Minutes of July 11, 2006
Present
were: Louis Calabrese, Chairman; Marilyn Richards, Vice Chair;
Thomas
Morrissette and Michael Przybylowicz.
Donald Anderson was not present.
Continuation of Discussion on Preliminary Plan re:
Mr. Calabrese asked Mr. Morrissette to
read any new correspondence into the record.
The Fire Department wrote that they did not have any requirements for
the roadways as shown but may have some when the definitive plans with actual
site layouts are submitted. Franklin
Miorandi, Assistant Engineer from the DPW wrote that the department has not
been given enough information to make recommendations for the preliminary
plan. Mr. Miorandi would like to know
when the proposed sewer, water and drainage plans are complete for review, and that
traffic is still a concern of the department.
Sergeant Richard Bates, of the Police Department reported the following:
SECURITY
SYSTEMS:
Exterior
Lighting: Undetermined
Interior Lighting: Undetermined
Alarms: Undetermined
Recommendations: See notations under Traffic Impact
F. SIGNAGE:
Business
Name and Address: Yes. -Entrance/Exit: Yes.
Recommendations:
Yes.
1. It is recommended that any signage at the site be installed
so as not to interfere with the visibility of motor vehicle operators exiting
or entering the site.
G. TRAFFIC IMPACT:
Traffic Study: It is recommended a traffic study
be submitted for the
Location
of Entrance and Exit: There are two separate entrances proposed for the site.
The
first entrance, designated as ROAD 1, is on the South side of
Traffic
Volume Increase: Yes
Traffic
Control Changes: Yes
Recommendations:
Yes
It is recommended the applicant
submit an application that outlines more specific information for the use of
this site. Any recommendations currently made by this Department is based on
insufficient information and should not be considered as complete.
1. The following is recommended for the proposed
A. It is recommended Southbound traffic on
The amended site plan shows a dedicated
"left turn only" lane and a "right turn and straight only" lane for Southbound
traffic on
B.
It is recommended
the Eastbound traffic on
The amended site plan shows a dedicated "left turn
only" lane, a dedicated "right turn only" lane onto the site, and a dedicated
"straight only" lane for Eastbound traffic on North Main Street. It
is recommended these lane designations be accepted.
C. It is recommended the traffic exiting
The amended site plan shows only
one traffic lane exiting the site. Discussion was conducted relative to a dedicated
"left turn only" lane in addition to the one exit lane.
D.
It is recommended
the Westbound traffic on
The amended site plan shows a dedicated "left turn
only" lane onto the site, a dedicated "straight only" lane, and
a dedicated "right turn and straight only" lane for Westbound traffic
on
E. It is
recommended a marked crosswalk be installed across the entrance 1 exit to
The amended site plan shows the pedestrian crosswalk as
requested.
F. It is
recommended the traffic signals at the intersection be up-graded to include the
additional traffic exiting and entering the
site. It should be synchronized with current traffic patterns.
The amended site plan and the discussion at the work session
determined the traffic signals will be upgraded to accommodate the increased traffic at this
intersection. A discussion also took place regarding the type of pedestrian
crossing at the intersection. It was decided two types will be presented for
consideration and review.
G. It is recommended
streetlights be installed to increase the safety at the site for pedestrian and
vehicular traffic. Streetlights also reduce the potential for criminal
activity.
The amended site plan shows no streetlights
installed.
H. It is
recommended a sidewalk be installed to increase the safety at the site for
pedestrian traffic. The submitted plan shows a sidewalk on the East side of the entrance.
The amended site plan shows a sidewalk installed as requested.
I.
It is recommended a center line and lane lines
be marked on Road 1.
The amended site plan indicates a center line as requested.
J. It is
recommended a stop line be marked on Road 1 at it's intersection with
The amended site plan indicates a stop line as requested.
2. The following is recommended for the
proposed Westwood entrance :
The amended site plan did not address
the
A. It is recommended streetlights be installed to increase the safety at the
site for pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Streetlights
also reduce the potential for criminal activity.
B. It is recommended a sidewalk be installed to increase the safety at the site
for pedestrian traffic. The submitted plan shows a
sidewalk on the West side of the entrance.
C. It is recommended
a marked crosswalk be installed depending on the proposed use of the site and
the amount of pedestrian traffic generated.
D. It is recommended crosswalk warning
signage be installed if the crosswalk is installed to alert motorists due to the curve of Westwood Avenue at
the site entrance.
E. It is
recommended a center line be marked on Road 2.
H. SERVICES
IMPACT:
Police
Service Increase: Yes.
1. ANY
ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS: Yes.
1. It is recommended that any proposed plantings at the site not interfere with
visibility for pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
George Kingston, Chairman of the Conservation
Commission reported the following:
1.
The proposed cul-de-sac at the north end of proposed Parcel 3 does
not have any serious wetlands issues, as shown. The proposed detention basin
(not shown) may require a Notice of Intent
if it is in proximity to or empties into the wetland at the north end of
the site. Proposals to extend the road beyond the cul-de-sac to access the
large building on Parcel 3 may directly
impact wetland resource areas not shown on the preliminary subdivision
plans and may require proposed replication.
2.
The proposed road and cul-de-sac on the south end of the site
coming from
3. The buildings shown on parcels 4 and 6 are
within the 100 foot inner riverfront area and do not meet the standard cited
above. No parking is shown for these parcels.
4. The building shown on parcel 5 is within the 200 foot
riverfront area and it or its associated parking area may be within the 100
foot riverfront area. That portion within the 100 foot riverfront area does not
meet the standard cited above. That portion between 100 and 200 feet from the mean annual high-water line may not exceed 10%
of the riverfront area on the parcel. In addition, the building, as
shown, is within the buffer zone of a bordering vegetated wetland and may
involve altering the wetland itself, in which case replication must be
proposed.
5. The scope of economic alternatives
analysis for this project must include all of the parcels shown, adjacent
parcels, and other land which can reasonably be obtained within the
town, per 310 CMR 10.58 (4) (c)2 c. This
means that subdividing the parcels as shown does not mean that development of
each parcel must be allowed, if an economic alternative is shown to exist.
To put
this another way, creating a parcel which is 100% within the riverfront area
does not provide any exemption from the
Rivers Act, if the original parcel or parcels contained developable land outside the riverfront area, or
if an equivalent project could be located elsewhere in town.
At this point, Mr. Calabrese advised
the Board that Frank Miorandi had contacted him that afternoon and that he (Mr.
Miorandi) had spoken with Nat Arai and since everything is preliminary, he
could not make any comments because there is certain information needed before
he could make other comments.
Attorney Freyman, representative for
Edens & Avant, said that the Police came forth with a lot of
recommendations that they will look at for the definitive plan.
Mr. Arai of Baystate Environmental said
that the plans for the reconfiguration of the
Mr.
Przybylowicz asked if it would be retail and was it part of the review process? Mr. Arai said yes.
Mr. Morrissette asked how would Mr.
Kingston’s comments be addressed referring to the fact that because a lot is
created – it does not guarantee that it is a buildable lot? Mr. Arai said they will be looking into it
and they are not 100% sure that the lots are not buildable.
Mr. Ron Desrosiers from MDM
Transportation Consultants said there were 2 minor changes, they have
incorporated an exclusive left turn lane as well as a through right turn lane,
so the roadway is actually a 2 lane approach which was something that the
Police Chief commented on. They have
also increased the radius on the entrance to the roadway from approximately 25
feet to 55 feet to accommodate the semi-tractor trailers so they can make the
movements in and out of the subdivision road without encroaching on the opposite
lane. He added that everything else remained the same.
Ms. Richards asked if the widening of
Mr. Calabrese asked if the entrance on
Mr. Arai said the comment from the
Police Department about striping or pavement markings are also incorporated
into the plan. Mr. Morrissette said that
from their letter it sounds like they like your lane designations.
Attorney Freyman said that it is
helpful to them to submit a preliminary plan because comments they receive can
be incorporated into their designs for the definitive plan.
Mr. Calabrese addressed the Board for
further questions, there being none and with no further discussion, and upon
motion duly made and seconded the members voted a split decision of two (2) for
those being Mr. Morrissette and Mr. Calabrese, and two (2) against, those being
Ms. Richards and Mr. Przybylowicz.
Because a majority vote is necessary for approval, the preliminary plan
was disapproved.
Attorney Freyman said when a plan is
not approved, the Board must provide details why it was not approved. Ms. Richards said that the Board could put
something together more formerly in writing and she thinks that progress has
been made with respect to some of the discussions they have had. Ms. Richards added that she is going back to
the content of the reports and the fact that they are still looking for more
information. Further, she stated that section
4.3 of the subdivision control laws states that one must show tentative
proposals with a sufficient degree of accuracy and completeness of data to make
the proposals clear. Ms. Richards
emphasized that she would like to have seen something more and thought that maybe
this whole process was just a little bit premature. She continued to state that perhaps (to the
developer) as you market the site and you know where you are going, they could
provide something more specific than a 150,000 square foot building. She reiterated that the Boards kept reporting
they needed more information.
Ms. Richards also stated that the
members did not know how the proposed buildings are going to situate on the
parcel or how you are going to access the building or how it is going to
interface with the conditions of the land which George Kingston very
appropriately highlighted in his conservation letter. Ms. Richards said more importantly the thing
that still goes back to her is the site plan – that they did see some changes
to the existing site plan such as parking on top of parking and that the
developer has given reassurances that it would meet the standards of the by-law,
however, the Board would not know that
until such a time that a specific plan was filed.
Ms. Richards also mentioned that she was
concerned that an approval will somehow send the message that they approved the
changes which they have not had a chance to really discuss. She said that she is more pleased with the
way the road is being widened for a lesser distance, she would like to see what
kind of impact the widening of the road would have on the parking line towards
the front of the parking lot by North Main Street once the sidewalk and the
landscaping is added.
Attorney Freyman said that they would
not be coming in to change the site plan until they knew they had definitive
approval because they do not want to formally change the site plan if they do not
end up building it. She said what they
will do is to show on the definitive what they would change and let that be a
condition that before construction, the developer must come in formally and
change the site plan so that it would conform with the definitive plan.
Mr.
Przybylowicz said that he agreed with Ms. Richards’ comments and he would like
to have seen more details especially when it came to George Kingston’s comments
on the relocation of the road onto Westwood Avenue. He said that would have had a major effect on
what the Police have all ready said and the Fire Department as well.
Attorney
Freyman said that it is the purpose of the preliminary procedures to submit a
plan based on a concept and receive comments to know what should be included on
a definitive plan.
Mr.
Przybylowicz explained another submission that provided a conceptual plan for
an entire project with the intent of completing only one phase. He explained that the conceptual plan left no
questions unanswered and that was what the Board expects.
Attorney
Freyman said they will have that for the definitive plan. Mr. Morrissette said it is a preliminarily plan
and that is the reason that nothing is specific. Mr. Przybylowicz said after so many questions, after so many attempts
it was still very vague. Mr. Morrissette
said then there is no reason to have a preliminary procedure - you would never
approve a preliminary plan period.
Ms.
Richards said that the Board got more information from the conceptual plan for
the prior proposal in terms of the use then they did from this. Attorney Freyman said that was a site plan
and this is a subdivision plan and they are trying to lay infrastructure so
they can decide what they can do at this site.
She said they need to find out what kind of infrastructure the property would
support so they could then come back with a site plan proposal of what they
want to put there.
Mr.
Przybylowicz said just to emphasize one point - Mr. Kingston mentioned the
relocation of the drive off of Westwood Avenue - there was no mention of it in
the revisions so why should the Board even consider the plan if they know that
the driveway is going to change? Mr.
Arai said first of all his comments did not come in until this week so we were not
going to revise the plans based on his comments for the meeting. Attorney Freyman added that the purpose was
just to get comments so they could put it in the definitive plan - not to be doing so at this point. Mr. Przybylowicz asked if they were then going
to move forward with a definitive plan?
Attorney Freyman said yes, that was their intention.
Request for Waiver of Site Plan Review - Wisla Express, Shaker Road
The Chair welcomed the
petitioner. Mr. Szteborowki said his
plan is to open a travel agency for people who travel mostly to Europe and
also to provide them with transportation to the airports. He said that they would not pick up the
people from the East Longmeadow location or garage any vehicles there because
they have a garage in Connecticut. He
said mostly they have a home pick up service for people who want a whole
package deal such as plane tickets and transportation to the airport. He added that most people are dropped off at
JFK or Newark Airports. Mr. Szteborowki said they also do a lot of
escorted tours to Poland, Russia, Europe and Greece and they also do a lot of
tours for people who are picked up either from their Chicopee or New Britain
location.
Mr. Calabrese asked where on Shaker Road they would be
located. Mr. Szteborowki said 143 Shaker Road. Mr. Morrissette added that it was across the
street from Fazio’s Restaurant. Mr.
Calabrese asked if there was going to be any signage on the building? Mr. Szteborowki
said not outside just inside on the building directory. Mr. Calabrese asked if the limousine service
was completely aside from the travel.
Mr. Szteborowki said that it
was a part of it because when people purchase airline tickets their next
question is how are they going to get to the airport. Mr. Calabrese asked if someone wanted just
limo service to say to JFK would they provide it? Mr. Szteborowki
said yes because a lot of people just want charter service.
Mr.
Calabrese addressed the Board for any 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.
Tamarack Drive
Mr. Calabrese explained that Larry Levine submitted a
written request for an additional 30 days extension on the ANR for Tamarack
Drive effective July 11, 2006. Mr. Przybylowicz said before
they allow an extension he asked what property that Mr. Levine was talking
about. Mr. Morrissette said it was part
of the Porterwoods subdivision - the section of roadway that borders on the Wilbraham
town line. Ms. Richards added that they
wanted to extend the road and create frontage for 2 lots which would be half in
East Longmeadow and half in Wilbraham.
Upon motion duly made and seconded the Board voted unanimously (4-0) to
allow the 30 day extension to August 11, 2006.
Miscellaneous
Ms. Richards asked if there were any plans for the Apple
Blossom Lane subdivision to be endorsed?
Not finding them, she said for the record the Board had no plans for
endorsement. Mr. Morrissette said that
it was pending and did not mean that it was pending for that evening.
Ms.
Richards asked if anyone new why real estate signs were listed on the agenda?
Mr.
Calabrese said that he asked Robyn to put that on the agenda as a reminder so
that at some point they could talk about it.
He is a little concerned about the big 4’ x 8’ bill boards that are
showing up everywhere and have gotten out of hand. Ms. Richards said that she thinks they could
couple it with some kind of a policy for their temporary signage.
Ms.
Richards then asked if anyone remembered if there was a final determination
about the Walgreen’s deliveries? Mr. Przybylowicz thought
there was because the Police Department commented that they did not want the
trucks parking on Crane Avenue. Ms.
Richards said that she knew that, but she thought they were going to deliver at
night or through the door. She said the
problem that morning was a huge eighteen wheeler had the wheels all the way to the
grass along side of the building and only the left tires where actually off the
curb onto the street so the entire sidewalk was blocked from the delivery door
for the length of the eighteen wheeler. She
added that her point was that pedestrians had to walk out into the street and
the whole purpose for the sidewalk is to keep people off the street. Mr. Morrissette said that he thought it was
and it does not mean that at some point in time they might have a special
delivery that has to come during the day.
Mr. Przybylowicz said if it is done time after time it is just going to
beat up the sidewalk and if the sidewalk is on public property the town will
end up footing the bill for the repair of it.
Mr. Calabrese suggested talking with Ms. Macdonald to see if she
remembers anything and then send Walgreen’s a letter.
Mr.
Przybylowicz said he would like to discuss the maintenance of the cell phone
antenna tower on Benton Drive. Mr.
Calabrese said he drove by it the other day and it is a mess. Ms. Richards said it is under Special Permit
and suggested that they review the conditions that were established. She suggested they call them and threaten to
revoke their Special Permit.
Mr. Morrissette asked if anyone noticed that Peoples Bank
put up 2 banners on the building announcing that they paid for some of the
bands in the parade and they are still there.
Ms. Richards said that FYE had a temporary banner that they have taken
down but Jiffy Lube was sited for the flag banners as well as some unapproved
signage on their building and that signage is still there but the flags are
down. She said the liquor store has
removed their temporary sign that was on the curb that have not done anything
to their windows. Mr. Morrissette said
the car lot right next door put plastic people out to draw attention. Ms. Richards said that they all talked about
embarking on the signage campaign in conjunction with the building
department. She added that they were
going to do it together and nothing has ever come of it. Ms. Richards also stated that there is no
enforcement unless her husband writes a letter and she was not sure that there
is enforcement yet. Mr. Calabrese said
in terms of real estate signs the Board is going to have to come up with a
by-law that says the signs have to be limited to a certain size and deal with
commercial, industrial, all of them. Ms.
Richards said the other thing that is popping up are temporary garages and she
does not even know whether it is a violation and how to categorize it. Mr. Calabrese said if you call it a
structure, which it probably is not, then it has to meet the set back
requirements and maybe an accessory by-law would address it. According to the definition of “structure”
tents are identified as a structure.
Request for Signage – Wingate (Chestnut Hill Nursing Home)
Mr. Calabrese explained that one sign has already been approved
and that the applicant mistakenly made a request for only one sign so the
request is for the other sign.
After review of the application and upon motion duly made and seconded, the
Board voted unanimously (4-0) to approve a non-illuminated sign, conditioned upon review
and approval by the Building Inspector with the issuance of a permit by the
Building Inspector.
Therefore, with no further business and upon motion duly
made and seconded, the Board voted to close the meeting at 8:30 p.m.
Very
truly yours,
Thomas
Morrissette, Acting Clerk