Minutes of May 30, 2006
Present
were: Louis Calabrese, Chairman; Marilyn Richards, Vice Chair;
Donald
Anderson; Clerk, and Thomas Morrissette.
Michael Przybylowicz arrived at 6:20 pm.
The
Board reviewed the minutes of April 4, 2006 and upon motion duly made and
seconded, voted unanimously (4-0) to accept them, with edits.
Clerk, Donald Anderson read a request for Waiver of Site Plan
Review from Douglas White Electrical Service to be located at
At 6:45 p.m. Mr. Calabrese reopened the public hearing for
the proposed Congregate Living facility at
Attorney
Fran Mirkin explained that at the previous meeting the overall project was
discussed and he realized then that they could not get too far without comments
from Tighe & Bond whom had been hired by the Planning Board as a consultant. He said that the project has been approved by
the Conservation Commission and an Order of Conditions will be issued at their
next meeting. He continued by stating
that with respect to the subdivision plan, they have requested 2 waivers, one
was a waiver for street width and second was a request for a waiver on the
painting of directional arrows within the parking lot. He said that they have reviewed reports from
Tighe & Bond and Mr. LeBeau (their engineer for the project) has done a
great job responding and integrating the different things that have been
requested by Tighe & Bond.
Jeff LeBeau from Baystate
Environmental Consultants, Inc. said that there were two outstanding items from
Tighe & Bond, one was the entrance drive coming in and the sidewalk. He explained that he had the sidewalks going
up different slopes as they wanted a maximum of 5% for
Attorney Mirkin added that they are proposing a 4
lot subdivision, 2 lots of which will be retained by the Wiezbicki’s (parcel A
& C) and the other 2 will be retained by Colson & Colson (parcel B
& D). He said parcel C has the house
on it with a pond and is where the recycling is performed by Mr.
Wiezbicki. He added that it is probable
that when the property is properly
cleaned up and the compost is removed that the Wiezbicki’s will probably talk
about deeding this area to the town.
Mr.
LeBeau said the last issue was site distance and he did take some photos, which
he passed around to the Board for review.
He then explained that there was a minimum safe stopping site distance
(300 feet), which they meet and the minimum distance one would have looking up
to the bend is 400 feet which is more than adequate for the state stopping site
distance requirement. He said that there
is another site distance guide which is called “intersection site distance” and
that is the ideal recommended, comfortable site distance for a vehicle going
north to pull out and have an approaching vehicle coming from the south not to have
to slow down. He said they have made
sure that they have adequate stopping site distance and have recommended
trimming some trees along the frontage on Mr. Wiezbicki’s existing parcel.
Ms.
Richards asked Mr. LeBeau if he was familiar with the zoning by-law dealing
with vision clearance?. Mr. LeBeau said
yes he was familiar with it and what they are proposing meets the vision
clearance required by the town.
Mr.
Anderson read the following correspondence into the record:
Sean
Kelley, DPW commented on the subdivision plan stating that the cross section
plan shows the sidewalk being excessively high above the surface of the roadway
but on the plan it is shown as below the roadway, clarification will be needed
as to what version is accurate. Mr. Kelley
also wrote that before final determination is made on the definitive plan a
complete operations and maintenance manual will be required for the stormwater
collection systems, specifically maintenance of the detention basin on
site. Mr. Kelley added that the
developer will need to confirm that a homeowners’ association or similar entity
will be responsible for the stormwater system in perpetuity as the town will
not accept responsibility for the system.
Mr. Kelley also stated that, regarding site distance, there may be a
minor issue with heading out of the subdivision and looking north onto Parker
Street. He recommended that the
developer’s consultant will need to determine which trees and/or shrubs need to
be cleared and, if they are located on private property, a site distance
easement will need to be acquired and recorded.
All other issues which have been discussed during work sessions have
been addressed. David Partridge,
consultant for the Planning Board from Tighe & Bond wrote that he had
received additional documentation in support of the definitive subdivision and
site plan application. He also wrote
that the site plan drawings and details for the detention basin have been
revised to provide at least one foot of free board for storm events up to 100
year storm event, which is consistent with standard engineering practice. The revised site distance plan attached to
the May 23rd email indicates that in addition to the tree and shrub
removal of the subject properties, specific shrubs in front of
Mr.
Calabrese addressed the Board for any questions.
Mr.
Morrissette asked for confirmation that the roadway is going to remain a
private way built to public standards. Attorney Mirkin said that was right and it
will be a condition of the Special Permit.
Mr.
Calabrese addressed the audience for any questions. There being none, the applicant asked for a
continuance until June 13th to be able to obtain an easement. Mr. LeBeau showed the sketch that he
submitted to Dave Partridge and explained the line of site looking north at the
worst case scenario (which would need some shrub clearing out front) is 407
feet and the minimum requirement for site distance is 300 feet. He said looking south the minimum site
triangle is 330 feet and there is more site distance looking north than
south.
Mr.
Morrissette said if it is a problem they have to remedy it. Ms.
Richards asked if they had asked the homeowner to get involved with the
decision? Mr. Przybylowicz said he
thought it would nice to have some documentation as to what that the limited
site view is. Mr. Calabrese was
wondering if DPW could give the developer permission to clear on the tree belt
as far as they can for the initial clearing.
Mr. Przybylowicz asked Mr. LeBeau what his estimated
guess on what the site view was? Mr.
LeBeau said about 315 feet and he is comfortable saying that they do not need
to obtain a site view easement as they more than adequately meet the
requirements.
With no more questions, and there being no further
discussion, upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously
(5-0) to close the hearing. Upon motion
duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the
subdivision subject to all of the concerns by DPW and Tighe & Bond. Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board
voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the waiver of the road width to 28.5 feet
and omission of directional arrows.
At this time, the Board voted to approve the site
plan, however, were reminded that the requirements for this project fall under
Special Permit. With that in mind, the
members rescinded the vote for site plan approval and advised the applicants
that they would place the issue for discussion at the next meeting.
Mr.
Przybylowicz recused himself due to a possible conflict of interest.
Mr.
Anderson asked Mr. Falcone how many seats are there going to be. Mr. Falcone said 20. Mr. Anderson asked if that included the
outside seating. Mr. Duncan said he
believed that it was separate seating.
Ms.
Richards advised Mr. Duncan that the Board was not treating this business as a
restaurant, however, it is referred to one on the plan. She said that the Board felt that the square
footage formula for parking requirements for the Planned Business Development
was the same whether it was seats or square footage for this establishment.
Mr.
Falcone said currently coffee establishments in town are not being treated as
restaurants. Ms. Richards said the only
reason the Board would be concerned about the seats was if they were going to
use that number to calculate parking, so if the Board is not treating it as a
restaurant it does not matter.
Ed Pesce,
engineer for the project, said they thought it was reasonable when you are
getting a plan that shows 20 seats to calculate parking according to seating
and that the Board does not need to consider themselves examining it as a
restaurant in any other way. He said
they just thought it was reasonable to consider the parking using that formula. Ms. Richards said when they looked at last
time it was a wash either way. Mr. Pesce
stated that was correct.
Mr.
Falcone said the only other issue from the last hearing was whether or not food
was going to prepared on premises and the need for the floor plan was to
establish that. He said no food will be
prepared on the premises, no microwave ovens, everything is brought in a daily
basis and is pre-packaged goods.
Mr.
Morrissette reiterated that the only service is to walk up to the counter and
place your order. Mr. Falcone said it
will be strictly a walk up counter. Ms.
Richards asked if the tables outside are on the
Mr.
Calabrese asked what the hours of operation would be. Mr. Duncan said they would be 6:00 a.m. –
10:00 or 11:00 p.m., whatever the town regulations allow. Mr.
Calabrese also asked Mr. Falcone if they were on schedule for opening July 1st. Mr. Falcone said that they will be turning
over space to the tenants by June 15th, however they probably would
not be opened for July 1st.
Mr.
Morrissette said the umbrellas for the tables cannot have any wording/logo’s on
them. Mr. Duncan said he would make sure
that they did not. Ms. Richards asked if
anyone talked about employee parking.
Mr. Duncan said he personally has not received the rules &
regulations of the plaza, however, Mr. Falcone said that employee parking is
part of the lease and the employees will not be allowed to take prime parking
spots.
Mr.
Calabrese addressed the Board for any other questions. There being none and upon motion duly made
and seconded, the Board voted
unanimously (4-0) to approve the request for waiver of site plan review.
After
review of the sign application, the Board voted (4-0) to approve 3 signs as presented. The signage presented showed 14” green
internally illuminated channel letters to be placed on the building. The Board informed the applicant that they
are allowed to have two such building signs as there are two customer entrances
and the store will face two streets (North Main Street and Center Square). Each sign is to be 32.06 square feet in
size. The signage as presented also consisted of one window sign measuring
approximately 3.14 square feet in size.
The total of square footage is 67.26 square feet. No LED displays are allowed and approval is
conditioned upon obtaining a sign permit from the Building Inspector.
Ms. Richards read a Request for Waiver
of Site Plan Review to operate a Supercuts Hair Salon in the Center Square. Hours
of operation will be Monday – Friday, 9:00 a.m. – 8:00 p.m., Saturday, 9:00 a.m.
– 6:00 p.m., Sunday, 10:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. The business will offer hair cutting services as
well as the sale of hair related products.
Mr. Przybylowicz asked how many
wait seats there would be in the facility?
Mr. Falcone stated there would be a few couches accommodating
approximately 8 people. Mr. Morrissette
asked if it was a walk-in business? Mr.
Falcone said both, walk-in and by appointment.
Mr. Przybylowicz stated that at any given time, there could be approximately
18 people waiting for service – how does that compare with the parking formula
knowing that there are seven employees?
Mr. Falcone stated that the store is situated between two low volume
stores in anticipation of a maxing out of the salon seats. Mr. Przybylowicz asked how many parking
spaces this space would require? Mr.
Pesce stated that seven spaces would be required. Mr. Pesce also stated that they have four
washing stations – six chairs – eight waiting seats – Mr. Przybylowicz state
that at holidays you might find people standing. Mr. Przybylowicz wanted a point of reference
as a gauge for future reference if they needed to make some changes. He then
asked if Mr. Falcone saw this business as a high volume indicator? Mr. Falcone stated no and added that the length
of stay for people in this business usually is not long – Mr. Morrissette
stated that with a company this large, all over the country – they should have
some kind of idea as to how much traffic these shops generate. Mr. Morrissette stated that he wanted to make
sure that there are enough spaces available for this business.
Mr. Przybylowicz stated he was
getting a little cautious as with the businesses growing, the parking is slowly
evaporating and he wants to make sure that the 20% high volume traffic allowance
was not forgotten. Ms. Richards asked
what if you put two businesses together?
Mr. Pesce stated that you cannot do that.
Mr. Pesce continued to state that
some of the clients would take 2 hours, however, normal length of stay would be
around ½ hour. Mr. Falcone also stated
that he was not sure if all seven of the employees were working at the same
time – they usually work different hours – each operator has their own chair –
usually not all full at the same time. Mr.
Przybylowicz asked if the chairs were sub-leased. Mr. Falcone said no, each person simply has
their own private work station.
After discussion and upon motion
duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to Waive Site Plan
Review for Supercuts.
After review of the sign
application, the Board voted (5-0) to approve the signage as presented showing
22” white internally illuminated channel letters to be placed on the building
and the sign will be 21.68 square feet.
The signage will be lit with internal neon lighting and no LED displays
are allowed. This approval is contingent
upon approval by the Building Inspector through a sign permit.
Mr. Falcone wanted to bring the
Board up to speed on one issue that they have been working on with regards to
Walgreens LED reader board. He said what
has really come to light is that no one is really happy with the sign and he
felt that it did not conform with the size requirements of the by-law. Mr. Falcone continued by stating that neither
he nor his father approve of the signage.
He said he has been able to revise some of the old plans that have been
presented to Board and would like to see if they could get something done with
the sign. Mr. Falcone said no one really
cares for LED but the bigger issue is the fact that the size of the sign
cabinet is a real problem with folks and in recent discussions with Walgreens
he was able to get them to agree to reduce the size of the sign cabinet.
Mr. Falcone continued to state that
Walgreen would be reducing the size of the base of the sign, keeping the LED
reader board but reducing the size of the huge mounting structure. Mr. Falcone said that they were going to move
forward with a plan to get it built and the cabinet would be the same color but
in fact a smaller sign. He said as
developers, they will pay the bill to get it to where it should be.
Mr. Calabrese addressed the Board
for any questions or concerns. Ms.
Richards said that, in fairness to the whole thing, they really got rid of most
of their LED because as soon as they installed the sign and it was flashing
every so many seconds they were told to shut that down. She said they did not get what they paid for
in their signage. Ms. Richards also said
she would rather see it cut down to normal size than have nothing done with it at
all. Further, that the by-law will take
care of the rest and the Board needs an official sign application. Mr. Falcone said that it was just a way of
advising the Board as to where they were in their negotiations with Walgreen, and that a formal application will be fourth
coming.
Mr.
Calabrese opened the public hearing for Falcone Center Project and apologized
the delay. He then introduced the Board Members. Clerk,
Donald Anderson read the legal notice and correspondence into the record.
Franklin Miorandi, DPW wrote that no
changes were made with regard to access, egress and drainage. The DPW recommends approval of the plan.
Mr. Anderson then read a letter
from Ed Pesce from Pesce Engineering which stated:
The following changes and updates have been made to the
design plans for the current phase of construction for the East Longmeadow
Center Village Project dated May 30, 2006:
Further, he added that the latest Tenant
Update was as follows:
Building
B/E :
Spoleto's
Restaurant
Starbuck's
Coffee Shop
Family
Wireless
SuperCuts
hair salon
Discussions
underway with local gift shop
Building
C :
Discussions
underway with a Residential real estate office business, national stock brokerage and furniture
store.
Mr. Pesce said that he brought an updated plan showing some
final changes that were made last week.
Fire hydrant relocation on North
Main Street entrance
Sidewalk relocation/buffer strip relocation
Traffic direction change in front of Rocky’s building B/E
Additional water main valves (as directed by the DPW)
Minor changes to landscaping around buildings B/E & C
Rotation of propane tank at Rocky’s
Parking space changes and new total of number of spaces
Mr.
Falcone said one of the things they looked at and realized were the handicapped
parking provisions. He added that the
plan provided an abundance of handicapped parking spaces, almost twice the
amount of the code. As a result, they
took some of the non-required spaces out of the plan and were able to increase
the regular parking – which they needed.
Ms. Richards asked about the
parking spaces that had been added, the elimination of 3 dumpsters that were
replaced with 2 compactors, and the loading dock that has been resituated. She said on the first plan they had certain
parking spaces referred to as employee parking, however on the new plan it is not
labeled as employee parking. She
continued by stating that the applicant had taken away the language, and asked if
there would still be deliveries when others would be using those parking spaces? Mr. Falcone said that Rocky’s receives a
delivery approximately once a week and one of things about the site, because it
is a village type setting and the buildings do not have backs to them, makes
the site easier for deliveries. He added
that he never really viewed deliveries as a huge issue. Ms. Richards said it was not an issue with
her until she saw that they had labeled the spaces for employees and was told
it would make it easier for deliveries as the employees could be asked to move
their vehicles. Mr. Falcone stated that as
far as they are concerned, it was inconsistent for them to show it as employee
parking for one specific business and not others. Ms. Richards asked if the 2 compactors would provide
sufficient service for the entire building.
Mr. Falcone said yes. Mr. Pesce
said that they had a dumpster pad and the operations people said that they
would never use it so he changed it because he thought a compactor was a
smarter way to go. Ms. Richards stated
that is was the Board’s experience that they have seen plans that have been
approved and then see dumpsters placed on approved parking spaces. Mr. Falcone said the other nice thing about a
compactor is the of size and the small amount of space that they take up
compared to an ordinary dumpster - and it is much more efficient and there
would be no reason to move it.
Mr. Claudio Brera, of Spoleto’s
Restaurant said in Northampton they had an
issue with the restaurants in the Strong Avenue parking lot. He continued by saying that it was a mess so
the city purchased two large compactors and it has worked out really well - it
is much cleaner and does not smell. Mr. Falcone added that something that works
in Northampton would work well for their needs.
Ms. Richards needed to clarify,
with respect to the 5 parking spaces requested by the library, that the Board decided
to put the request on the back burner until they saw the tenant mix or felt the
impact of the project – when it was up and running. There is a possibility that
they might still believe that the parking spaces need to be relocated, and
asked where would they go? She reminded
the applicant that the Board was not inclined to allow any more spaces on the
rail trail. She also stated that the
Board had not approved the additional five spaces that are at the rail trail,
but not shown on the plan. Mr. Pesce
said if you deduct the 5 out of the 5 extra they have they still would be providing
the 635 required –he added that the 5 more spaces will be shown on the as-built
plans.
Mr.
Przybylowicz asked if the trees that were removed along North Main Street
in
front of the Rocky’s building were going to be replaced? Mr. Pesce said that new ones have been
specked and there is no change in the original spec for that. Mr. Przybylowicz asked if Mr. Pesce had an
update about the sidewalk in front of the Walgreen’s? Mr. Falcone said that they do not have any
updates, however, they are holding to their commitment that they are going to
address it and they have had discussion with DPW about what would make sense
there. Mr. Falcone also stated that they
are now wrestling with the right materials - whether it should be brick, how
much brick and what the look should be in that area. He said they have been so busy delivering
space to tenants and getting things up and running that they have not put it on
the front burner, however, they are still committed to doing something about it. Ms. Richards said she would like to see it on
the plan, just so that we know what we can expect and how far you are going to
go. Mr. Falcone said he preferred not to make it part of this process, rather
to continue providing updates to the Board.
Ms.
Richards said the square footage for Rocky’s is 34,850 and it was 34,750 - she
is assuming the additional 100 square feet is reflected by the building being
squared off. She said she needs to
figure our where they lost the 100 feet because when we figure out the amount
of square footage added, it is over that amount. Mr. Pesce asked what she used to figure it? She said she measured the space that was on
the previous plan and made the comparison.
Mr. Pesce said he spent a good hour going through it with Ken and his
architects scooping out the square footage of each space including the hallway
because he wanted to make sure that the parking was right and if they did not need
as many parking spaces.
Ms.
Richards said that she is comparing the old footprint with the new footprint. Mr. Falcone asked if she was saying the square
footage of the building had been increased?
Ms. Richards said yes, by 100 square
feet. Mr. Falcone said that one was being notched in and the other one was an
add-in and that there was no overall increase.
Ms. Richards said they need to measure the space that was available on
the original plan and show that to her.
Mr. Falcone said that they
straightened the wall off by straightening the notch. Ms. Richards said all she wants to know is does
the plan adequately reflect the square footage that it says because it does not
look that way? She said that she looked
over the original plan, the modified plan and the current plan. Mr. Pesce said that he had checked it two
different ways and was looking at the square footage for every tenant so Mr.
Falcone could lease it properly. He said
they actually have it broken down by tenant space and totaled by building and
he has the interior and exterior dimensions.
Ms. Richards said she just wants
it to be correct based on gross square footage of the exterior of the
building. Mr. Pesce said he can only
testify that the dimensions and square footages are accurate because he
actually spent time trying to decrease some of the square footage. Ms. Richards asked if he could indicate to
her where he lobbed the square footage off and where he added it? Mr. Falcone asked Ms. Richards if there was
any documentation she would like to see as far as the calculations go that
would help. Ms. Richards said she would
like to have the question adequately answered based on the original plan they
have and what they have now. Ms.
Macdonald went and got the original plans from 2004.
Mr. Morrissette asked about the
parking spaces at Rocky’s that has product on them and said that they are lost
spaces. He reminded the applicant they
are not to be used for retail space, and asked when would they be dealing with
that? Mr. Falcone said if it’s a
problem that the store needs spaces then it will not continue. Mr. Morrissette said it is not the fact as to
whether the store needs the space it is whether the development needs the parking
spaces and that is what is approved.
Mr. Falcone said they envision actually some of the product to come up
against the building and not to occupy parking spaces. At that time they reviewed the original plans
and Ms. Richards was satisfied with the square footage questions.
There being no further questions
from the Board, Mr. Calabrese 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 hearing. Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board
voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the changes of May 30, 2006, granting the
Amendment to the Special Permit, after going through the criteria for Special
Permit. Further, the following specific
conditions were attached to the approval:
a.
The fire hydrant at
the North Main Street entrance will be relocated pursuant to requirements of
the Fire Department and noted on the amended plan.
b.
The buffer strip and
the sidewalk at Crane Avenue will be relocated to improve the area.
c.
Traffic direction in
front of Rocky’s Building/BE will be reversed to allow direct entry from the
shopping area to Rocky’s.
d.
Additional water main
valves will be installed as directed by the Department of Public Works.
e.
Minor changes will be
made to the landscaping around Buildings B/E & C to accommodate Spoleto’s
entrance/access at the west side of the building. Said outside seating area shall measure
approximately 40 feet by 22 feet and be secured from patrons entering the
restaurant at this area.
f.
The propane tank at
Rocky’s building will be rotated to a safer more convenient location and must
be approved by the Fire Department.
g.
No additional parking
spaces will be placed on the rail trail area, limited to 55 spaces. Any additional existing spaces, in
excess of 55, are NOT authorized and
not included in the authorization of this parking plan.
h.
Parking spaces have
been changed and additional spaces added bringing the parking formula for the
site to a total of 635 spaces provided.
i.
The pylon signs shown
on the plan for Maple Street and North Main Street are not approved as to
location and setback within this Special Permit and will be addressed
separately at another date.
j.
Applicants to provide
to the Planning Board documentation of improvements to the sidewalk on Maple
Street. This documentation shall
identify the specific area to be modified and will also include a progress plan
and indicate proposed materials for approval by the Board. Said material to be brick or a brick-looking
concrete facsimile.
k.
No product inventory,
retail sale items or trash compactor/dumpsters can be placed on any approved
parking space.
Jayson Falcone introduced the owner of Fun Dining, Inc.,
d/b/a Spoleto’s Restaurant, Claudio Brera, President
& owner of the Spoleto Group and Bill Collins Director of Operations for
the Spoleto Group. He added that the
group has four restaurants in Northampton; Spoleto Restaurant; Delray Bar and
Grille; Spoletto Express and Pizza Paradizio.
He further explained that the restaurant was looking to occupy the end
cap of Building B/E.
Mr.
Brera stated that he was very excited about coming to East Longmeadow. He also stated that he was heavily involved
in fundraisers for charity and likes to be involved in the community. He explained that he was deeply involved with
the Western Mass Food Bank. Further, he
stated that Spoleto’s Restaurant opened in this area from New York
approximately eighteen (18) years ago.
He added that the restaurant is going to operate just like the operation
in Northampton with the exception of lunch which will be served in East
Longmeadow. Mr. Brera stated that he had
tried to open for lunch in Northampton however, it did not work out in that
area. He was hoping that lunch would
work in East Longmeadow. He also stated
that the hours of operation would be seven days a week serving lunch and
dinner.
Mr.
Brera explained that Spoleto’s fare is good food with a casual atmosphere. He provided the Board with photographs of the
inside of the restaurant in Northampton as well as a few menus for the Board’s
perusal.
Mr.
Brera stated that Mr. Collins had been working with him for the past eight
years, managing the Northampton Spoleto Express. Mr. Collins will be the responsible party for
the Spoleto’s in East Longmeadow, responsible for the liquor license and be a
hands-on manager for this location.
Mr.
Anderson asked if it was a plan for lunch with hopes for dinner? Mr. Brera stated no, they were hoping that
lunch would work in East Longmeadow, however, dinner was always the plan. He added that because most of the business at
this location will be in the evening, parking should not be an issue as most of
the other businesses at this location and town hall will be closed.
Mr.
Calabrese asked for an explanation as to how Spoleto’s Express works. Mr. Collins explained that it is a fast,
casual restaurant, mainly serving lunch.
He added that although it is not busy at dinnertime, they do some
evening serving. Further, Mr. Collins
stated that you walk up to a counter, order your food, sit down and wait for
your name to be called. He added that
during the busy hours, they have a “runner” who brings the food to the customer
when it is ready. Mr. Brera added that
they also have a drive-through window at this location. He stated that he is sincerely hoping to have
a better dinner crowd at the proposed located as it is going to be a full
Spolteo’s Restaurant, not an Express. He
added that there will be a small bar area, a small percentage of seats as it
really is intended to be a service bar.
Mr. Falcone showed the Board that this area will be partitioned off from
the rest of the restaurant. Mr. Collins
pointed out the area of the banquette which also is walled off – so that the
area is partitioned off from the walkway to the bathrooms.
Mr. Brera
showed the Board members the two entrances – showing the line where someone
could wait to pick up food orders. He
also showed them the area outside where he was proposing having out-door tables
for dining in the nice weather. He
explained that the seats that would be outside would be removed from the
restaurant – keeping the seating number the same.
Ms.
Richards asked about the operation between lunch and dinner and if the only
difference was the serving? Mr. Brera
stated yes, that the menu was actually the same, however, the cost was higher
for dinner. Ms. Richards then asked for
more information about the area for outside seating. Mr. Brera explained that the seating area
would be bricked with French doors opening to the outside area. There would be four of these doors to allow
traffic to the outside. The outside
seating area will be partitioned off with an overhead awning. Mr. Falcone showed the Board that the awning would
come out of the side area, covering the seating area.
Mr.
Calabrese explained to the audience that they were welcome to review the plans
with the Board if they so desired. Ms.
Richards asked what the enclosure would look like. Mr. Brera explained that it would be a solid
area (removable) which would prevent patrons from entering through the outside
area. Mr. Brera explained that the
liquor license requires strict adherence to rules not allowing anyone to enter
the area without coming through the restaurant.
Mr.
Falcone mentioned that the signs would have a gooseneck lamp over the lettering
which would illuminate the signage. Mr.
Collins stated that the sign is an HDU foam with aluminum red exteriors with
the letters set out a little bit to be raised from the backing.
Ms.
Richards stated that at the Selectmen’s hearing, she remembered Mr. Brera
stating that they would like to extend their outside offerings with
heaters. Mr. Brera stated yes, that they
are used at most outdoor cafés. He further
explained that the heaters would be gas powered with a small blower pointing
down. Mr. Morrissette stated that they
have them at UNO’s and that the fire department has to approve them. Mr. Collins added that the awning would be
fire retardant.
Mr.
Anderson asked if this area was intended for outdoor smokers? Mr. Brera states that the Restaurant does not
allow smoking on the premises.
Mr.
Przybylowicz asked what the hours of operation would be? Mr. Brera stated that they have determined
11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. during the week and 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on
weekends. He also stated that he is
usually home sleeping by midnight. He
stated that the late hours are a cushion for special events and/or holiday
eves. Mr. Przybylowicz asked if there
were any plans for entertainment? Mr.
Brera stated no – that, personally, he is old fashioned – not a bar operator or
a live entertainment operator – that he likes to turn over the tables faster –
feels that when someone comes to dine, they do not need anything else.
Mr.
Anderson asked about the basement and what use they were proposing? Mr. Brera stated that the basement would be
used for storage only with an employee bathroom – not open to the public. Mr. Morrissette confirmed that there would be
no dumb waiter from the basement to the restaurant area, no food preparation
and no commissary use.
Mr.
Morrissette asked when they intended to open.
Mr. Brera stated that as soon as they could – however, it takes a while
to get everything ready. Mr. Morrissette
then asked the number of seats to which Mr. Brera explained 140 seats including
all the seats in the bar area and exterior seating. The space to the direct inside by the outside
seating will be cleared of seats when the outside area is open.
At this
time, Mr. Calabrese opened the hearing to the public for comment. There being none the Board reviewed the
menus. Mr. Brera explained that he would
be adding to the main menu by providing salad choices and sandwiches for lunch
time diners. Mr. Morrissette asked if
they accepted reservations and Mr. Brera stated no, it works out best that
way. He did add that one could call
ahead and place their name on a waiting list.
Mr.
Falcone stated that the restaurant has a beer and wine license and asked what
affect, if any, this would have on the Special Permit if, further down the road, the restaurant was able to obtain a full
liquor license? Mr. Morrissette stated
it would have no affect – that the liquor licenses are under the authority of
the Board of Selectmen.
The
Board having no further questions and upon motion duly made and seconded, voted
unanimously to close the hearing. Mr.
Calabrese addressed each requirement for a Special Permit and it was determined
that the applicant met all requirements.
Mr.
Morrissette asked about parking and trips generated for the high volume percentage. Mr. Przybylowicz stated that he would like a
report of calculations – a running total of anticipated traffic to maintain the
20% rule. Mr. Falcone stated that was
the owner of the property’s responsibility and he would provide same.
With no
need for further discussion, and upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board
voted unanimously (5-0) to grant the Special Permit.
The
Board reviewed the ANR for North Main Street submitted by Eden’s & Avant
creating two new lots, Lot one
created by conveying Parcel 1-A consisting of 1.09 acres to former Lot D. The newly created Lot one (1) will now
contain 14.30 acres with frontage on North Main Street. Newly created Lot 2 is created by combining
former lot B (Parcel 5) Former lot E (parcel 4) and former lot C. The newly created Lot 2 now consists of 33.21
acres with frontage on North Main Street and Westwood Avenue. The Board reviewed a previously approved plan
(1999) showing that parcel “c” was divided out of the original site plan for
the shopping center.
After
discussion and upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously
(5-0) to approve the ANR.
The
Board reviewed the ANR for North Main Street submitted by Forastiere Funeral
Home for the creation of two new parcels –
Parcel A-4 (former A-2 and A-3) consisting of 1.283 acres (Colwick Service
Corp), and Parcel 3-B (former B-2), consisting of 2.138 acres (Carriage Funeral
Holdings, Inc.), with frontage on North Main Street and Westwood Avenue. These parcels have the proper frontage on
public ways, namely North Main Street and Westwood Avenue.
After
discussion and upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously
(5-0) to approve the ANR.
Clerk, Donald Anderson read a request for Waiver of Site Plan
from Ralph Rinaldi to sell ammunition, black powder supplies, reloading
equipment and components, fishing equipment and occasionally a fire arm. His hours are by appointment only and will be
the only employee and the location of the office will be at 65 Maple
Street. Bob Driscoll, Police Department
wrote a letter to the Board stating that the police department was concerned with issuing a state firearms
dealers license to applicant with a satellite business and that he is not sure
if it is allowed in the zone.
After
review and discussion, the Board determined it to be in the best interest of
all concerned for Mr. Rinaldi to come in and discuss the nature of his business
further. Additionally, Ms. Macdonald
will invite Sergeant Driscoll to attend the meeting in order that he advise the
Board of the police department’s concerns.
There
being no further business and upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board
voted unanimously to close the public meeting at 10:15 p.m.
For
the Board,
Donald
J. Anderson, Clerk