficiently and there is adequate capacity at
those driveway intersections to accommodate the additional site traffic. He said he went through a couple of rounds of
review with Sergeant Bates over the internal parking and circulation, signage
and pavement parking plan which is reflected in his comments and they did
respond and incorporate all of Sergeant Bates’ recommendations in the plan.
Mr. Calabrese addressed the Board
for any questions.
Mr. Morrissette asked what 5 to 6%
increase of traffic ends up as in numbers of cars.
Mr. Savaria said during the
morning peak hour it’s roughly a 100 trips entering the site mostly associated
with the office use, during the afternoon peak hours about 250 trips mostly
associated with Bank use, about 1,200 vehicles per day total trip generation of
the total site.
Mr. Morrissette asked if there
would be a drive through ATM? Mr.
Savaria said yes and the traffic study is based on a bank use with a drive-up
window and a drive-up ATM. Mr.
Morrissette asked if the southerly entrance was geared to be both a entrance
and exit and was that okay with the Police?
Mr. Savaria said yes. Mr.
Morrissette felt that it should be one way in and one way out. Mr. Savaria said that they did discuss that
with Sergeant Bates and the conclusion was it will have all of the traffic
exiting at the northerly driveway - they have no problem with everyone entering
at the southerly entrance, but if they have all of the traffic exiting at the
northerly driveway that means all of the back parking area has to circulate around
the back of the building and come through the area where the drive-up lanes are
for the bank.
Mr. Saveria added that if there is
only a single by-pass lane in addition to the drive-up ones, you are likely to
have queuing in the drive-up lanes and they think that really would have a
higher potential for congestion within the site if they forced everyone to come
around the back of the building and come down through the drive-up window
area. He said allowing the exit at the
southerly driveway gives them the opportunity to get most of the office
building related traffic out of the southerly driveway and it also gives the
opportunity for those vehicles who want to turn left and go out Maple Court, to have a greater distance to get over into
the left turn lanes to make that move, where as if they were all coming out of
the northerly driveway it would be a diagonal move.
Mr. Morrissette said that the plan
doesn’t show that road so it’s hard to determine from this just where it
is. Mr. Saveria said the abutting
property to the north is the
Mr. Calabrese asked if he felt
that it was going to be a problem with the bank to have just one exit that goes
right. Mr. Savaria said that the exit
driveway has two lanes, separate left and right hand lane so they would be able
to go in either direction.
Mr. Anderson said that he was
struggling with the plan and wished they had put
Mr. Przybylowicz asked if the proposed drop off was just for
the medical office building? Mr. Savaria
said that it was potentially for anyone who needs to have close up access to
the building. Mr. Przybylowicz asked if they would be able to have access to any of the
tenants in that building. Mr. Savaria
said yes.
Mr. Morrissette asked if it would
be similar to the 382
Ms. Richards asked Mr. Weiner with
respect to the landscape plan what was the width of the strip along the
street. Mr. Weiner said that he believe
that it was 10 feet. Ms. Richards said
that the by-law requires 12% landscaping throughout the parking lot in addition
to the 10 foot street scape she can’t figure out by looking at it, is what he’s
showing standard? Mr. Weiner said that
they calculated it out and it’s right about 11 something percent including some
plantings. Ms. Richards asked if the
parking places that are currently being utilized by the next neighbors (once
the construction takes place) are planning to share the parking lot ?. Mr.
Weiner said not that he was aware of.
Ms. Richards mentioned to Mr.
Henshon that on the plan it shows the right side will be the medical office
building, the center is professional and the left is the bank, correct? Mr. Henshon said not exactly the two wings
are basically one-story with a retail area and a bank and the middle section is
professional offices.
Mr. Anderson said that there is no
retail on the plans, there is only office medical & bank. Mr. Henshon said that he probably misspoke a
little it’s unspecified use as of right now, could be office building. Mr. Anderson said but your traffic study is
based on all professional, it gets changed with retail and your calculations
didn’t include retail, correct? Mr.
Savaria it was all professional and medical office.
Mr. Henshon said that he may have
misspoke, they are obviously going to comply with the laws and to answer your
question they don’t have a use for this.
Mr. Anderson said understand if it does change to retail the traffic
information, traffic counts change, things of that nature change and they’re
making there determination and the sister boards are making parking changes too,
there’re based on what’s on the table.
Mr. Henshon said point well taken.
Ms. Richards said in addition to
identifying what’s where, with respect to the medical office use could they explain
what they anticipate that to be so the Board has an idea of what they are
planning. She asked if they have
specific tenant in mind for the medical office component? Mr. Henshon they don’t have anyone but what
they are projecting is a medical user - specifically a professional user for the
doctor’s offices.
Mr. Calabrese addressed the
audience for any questions.
John Flynn, Hampden Engineering,
99 Shaker Road said you spoke before about the turn lane and Mr. Anderson eluted
to the Maple Court isn’t the lane down the center a bi-directional turn
lane? Mr. Morrissette answered
correct. Mr. Flynn asked isn’t there a
potential for a problem for cars coming out Maple Court trying to make the turn
into the medical building as well as cars coming down Shaker Road in a
northerly direction trying to make a turn in the turn lane coming up Maple
Court? He said having looked out on that
on a daily basis and he sees the
stacking situation that occurs from 3:00 to 3:20 p.m. roughly, I don’t know how
you can alleviate it - but I see a tremendous potential for grid lock right
then as cars try to skirt around the intersection. Mr. Anderson said that
Ms. Richards asked Ms. Macdonald
if that was brought up in the tech sessions with the Police and Fire. Ms. Macdonald answered she didn’t think so.
Mr. Henshon said just look at the
numbers for that left turn into Maple Court, but because now they have this
separation of the whole site frontage - actually a south bound left- it might be appropriate to strip that
northerly section of the center lane as it approaches Maple Court to be a left
turn lane only - then there would be transition somewhere along the site front
where it would go back to being a 2-way left turn to accommodate the left turns
into the driveway.
Mr. Flynn said he thinks the
reality is that you can put all the signage you want but it’s like the one-way
entrance next door, unless you have a traffic cop standing there, painted
arrows on the road especially during
winter time aren’t going to do much for you. He said of course there is a large amount of
tractor trailer traffic for all businesses along
Mr. Weiner said at this point and
time they have a very narrow strip of green space except for the bump outs at
the front and almost to the rear of the parcel.
He said the use in play area where the kids are will have a small amount
of green space but he can certainly add a buffer in there.
Mr. Flynn asked Mr. Weiner what
type of trees would be planted along
Mr. Calabrese said that he would
like to talk about the issue with
Mr. Morrissette said one thing
that he would like brought up at the meeting is he thinks people will respond
better to one driveway in all the time and one driveway out all the time. He said if that could be addressed as to the
pros and cons at your meeting with Sergeant Bates? Mr. Calabrese said perhaps Ms. Macdonald
could arrange the meeting and be present to represent the Board.
Ms. Richards asked Mr. Weiner
about the parking if there was sufficient room to pull out of the 5 parking
spaces on each side without backing out in front of all of the spaces into the
traffic? Mr. Weiner said that someone
would have to make a three point turn and there is enough room to do so.
Upon motion duly made and
seconded, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to continue the hearing until
October 31st at 7:30 p.m.
Miscellaneous
Ms. Macdonald explained to the
Board that Dave Gromaski and Danny Burack were there to report what happened at
the appropriations committee regarding the
Ed Costa – Discussion regarding
chain at Mapleshade school
Mr. Costa introduced Dan Manley,
Chairman; Bill Fonseca and Wayne Wilson, Principal. He said back in August 2001 he requested a
chain be placed at the driveway of Mapleshade School and 5 years later he is
asking the Planning Board to review the status for them to discontinue the use
of the locking the chain to the driveway.
Mr. Costa said that they are asking for this request because locking the
chain at the end of the school day in essence locking out citizens from the
ball fields in the summer months. He
said that the locked gates are somewhat a time inconvenience during the winter
snow plow season as well by DPW, Police and town vehicles that access our roads
at the early hours of the morning and late hours of the night as they try to
continue to clear our streets. He said the
lock gates, in a sense, are hazardous in inclement weather which means foggy
and rainy because every year they have a least one vehicle that gets a scrape
from the chain and that has happen every year in the 5 years that it has been
up there. Mr. Costa said the lock gates
are also a cost factor for us as a school system because each year they have to
replace the chain and the cement pipes. He said because they are locking it that they
are spending time and DPW does the labor fixing tire marks across the
field. Mr. Costa said that also there
has been a lot of graffiti on the playground apparatus, the hand ball court as
well as the base wall that faces the fields.
He said that there are complaints predominantly during the summer months
asking why are the gates locked and they still believe as a school committee it
was the right thing to do. Mr. Costa
asked if the Board would reconsider allowing them to leave it unlocked. Mr. Morrissette asked if they were looking to
get the chain down on both ends. Mr.
Costa yes they would like that. Mr.
Anderson said that he was comfortable removing the restriction if they are
saying it’s not an issue. Mr. Costa said
that they have not gone a single month with the chains down in 5 years so he
can’t really say if it is an issue or not but if it is then they would come
back to the Board. Mr. Wilson said going
back to a period before that the back play area was paved it wasn’t very good
for skate boarding and even through they don’t allow skates boards after hours they
have no control over who’s coming and going and he suspects that the skate
boarding is taking place on the larger play area rather than the drive
through. Mr. Morrissette said he would
be in favor of taking it down, and if it becomes a problem, lets give them 12
months to see how the effects of it being down are.
Mr. Przybylowicz asked Mr. Costa if he thought the removal
of the chain would be more inviting for some potential over night parking. Mr. Costa said that’s a possibility and it
exists at every campus and especially the high school campus and it has not
happened.
Ms. Richards said that they had a similar situation with the
catholic church and their chain because they were afraid of vehicle conflict of
cars going through that front parking lot and
cutting into the entrance way to the catholic church. She said that the Board agreed to reconsider
and remove the chain and revisit it and it’s been fine. She said that she is in
favor of the removal.
Mr. Calabrese said he felt it was
an improvement for cars to pick up the children after school and the only thing
that stuck in his mind from the hearing was the concern of at least one of the
neighbors, there may have been two, he knows who the neighbor is specifically
but didn’t want to mention any names. He
feels a sense of loyalty to that person, but the suggestion that was made that
evening to do a trial basis perhaps makes sense so that if it turns out that
there is a problem that does occur that they can validate they can always go
back.
Upon motion duly made and
seconded, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to grant the removal of the chains
for a 12 month period and to revisit the issue if any problems occurred.
Public Hearing – By-law change regarding medical clinics
Marilyn Richards read the legal notice. Chair, Louis Calabrese introduced the members of the Planning
Board.
Ms.
Richards explained that the Board is asking to add this additional use in the industrial
garden park for a hospital, sanatorium or medical clinic. She said because in their Planning Board
business they are learning that there are issues regarding medical clinics that
keep coming up and they looked at the by-laws and the only place that they are
allowed to put a medical clinic is in the residential district with a special
permit. She said that the Board can’t
figure out why the by-law would restrict medical clinics only to a residential
district, they have medical offices that are located within professional
offices in the business, commercial, industrial district and the industrial
garden park district they are not there at all.
She said that the industrial garden park is the most accommodating zone
for such a use, when they talk about medical clinics they are talking about a
larger entity that has a variety of services incorporated within one medical
facility. She added that based on the
standards in the industrial garden park in addition to the standards that would
be required under a special permit they felt that the combination of those
features would be sufficient to provide a medical clinic to exists in harmony
in the industrial garden park and also provide some protection for the town
with respect to our zoning. She said
that they were asking that they allow medical clinics in the industrial garden
park – thus adding this use in our by-laws.
Mr.
Calabrese addressed the Board for any questions, there being none addressed the
audience for any questions. There being
none and upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (5-0)
to close the meeting. Upon motion duly
made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to recommend the article
at town meeting.
Jeff
LeBeau, Baystate Environmental – Congregate Living pump station change
Mr.
LeBeau explained that they have a proposed change to the approved plans for the
East Longmeadow Retirement Residence. He
said that they are proposing to change the location of the pump station to
better accommodate future parcels and it’s also a shorter pipe run. He said that it’s highlighted on approved plan
sets, sheet 6 and sheet 3 and what has been revised is the new location of the
grinding pump station for the middle of the facility to the north end. He said that they are not changing how they
would propose to tie into the town sewer.
Mr. Przybylowicz asked if DPW has reviewed the revision. Mr. LeBeau said that they have and he met
with Robyn and Frank Miorandi and they had no problems with it. Ms. Macdonald said that Dave Gromaski didn’t
have any problems with it either. Mr.
Calabrese said so they would be amending the site plan and not the special
permit. Ms. Macdonald advised that the Special Permit did not have to be
amended, simply adding the new sheets that were endorsed would be sufficient to
the plan. Upon motion duly made and
seconded, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to amend the site plan for Apple
Blossom Lane to reflect the relocation of the pump station.
Public
Hearing – Zone Change, 94 Maple Street – R.E. LaPlante
Clerk, Donald Anderson read the legal notice.
Chair, Louis Calabrese introduced the members of the Planning Board.
Mr. William
LaPlante explained that they would like to rezone the property at 94 Maple
Street, which right now is a split zone, industrial and residential. He said that if they are able to get the zone
change they were planning to build a residential looking structure that would
house their company headquarters. Mr.
LaPlante said they would also like the ability to have professional office
space that would be used strictly as a professional office and all of the
parking would be in the rear of the building.
He said one of the challenges is if they changed the zone would it be
considered spot zoning or not? Attorney
Mark Beglane did some additional research and had an opinion for Attorney
Donahue. Mr. Laplante said that Attorney
Donahue stated that there is two prong test whether a parcel is considered spot
zoning, the first part is that it has to be a parcel that is singled out
individually and does not have any adjoining property, and the other is there
has to be a substantial public benefit.
He said that they see three public benefits, the first being is takes a
piece of property that has been an eye sore for quite sometime and it puts it
back onto the tax roles for the good of the town. He said that they also see it as a nice
transition when you come into town to see a structure like this a residential
looking structure and they also see it as a nice buffer from the residential
zone to the industrial zone that’s existing next door. He said that they have a purchase and sale
agreement on the property that is contingent upon the zone change.
Mr.
Calabrese addressed the Board for any questions.
Ms.
Richards asked what the size if the building is that they are proposing? Mr. LaPlante said that they expect about
5,500 to 5,700 square feet. Ms. Richards
said that they would be using the space for their needs and possibly there
would be additional space for others professionals. Mr. LaPlante said that they plan to occupy
the majority of the first floor with additional rental space on the second
floor.
Mr.
Anderson said that there is a difference of opinions between town counsel and
counsel for the petitioner as far as whether this is spot zoning so he wanted
to make clear that he pointed out the litmus’s test fine, it’s just that the
conclusions are different. He said the
only areas he struggles with is in terms of, I’m not saying there’s not a
public good he’s struggling with that area, but those first two examples may
set a bad precedent and he just hopes that they are prepared to answer
questions from the public on this. He
said that they don’t want to set a standard where if someone leaves a property
in disrepair that would be a standard to try to say let us go ahead and let us
have it rezoned. Further the Board does
not want to face a zone change if the property owner decides to move to Florida
and someone else comes up and makes a very institutionalized looking commercial
building or bank that could come there in the future because of the zone change. He just wants to make sure when the arguments
are made those two elements are prepared to be answered.
Mr.
LaPlante said when he mentioned the issue of whether or not there is any public
good - you look at what the attorney general has upheld across the state and
they have been very very lenient as to what they’ve allowed. He said basically they are looking for the
Planning Boards and the Towns to find the public good - you have to look at
this individual parcel and say with certainty is there a public good here.
Mr.
Anderson said lets say for the sake of discussion, that you were putting a
senior center he thinks that moves the bar a lot closer to a clear public good,
because it’s something that benefits the public collectively. He said again the struggle that he has as a
board member is when he has an opinion letter from town counsel with this
information. He’s not saying that he’s reached
a conclusion, he’s struggling with it and he has his ears wide open listening
to the dialog this evening but he is still struggling with what town counsel
says and he is trying to find the public good argument that meets that
test. Mr. Anderson added that it does
remove an eyesore and as he said before he doesn’t want to create that precedent
where people say let’s make an eyesore and then the Board will say just get rid
of the eyesore and that’s all of sudden public good. He said also showing an attractive looking
building but understanding that they are not voting on the building it’s the
zone change and saying it’s a good buffer.
Mr. Anderson said that maybe another approach would be to look at areas
where industrial and residential meet throughout the town that a middle ground
use i.e. commercial might be in place.
Mr.
LaPlante said that their main focus has been where the industrial has met the
residential. His opinion is that it’s
poor planning to take have industrial right next to residential and in his
opinion to put a commercial or a business zone between residential and
industrial makes very good public planning sense. Mr. LaPlante said so when you look at past
cases a couple of which Mark Beglane brought up were not actually the same in
that they were using the businesses zones between an industrial and residential
zone but that has been upheld by the Attorney General as a legitimate public
purposes for public good by creating that buffer from residential to the
industrial.
Mr.
Anderson asked if he was talking about the Belmont case.
Mr.
Beglane said one of the things that they look at for the buffer the zone is
just the uses and an industrial use typically involves 24 hour/7 days a week
thing and most people don’t want to have that in the backyard of their
home. He said by having some sort of a
buffer zone, commercial is ideal because most commercial businesses are open
and operate during the day and at the same time people are at work. Mr. Beglane said one thing when you get an
opportunity to try to do some planning this does create a valid buffer zone
that will prevent some of the complaints the Board would end up hearing. He said that there are spots already that are
zoned as you go up and down North Main Street were they go from business to
commercial to residential which results in less conflicts between the
uses. He said that he thinks creating
transition zones between heavy industrial uses and residential use is a good
idea and the other problem is that it’s just never a good idea like in this
piece to have a split zone. He said
especially with a split zone the two are totally inconsistent, you can’t put
residential in industrial and you can’t put industrial in residential so you
end up with a piece that’s a very limited use to start with.
At that
time Mr. Calabrese addressed the audience for any questions.
Kevin Kervick, Edmund Street said
taking the Attorney General, he discounts that because he doesn’t live in his
neighborhood and second of all he takes it as either put this in or else we
could end up with some industrial abutter as a threat either their way or
not. He said realistically that building
does not fit that property and in that picture there is no entrance, no exit,
no parking lot, evidently the tress behind the house where bought from jack in
the bean stalk and there is no picture of the lighting which will be needed for
security reasons. Mr. Kervick said that
he was not opposed progress, he’s not opposed to removing an eyesore what he is
opposed to is the fact is when the idea was brought up by Mr. Kennedy when he bought
that he was told no. He added that now
there is a purchase and sale that hasn’t gone through waiting for another
chance of a zone change, how do we know once the zone change is done that you
guys are not going to say well no we do not want to buy this, and give it to
someone else to build. He said that this
would add tons of traffic and the person who bought it should have understood
that it was mixed up zoning and the building doesn’t fit the neighborhood.
Mr. LaPlante said that parking is
going to be in the rear of the building, they do not have plans for the
building, they do not have a parking plan, they do not have entrances figured, they
are going for a zone change and have not yet finished the plans. He said if they do not get the zone change
they were not going to spend $20,000, $30,000 on plans. Mr. LaPlante said the building based on the
plot plan does fit on the building and on the building there is a right of way
for getting into the back and into the parking.
He said that they held an informal meeting last Tuesday in their office
and there were some neighbors that were in support of it and thought that it
would create a beautiful transition and did welcome it into their neighborhood.
Mr. LaPlante explained that they
are a construction company but they have a warehousing facility and they have a
place for their trucks and things like that, it is not that. Mr. LaPlante said that it is a professional
office building it is not for trucks and they are doing this because they are
maxed out with space now, that’s their reason for doing it. He said that he would guarantee if this zone
change does happen and this is built it will look nicer than the picture they
have presented.
Amy Hebert, 20 Glendale Road asked
aside from your $20,000 to $30,000 picture for us you stated that you were not
going to occupy all of the 5,500 square feet you would be occupying a portion
of the first floor. She asked why can’t
they cut down on the size and put in a home that would fit the
neighborhood. She said that she
understood that is an eyesore but the picture has been cleaned up before the
picture because nobody mowed the lawn for god knows how long and they probably
mowed the lawn for this presentation. She
said that the house looks better than it has looked and I understand that you
didn’t want to get a proper picture for us because you weren’t sure you were
going to get your zone change. Ms.
Hebert said if in fact the town agrees that a zone change is appropriate how do
they know that they are not going to say well your picture has changed and you
are going to go further with a 6,000 square foot brick square building with 7x7
window, a sign out in front that a big lit up picture of your construction name?
Mr. Calabrese said that he would
answer the question because he thinks it’ something that’s important for
everyone to know there that evening. He
explained if the zone change were approved before anything could happen on that
property, there would be another public hearing and at that public hearing
everyone would be invited to attend and add their comments and, at that time,
would have to present the looks of the building and how it’s going to be
situated, where the entrances are going to be, where the lighting is going to
be and where all the aforementioned items that were brought up that
evening. He said that the petitioner is
not going to bring in a full scale plan because of the fact that he is just
looking for the zone change.
Mark Fitzpatrick, 99 Maple Street asked
if it was possible for a daycare facility go there the way it sits now? The Board answered yes. Mr. Fitzpatrick said that the traffic would
be 10 times worse than an office and when heard that LaPlante’s were going to
buy the property he was excited because they are real professionals. He said being an office the traffic flow is
going to be sporadic but if you have business like a daycare it’s more of rush,
everybody’s dropping them off at one time, coming out at other times and those
times are going to meet up with the times of getting out of school. He said that he hopes that the request for a
zone change gets passed.
David Bressem, 89 Maple Street
asked if it was possible to know what town counsel’s opinion was? Mr. Calabrese said the town counsel’s opinion
was that it would constitute spot zoning.
He said the attorney for the petitioner disagrees with some of the
findings that he has found and it’s one of things where the Attorney General
will make the final call as whether or not it is spot zoning. Mr. Bressem said that he and his wife were a
little conflicted about how they stand on this proposal for a lot of reasons
that have already been stated. He said
if it gets rezoned there will be no controls and then we operate on trust and
faith that the petitioner is going to do what he says he’s going to do. He asked if it was possible to put any
restrictions on that kind of thing?
Mr. Calabrese said unfortunately
there would not be in the zoning article.
Mr. Bressem said so once it happens, anything can happen. Mr. Calabrese said the only control you would
after that would be site plan review.
Mr. Bressem said but the site plan review process is limited only to
opinions and we have no control really over what to do. Mr. Calabrese said as long as the use fits
into the zone than it would be a case of the Planning Board overseeing the
appearance, traffic handling, lighting, safety, various things like that but
once it’s passed, yes. Mr. Bressem asked
what happens when things change hands and in terms of this particular proposal
he also agrees that it is very large for the neighborhood. He said that he would feel a lot better about
it they came and said they would to put their office there period but now it is
a commercial building with other people, therefore increase in traffic, the
tenants will change over time and does that allow for a bigger sign for the
tenants. Mr. Bressem said that type of
building does not fit in the neighborhood and also the size is more than twice
the width of the current structure, it’s bigger in appearance than the Norcross
building. He said there some concern
also with if this zone change is done does that set a precedence for the
property behind it, would that allow them to become commercial. Mr. Anderson said that every zone change has
to be approved by the town. Mr. Bressem
said but now that wouldn’t be spot zoning.
Mr. Anderson said that he was right but it would still require a 2/3
votes by town people at a town meeting.
Mr. Bressem said that he agreed with the arguments made about the buffer
zone but he doesn’t necessarily apply to this particular site, we are talking
about one parcel, we are talking about a professional building which is fairly
low impact and that it’s most restrictive use is what it is zoned for right
now.
David Kosiorek, 25 Meadowlark
Drive said that the picture is beautiful and feels if they had nothing to go on
to begin with it would have eliminated a lot of the potential concerns that
people have. He said as he understands
it and what they are dealing with is the legality of whether or not the
property would pass to constitute spot zoning.
He said that he felt that everyone present was in favor of trying to
increase the architectural beauty of the town, you don’t put an eyesore there,
you want to limit traffic, you have something that is going to blend into the
community and act as a buffer between the residential and industrial. He said part of the problem is the way the
property is structured, part is industrial part is residential which has made
it extremely difficult to get rid of. He
said what type of usefulness does that property have the way that it sits now,
if he wanted to put up a home would I want to do that adjacent to an industrial
building? Probably not, so the likely
hood of selling it as residential really isn’t likely. He said that the property has a very limited
use and that’s why it has been sitting there the way that it has, and a number
of people have demonstrated an interest in trying to develop the property but
ran into problems with the zoning as they are right now. He said that you are caught
between a rock and a hard place but he still thinks that something could be
done nicely but limit it to the things that can effectively house the type of
unit that is going to satisfy everyone.
He said that he would love to have his orthodontist practice on Maple
Street and it wouldn’t generate a whole lot of traffic flow but that remains to
be seen. He said right now that they are
entertaining the idea to see how it’s going to fair with everyone else and
sometimes good things take time and we are just going to have to wait and see
what does happen.
Mr. Kervick said if had a better
understanding on what the building would look like he would have a better
understanding and back them up, but the uncertainty is killing him. He said because realistically a year or two
from now someone offered you a ton of money for that building to do something
with it, you can’t tell me that you are going to turn your back on that.
Mr. LaPlante said that Mr. Bressem
and his wife were at the meeting held at his office, the next door neighbor
stood up and said that he was sick of looking at this and he is for the project
and thinks it’s a beautiful building and he thinks it would be good for the
neighborhood.
Mr. Fitzpatrick said that if
anyone was concerned about the property it was him but also because he works
for these people he knows he can trust them and what happens down the road it’s
up to the town to decide.
Ms. Hebert asked if the zone
change went through would there be a restriction on the commercial size, hour
of operations and parking spaces? Mr.
Calabrese said yes usually what happens is parking is based on the square
footage of the building and the type of use and it’s a minimum. Ms. Hebert asked if the building was 5,500
square feet how many parking spaces would be allowed. Mr. Morrissette said 5 per thousand, 25 to 30 spaces
approximately. She asked Mr. LaPlante if
there was a possibility they would consider downsizing it based on everybody’s
concerns. Mr. LaPlante said absolutely
however they have to look at realistically the purchase price of the and, the
cost of the structure and whether they would be able to make it work
financially. He said that they are not
that far into the project because they
have already spent thousands of dollars going to this road in the hopes that
they get it and they had to stop somewhere.
Mr. Bressem said he believes in
Mark Beglane and so I do trust that he trust you and that you’re an honest
person however the pervious comments about downsizing and you might consider it
but once the zone change is in place you don’t have to consider it. The Board replied that was correct. Mr. Calabrese said that he thinks it’s
important that they understand that the zone change won’t address that. Mr.
La Plante said that it depends on the over all size of the project, the overall
cost of the project. Mr. Calabrese said
that it shouldn’t even be a matter of discussion that evening and hopefully the
Board has given everyone enough time with questions. At that time Mr. Calabrese addressed the
Board for further questions.
Ms. Richards explained to Ms.
Herbert that there are restrictions or there are guidelines within the
commercial zone that there is a certain amount of lot coverage, certain amount
of parking spaces that are required based on the square footage. She said if a commercial district abuts a
residential district there would be a requirement of a mandatory 25 foot buffer
between the commercial property and the residential district. She said that the parcel is unique and she
has been struggling with this and said when Dr. Quinn operated his physicians
office at that location, which is not an allowed use in that area but it was a
grandfathered use he was already functioning in the confines of a commercial
district because it’s allowed use in a
commercial zone. She said that Dr.
Quinn’s office and operation in small way operating in the form of a buffer between
the industrial zone as we know it residential zone. Ms. Richards said it is a unique parcel and
it’s a parcel they haven’t been able, through variety opportunities, to come up
with a reasonable answer to solve the question.
She said that it went before the town as an industrial zone request and
the Board spoke against it because it wasn’t right to move the industrial zone
further up Maple Street. She said when
the Board looks at zone changes they have to at everything that could possibly
go into a commercial zone and they look at the impact of these uses and that’s
how they also make their decision. She said
that she is struggling because she thinks to use the property in a commercial
use as a buffer between the industrial and the residential is not foreign to
our town, we have commercial uses in other parts of town as buffers between
residential and business districts and this an area where it didn’t fit. She said that they have an opportunity maybe
to make a decision might improve it and she doesn’t think whether it’s a
commercial zone or whether it is what it is a medical clinic is really that
different.
Mr. Przybylowicz said for him it
comes down to what their town council has said and in this matter he has
suggested that this would be spot zoning, so knowing that he couldn’t support
the application just because what town counsel says. He said that it was no disrespect to
LaPlante’s, he thinks their proposal is fantastic, it’s needed but he is just cannot
see how it could work.
Mr. Morrissette said the fact that it is an eyesore now,
eventually that place is going to disintegrate to a point where it has to be
demolished. He said at that point it
will become less of a need to fix something because it will be just a vacant
piece of property, if it got torn down maybe they would be more sympathetic and
letting it over grow and turn into a dilapidated building didn’t go over well
with him.
Mr. Przybylowicz just wanted to add
one more thing to his comments, it’s not
that he is against the application he just can’t support it for the
reasons that he stated but he does hope that at the town meeting that the
people vote in favor of it. He knows
that it is something that the property needs to be addressed and he thinks this
would be the only way to address it.
Mr. Calabrese said while the rendering doesn’t deal with the
zone change he believes perhaps the LaPlantes bought that to try and put
something forth that blends better with the residential character of the
abutting neighborhood as opposed to a real commercial looking building. He said in defense of them some of you are
critical of the building being oversized but it makes sense that they have to
build a certain size building and they thought as to opposed to putting a brick structure the put something that
blend with the neighborhood. He said his
other comments is that the Planning Board as Ms. Richards mentioned is
struggling with this item and they think it’s important for you to know that
basically what happens the Planning Board doesn’t have the authority to grant
the zone change it is something that they will make a recommendation at town
meeting and that recommendation really only gives the developer the option of
either coming back immediately with another change. He said if they don’t recommend it then they can’t
come back for 2 years with the same proposal but ultimately the decision is
going to rest with the town’s people and that’s where the decision will be made
and there is a 2/3 majority vote that’s necessary, so this is not the final step. Mr. Calabrese said that it was a hearing to
bring forward concerns and basically the Planning Board would recommend or not
recommend.
Mr. LaPlante said that Attorney
Donahue did not say in his opinion that this was spot zoning, he merely said
that should the Planning Board not find a public purpose for this it would be
considered spot zoning and if they did find a public purpose for this piece and
you guys mentioned struggling with it for a number of years then it would be
considered by the Attorney General and based on case law and not rendered as
spot zoning. He said in his opinion
Attorney Donahue put it back into the Board’s lap and finding a public purpose would
be approved by the Attorney General - and that is his interpretation of
Attorney Donahue’s letter and the discussions that Ms. Macdonald has had with
him.
Mr. Ray LaPlante said ramming
something like this down the abutters throats is not their style. He said that they want something to showcase
their work, do a nice project - they have been in the community for 35 to 40
years and it’s just not their style.
Mr. Calabrese said that he felt
that most everyone there that evening believe in that statement. Mr. Ray LaPlante said that he did the
rendering and if it doesn’t look exactly like that he’s not building it.
Upon motion duly made and
seconded, the Board vote unanimously (5-0) to close the hearing. The Board continued further discussion and
upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted (3-2) to recommend the zone
change at town meeting.
Request for Waiver of Site Plan
Review – 37 Maple Street
Clerk, Donald Anderson read a
request for waiver of site plan from Jennifer Guinipero to open a hair and nail
salon at 37 Maple Street. Hours of
operations will be Tuesdays, 9 am – 8 pm, Wednesdays & Thursdays, 9:00 am –
8:00 pm, Fridays 9:00 am – 5:00 pm and Saturdays 9:00 am – 4:00 pm and she will
be the only employee. Upon motion duly
made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to grant the waiver conditioned
on the fact there will be a maximum of 2 employees and that this site is a
pre-existing business site.
Minutes
The Board reviewed the minutes of September 18, 2006 and
upon motion duly made and seconded, voted unanimously (5-0) to approve them,
with edits.
The Board reviewed the minutes of October 3, 2006 and upon
motion duly made and seconded, voted unanimously (5-0) to approve them, with
edits.
Miscellaneous
Mr. Morrissette explained that Texas Roadhouse in
conjunction with RE/MAX will be selling gift certificates in the senior center
lot for Christmas and donate the 25% of the money to the senior center and they
will have van with a banner on it and wanted to know if they could do that. Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board
voted (4-0) to allow the banner.
Request for Waiver of Site Plan Review – R.F. Morse Turf & Ornamental, 138 Denslow
Road
Ms. Macdonald informed the Board
that a new request for waiver was received yesterday and she didn’t bring the
request because she thought the Board would want to talk with him. She said that he told her that it is actually
a warehouse and that people can’t come in and buy product. She asked the building inspector to go to the
site and there are articles for sale but
they are basically to show and you cannot buy anything less than 25
pounds of grass seed – no retail is being done at this location. Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board
voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the waiver of site plan review.
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,