Minutes of December 12, 2006

Present were: Louis Calabrese, Chair; Marilyn Richards, Vice Chair; Donald Anderson, Clerk. Michael Przybylowicz and Thomas Morrissette were not present.

Steve Graziano regarding Prospect Street building

Mr. Graziano explained that the Prospect Street building was built for Veritech but he was the owner of the building and somehow he never realized it was stated for Veritech use only. He said what he had agreed to was that he would never put a restaurant in there because it wasn’t an appropriate use because it is retail and office use and that was the way he left it, but all of the members of that committee are long gone. He said that he has the hairdresser from Shaker Road who is interested in what used to be the studio and a doctor interested in the one half and then someone who does consulting work for the office in the back. Mr. Graziano said that the entire second floor would be broken up into 3 uses with all access from Prospect Street and he is putting in a handicap ramp in because the doctors office will need it.

Ms. Richards asked Mr. Graziano if he knew how many square feet it would be. Mr. Graziano said about 1,000 square feet for the hairdresser and there is 4,400 square feet for the whole building and the hairdresser has already worked out the parking with her employees across the street in the church lot which they used to do as well. Ms. Richards said first of all that they were talking about the special permit which has to be done in a public hearing. He said that he agreed but he was just telling them what his plan is and that it was an appropriate use.

Mr. Calabrese asked if the special permit that was approved currently specifies it is for Veritech only? Mr. Graziano said yes, which had to be a mistake because you can’t specify by company name you can only specify it by use. Ms. Richards said that the way she understood it that the permit was issued, you were asking for an expansion in addition to a upstairs development. Mr. Graziano said at the time there was no history at all of one building having two addresses because it was on the side of the hill and it was a very unique situation. Ms. Richards said but they were expanding a pre-existing non-conforming structure and at the time as she understands it they were looking to expand it, there was discussion over being able to provide the adequate parking that the then Planning Board would have required of any expansion and you couldn’t do that with the parking that you had. Mr. Graziano said that there was no parking on the building what they did was took out a driveway that went from upper level to lower level and they put in all the parking spaces that are on the Prospect Street side now and for 4,000 square feet he thinks they have 18 or 20 spots. Ms. Richards said that there are formulas for retail and formulas for commercial and that is what they are going to have pick through when they go through the special permit. Mr. Graziano said that the only thing he would ask is how can the beautician that just went in next to with zero parking you have to use the same type of balance. Ms. Richards said what they have to do is deal with each project on it’s own merit and that may have been pre-existing non-conforming situation, your situation was a structure that was added to specifically to expand his business and her feeling is that if it had been conditional on Veritech only.

Mr. Graziano said that it was never for Veritech only, Ms. Richards said well it is in the permit, Mr. Graziano said then that had to be a gross error. Ms. Richards said that it was do to insufficient parking, Mr. Graziano said no it wasn’t, Ms. Richards said that they have all looked at it, Mr. Graziano said okay fine. Ms. Richards said that the point was that the permit would not have been issued if that agreement had not been made because there wasn’t adequate parking at that time for the addition they were looking for. Mr. Graziano said that he remembers clearly they asked if he moved what would be his uses and they don’t want a restaurant in there and that was the only concession that he made at the time, but obviously in those days they didn’t record the meetings so it’s recollection. He said that he is in the situation that he has to rent space and he is trying to do it as professionally and appropriately and if they remember when he bought that building it was a dump and the addition at that time got written up as a tremendous positive asset to the Town and he has always been that way in trying to keep things positive to the Town so if the use is an issue then he would like to know now because he can’t image it being a problem if they are doing a tasteful use.

Mr. Anderson asked if Attorney Manning had a chance to review the special permit. Mr. Graziano said that his comment was that it’s absolutely not appropriate to be assigned to a brand business use.

Ms. Macdonald said that Mr. Graziano has filed a request for amendment of the special permit, through counsel, Steven Manning.

Mr. Calabrese said a special permit was given because it was a pre-existing non-conforming structure. Ms. Richards said that it was an expansion of pre-existing non-conforming structure. Mr. Graziano said that the issue was that it was to close to Shaker Road and they never had a building that had two addresses because the top was on Prospect Street and the bottom is on Shaker Road. Mr. Calabrese said so that the Special permit was still in order because the of the fact that the bottom level is pre-existing non-conforming structure so in that case the Board would be dealing with the use and the parking that is required. He said so if there is not enough parking what are the other options.

Ms. Macdonald said that the use is limited. Mr. Graziano asked limited to what type of use because right now they have in there 50 desks and they don’t have a parking problem but they have far more desk use than the next that’s use that’s going to be in there. Ms. Richards said that the problem is that the realtor should have never gone in there with the existing special permit the way it is and that’s not anything the Board can change. Mr. Graziano said he tried to do everything right. Ms. Richards said that the Board did not realize that there was a Special Permit on that structure and no one offered that information. She said that the Board needed to look at the actual floor plan/parking plan at the time of the Special Permit to see what they are dealing with. Mr. Graziano said that the floor plan was exactly the same. Ms. Richards said but they need to look at the parking plan and they need a plan that identifies square footage because she wasn’t sure there was one on file. Mr. Graziano said whatever the Board needs he will provide. Ms. Richards said that the Board is just looking at what authority they have to act on and you mentioned parking across the street in the church parking lot? Mr. Graziano said if they recall if they go all back to the beginning which he was the chairman of there were public parking areas that there designated in the center square project, one in the one across the street from this building on Shaker Road and the other was the church parking lot across the street which are empty and are used as allocation for all of the center square.

Mr. Graziano said the one to the right and he has got the original plan. Mr. Anderson asked him to bring it to Ms. Macdonald. Mr. Graziano said that they have posted it for use as church only and they have had discussions with them and they have no problem with our people parking there but when the parking calculations where done for the center square way back when that parking lot was part of the calculations and they participated in that formally.

Ms. Richards said that the Board has worked with Boston Market across the street in conjunction for their parking needs and how much of that lot could be dedicated to them and then how much was considered the municipal lot, and if there are other ways of lawfully picking up some extra relief for parking she is sure as a Board they would consider it but they can’t make a decision based on the fact that his people park across the street in the church parking lot.

Mr. Graziano said that all of his employees used to park in the public parking lot and come up the back stairs on Shaker Road and said that there was something in the original plan that there was designated parking. Ms. Macdonald asked if that was an approved plan. Mr. Graziano said he has a copy of the Zorzi plan but it’s not signed. Ms. Macdoanld said that her plan wasn’t either. Ms. Richards asked if the Zorzi plan was for the center beautification. Mr. Graziano answered yes, way back when.

Ms. Richards said based on what she understands the whole issue is going to be not so much what uses you are planning to put in there because they are all fine uses it’s just a matter of whether or not the by-law could be satisfied with the parking requirements. Mr. Graziano said that the whole reason it was done in pre-existing non-conforming and under that, he thinks it not only had a special permit but it probably had an appeal but he doesn’t remember how it went.

Mr. Calabrese thinks that a variance for parking was granted. Mr. Graziano said it was something like that but he doesn’t remember so it would have to be checked out. Ms. Macdonald said that she remembered that the special permit was specified that it was Veritech only because of the low volume of visitors.

Ms. Richards said if he got a variance at that time for parking, we don’t give parking variances because that is a use and the Board doesn’t have the authority to grant use variances. Mr. Graziano said that he thought that the variance was based on the over hang setback because the overhang on the Shaker Road side is to close to the street even though it is not on the same level. Ms. Macdonald said that is what she remembers but a parking variance she doesn’t remember. Mr. Graziano said no that it was not a parking variance, it was a variance for the overhang because in order to make it that dutch colonial he said the property line on Shaker Road is actually in the street. He said that the street was widened and the town never took the land. Mr. Graziano said that he was trying to get it so that he is within the guidelines and get it rented.

Ms. Macdonald told Mr. Graziano that the best thing to do is to get a new parking plan showing exactly what it is you have so that it’s prepared for the special permit hearing on the 23^rd so everybody can see exactly what it is so that the decision could be made on that date and allow you the availability of the building. She said that she would do the research on the church parking lot and she asked if his building was part of the beautician project. Mr. Graziano said that he built it at the same time. Ms. Macdonald said that she is having difficulty determining if the parking was allowed public parking for the beautification of the center how that affected that building if that building wasn’t part of the center project. Mr. Graziano said that he built it at the same time and the whole facade was included in the beautification and they put in their own brick sidewalks to tie in it with as part of development of the building. Ms. Macdonald asked if it was referred to as part of the center so that the public parking would affect it because she needs some guidance as to where to look.

Mr. Graziano said the plan that he is referring to has a big “P” behind Town Hall, has a big “P” on the new expanded parking lot across from the Shaker Road side of his building and the there was a big “P” on the church parking lot across from the prospect Street side of the building. He said when he moved from Prospect Street to Denslow Road he did find the print and he will see if he can find it. He said he would also would take care of getting the parking plan redone and look to see who did it originally and go from there.

Ms. Richards reminded Mr. Graziano that there will not be any attempt to occupy the structure until after the public hearing, until after the permit decided on the 23^rd. Mr. Graziano did not respond.

Dan Macero – East Longmeadow Shoppes, Shaker Road

Mr. Macero said that his wife Samantha would like to open a little girls’ boutique where the girls could come in and do half retail and half little girls parties. He said the girls would be able to come in put their hair up put on some makeup and have little princess parties from 5 to 13 years old. He said that the parties would consist of 2 tables that would hold anywhere from 5 to 8 girls per table and the parents might bring their own cakes or juice with them but they would not be serving any food or drinks, they may have candy.

Mr. Calabrese asked Ms. Macero if the operation would be where the card shop was and currently she is working right next door in the beauty salon, is that right. Ms. Macero said that currently she was working at the beauty salon until she gets this business up and running. She said that it would be a little girls boutique where they came in and have a birthday party and they get dressed up like princesses and they will be selling some retail that be dresses for the holidays, communions and specialty items.

Ms. Richards asked so if the mother who is sponsoring the party for her daughter and her daughter friends brings a birthday cake, a couple of containers of punch and the paper products, that would be everything you are doing in terms of food. Ms. Macdonald asked if they were going to that or was it going to be too messy. Ms. Macero said that they have been debating it back and forth but most likely the mothers will probably want to bring a cake and bring a drink so she wants to be able to give them the option that they could.

Ms. Macdonald said that she wasn’t sure if a food license would be required. She said that Town Counsel was present and said that they would need a food service license from the Board of Health. Mr. Macero said then forget it. Attorney Donahue stepped in a suggested that they talk with the Board of Health because they service of food may require a license.

Mr. Macero said if it was going to get complicated then they might just say no. Ms. Macdonald said that it may not but they do need to speak with the Board of Health.

Ms. Richards asked if the meeting was just an informal opportunity right now. Ms. Macdonald answered that they were requesting a waiver of site plan and she will have them fill out the paper work. Ms. Richards asked Attorney Donahue if a boutique and a side line of little girls and they talked about the issue of food and referred them to the Board of Health aside from that do these parties fall under an category of entertainment and would the Board need to worry about that. Attorney Donahue said based on the definition he doesn’t know if it constitutes a party, there is no fee being charged or will there be any entertainment for the kids. Ms. Macero said that they would be doing updo’s on them along with some makeup and they dress up in a little gown and possibly photographs. Attorney Donahue suggested that they present the proposal to the Board of Selectmen to see if an entertainment license would be required.

After further discussion the Board explained to the Macero’s that they need to request a waiver of site plan review and to make sure that they talked with the Selectmen and the Board of Health.

At this time, the Board, by roll call, voted to go into Executive Session for purposes of litigation strategy – then going back into regular session.

Louis Calabrese – yes

Marilyn Richards – yes

Donald Anderson – yes

At this time, the Board, by roll call, returned to regular session

Request for Waiver of Site Plan Review – Reflections by Claudia Walsh, 23 North Main Street

Clerk, Donald Anderson read a request for waiver of site plan from Claudia Walsh to open a retail gift store to be named "Reflections by Claudia " in an existing building located at 23 North Main Street. The hours of operation will be Monday through Friday from 9:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and from Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. There will be no hours of retail after 5:30 p.m. due to the opening of the night time café at Romito’s. The parking is to be available to the café after 5:30 p.m. every night.

Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (30) to approve the request for waiver of site plan approval conditioned on the fact there will be 2 employees and that this site is a pre-existing business site.

After review of the application and upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (30) to approve the signage as presented, conditioned upon review and approval by the Building Inspector.

Signage -Tyler Equipment

After review of the application, the Board voted unanimously (3-0) to approve the sign as presented, conditioned upon approval by the Building Inspector.

Signage request for Peachtree Road

Ms. Macdonald informed the Board that Donna Cabot was looking for a temporary sign measuring 5 x 3 at Peachtree Road until final lot is sold. Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (3-0) to approve the temporary signage.

ANR – 124 LaSalle Street

The Board reviewed an ANR submitted by Gilbert Roy showing the creation of a new parcel E which 11,535 square feet; leaving a new lot D, which contains 15,259 square feet . Both parcels have proper frontage on a public way named LaSalle Street.

After discussion and upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (3-0) to approve the ANR.

Therefore, with no further business and upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted to close the meeting at 9:30 p.m.

Very truly yours,

Donald J. Anderson, Clerk