Minutes of February 6, 2007
Present were: Louis Calabrese, Chair; Marilyn Richards, Vice
Chair; Donald Anderson, Clerk; Michael Przybylowicz and Thomas Morrissette.
ANR & Public Hearing Site
Plan Review – Raymond Fusaro,
The Chair, Louis Calabrese opened
the hearing and introduced the Board members. Clerk, Mr. Anderson read the legal notice and
correspondence into the record. Franklin
Miorandi, Assistant Town Engineer wrote after review of the plan he had no
concerns and approved the site plan.
James Driscoll, Selectmen Chair wrote that the BOS voted to recommend
approval subject to the requirements and recommendations of police and fire. Sergeant Bates, Police Department recommended
that additional lighting be installed to illuminate the south side, east side
of the proposed building and the east side of the existing building over the
doorway to reduce the potential for criminal activity and to assist police
officers during nighttime inspections of the site. According to the police report, these lights
would eliminate the need for the indicated pole mounted security lighting on
the site plan. Sgt. Bates also recommend
that the three parking spaces on the east side of the buildings, marked on the
site plan as 7, 8 and 9, be restricted to “employee only” parking and the
travel area between the two buildings be marked “no parking”.
Gary Weiner, of Ecotec
Environmental Associates introduced the applicant Raymond Fusaro and his wife along
with his partner Paul Fusaro. He said
that the applicant was proposing to construct an 1,800 square foot warehouse
facility on the site. Currently there is
a garage approximately 2,200 square foot at the site that is used for the
repair of automobiles. He said that the
parking is located to the front of the site and it is haphazardly located on
the southerly side of the building. Mr.
Weiner said that there are no wetlands on the site but just to the east is an
edge of the bank that was delineated for the Lowe’s Plaza project by Baystate Environmental. Therefore, a Notice of Intent would be
necessary and that one has been filed with the Conservation Commission. He said that the current lot is 11,550 square
feet and a form A, non-sub plan has been submitted which would transfer 7 feet
of Mr. Major’s property (who is an
abutter to the south of the Fusaro’s) to Mr. Fusaro. He said that the ANR would basically enlarge
the parcel to about 12,300 square feet and would give some flexibility for the
building location in order to comply to the zoning requirements, and would provide
a good access isle between the two buildings.
Mr. Weiner said that the site has sewer, water and a public storm drain in
the street that they will be utilizing.
He said that the applicant is proposing a warehouse facility about 1,800
square feet (60 x 30 foot building) to be placed in the center of the east western
quadrant of the site which would meet the required front and rear yard setback of 25 feet. He said in order to keep a good isle width for
access to the two businesses the acquisition of the 7 feet allows for the 12
foot buffer set back on the south side while still maintaining 12.5 feet for
the building on the north. Mr. Weiner
said that the parking spaces will be striped, that there are 4 spaces to the
front currently and 2 more spaces would be provided on the front side of the
building and they would be buffered by a landscaped area.
Mr. Weiner added that it would be
paved between the buildings. He added
that towards the rear it would be pitched so that the water flows between the
buildings and is captured in a catch basin - then discharge to an oil/water
separator so any greases, oils and sediment that goes towards the street will
be captured. He said as requested they
have marked the 3 parking spaces to the rear for employee parking and based
upon the square footage and use the of the parcel, there is a need to have11
parking spaces - currently 9 spaces are on site and there will be 1 employee space
dedicated for each of the two businesses that operate. He said at the request of the Police, the
building will have wall packs placed on the easterly, southerly and northerly
side of the building rather than one large flood light. Mr. Weiner said that the building itself will
be a basic tan block building accented with a green roof and green trim and
there are two accesses with the potential for cutting two additional doorways to
allow delivery of the building supplies that the Fusaros would need in their
daily operations. He said at the east
and west side, the lower level will be block and the upper area will be vinyl
siding that would be the same or a
natural color to offset the tan. Mr.
Weiner said that those were the highlights of what the applicants’ are requesting
the Board to review and approve.
Ms. Richards asked if the 2
parking spaces that are dedicated within the buildings are marked on the plan
somewhere? Mr. Weiner said that they
were not but on the final plan they would be marked.
Mr. Calabrese asked if 1 garage
door was going to be put on initially and would there be room for expansion for
the 2 others in the future? Mr. Weiner
said yes - it is a three story building and the parking formula reflects that
volume of storage, so the use of all three stories is allowed based on the
number of spaces. He said that the
business will not be a traffic generator that it would be warehousing for their
business.
Mr. Paul Fusaro said that a lot of
times they buy different materials at a good price and they need to have a
place to store them or sometimes machinery that they purchased that needs to be
stored. Mr. Przybylowicz asked if the
material they would be storing was for the use of future construction
jobs? Mr. Fusaro said yes - they do not resell
it.
Mr. Morrissette asked if the upper level was going to have a
sliding door out to it? Mr. Fusaro said that
it was not going to be a sliding door but something designed so they can get
something big in there. Mr. Morrissette
asked if there was a third floor? Mr.
Fusaro said that they are going to use the attic, it’s not going to be a full
attic. He said that the truss is going
to be designed to allow an 18 foot cube inside by the full length of the building.
Mr. Calabrese asked if the scope of their work was primarily
residential or more commercial? Mr.
Fusaro said they usually do large residential additions and not much commercial.
Mr. Przybylowicz asked Mr. Weiner if the acquisition of the
7 feet of the Major’s property comprised any of the zoning requirements for
that property, such as square footage or frontage? Mr. Weiner said that it did not and all of
the current zoning is complied with and they wanted the set back to be a little
bit better than the required 12+ feet.
Mr. Przybylowicz asked if the oil and gas separator is
maintenance free or does it periodically need to be maintained? Mr. Weiner said generally that it needs to be
maintained once a year by the property owner.
Mr. Morrissette asked if the other building on the property
was a car repair business and is it rented out?
Mr. Weiner said that it is a car repair business that they do rent out.
Mr. Anderson asked if they controlled the deliveries? Mr. Fusaro said that they do control them and
the deliveries would not be early in the morning.
At that time 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 public
hearing.
ANR –
At this
time, Mr. Weiner, on behalf of Mr. Fusaro presented the Board with a plan
requesting ANR approval. The Board voted
unanimously to ENDORSE the Applicants’ plan as being one Not Requiring Approval
under the Subdivision Control Law in that the division of the land shown on the
presented plan is not a subdivision and the existing property is owned by Paul
& Marion Major and Raymond & Teresa Fusaro. This plan
shows the creation of two new parcels, parcel D which contains 12,320 square
feet and parcel E which contains 29,480
square feet. Both parcels have the
required frontage on a public way, namely
After discussion and upon motion
duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the site
plan as presented conditioned upon receipt of a revised plan showing the 2
parking spaces within the buildings and
a note that the aisle between the buildings be designated as “no
parking”.
Public Hearing Site Plan
Review –
The Chair, Louis Calabrese opened
the hearing and introduced the Board members.
Clerk, Mr. Anderson read the legal notice and correspondence into the
record. John Strandberg, JLS Architects
wrote due to the small size of the modular addition to the school Dr. Ed Costa
and the school committee were requesting a waiver from the requirement for a
traffic study. He said that the
additions were in response to the need for an increase to classroom space due
to existing student population and will not add any increase in traffic. Franklin Miorandi, Assistant Town Engineer wrote
that, after review of the plan he had no concerns and approved the site plan. The
Selectmen reviewed the subject plan together with reports from the Police and
Fire Department and voted to recommend approval subject to their requirements
and recommendations.
The Police recommended that
exterior lighting be installed above the three newly constructed entrances and
on the walls to illuminate the area between the modular unit and the existing
building to improve security and to assist officers checking the site during
overnight hours.
Ed Costa, Superintendent of
Schools introduced the school committee members and guest; Bob Mazarello, Bill
Fonsika, Thomas McGowen, Angela Thorpe, Terry Olejarz and John Strandberg.
Mr. Strandberg said that they
would be doing essentially the same connections that what were done at
He added that the additional
drainage was minimal and they did provide drainage calculations as requested by
the DPW. Mr. Strandberg said that the
area of the existing school is 41, 821 square feet and the addition is 6,162
square feet and the existing is parking is 97 spaces and they are adding 2
spaces for a total of 99 spaces. He then
asked the Board for any questions.
Ms. Richards asked Mr. Strandberg
what he based the number of parking spaces on? Mr. Strandberg said historically
he has worked with a number of different Planning Boards around the state and
most of them require that you take the largest space such as the gymnasium or
auditorium. He said the you put seats in
them and include the bleachers, the basketball court or courts and figure 7
square feet per person and then you take the total number of people and divide
it by 4 to get the reasonable number of cars.
Mr. Morrissette said in the legal
notice it was mentioned for Mountain View School that the classrooms where for
kindergarten he was under the impression that it was for 3-5 grades. Mr. Strandberg said it was mistake – that
they are for the elementary classes..
At that time Mr. Calabrese
addressed the audience for any questions.
There being none addressed the Board for any further questions.
Mr. Morrissette asked if there
were any wetlands involved in the area?
Mr. Strandberg said no the only wetlands were about 300 feet away.
Mr. Przybylowicz
asked if the existing classrooms, gymnasium, cafeteria’s,
will remain as they are currently? Mr. Strandberg said yes and all of the exits
will have exit lights as required by code outside of the doors and all the
exits signs will be as required by code and the building inspector will be on
top of it. Mr. Przybylowicz
asked if the construction would be similar to what was added a few years ago? Mr. Strandberg said
that it should be identical
because they are using the same manufacturer and they will have concrete floor
slabs with an elevated crawl space underneath and 4” full brick veneer to match
the existing brick on the building.
Ms. Richards asked if there was
anything they could have done better than the existing modular’s that are
similar to what they were proposing? Mr.
Costa said not a single thing because they are so pleased with them 4 years
later and he wishes that they had done that instead of the mobile classrooms
because those are in need of constant repair.
With no further questions, the
Board voted unanimously (5-0) to close the hearing. . Upon
motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to waive the
traffic study. Upon motion duly made and
seconded, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the site plan as
presented.
Public Hearing Site Plan Review –
The Chair, Louis Calabrese opened
the hearing and Clerk, Mr. Anderson read the legal notice and correspondence
into the record. John Strandberg, JLS
Architects wrote due to the small size of the modular addition to the school
Dr. Ed Costa and the school committee was requesting a waiver from the
requirement for a traffic study the additions are in response to the need for
an increase to classroom space due to existing student population and it will not
add any increase in traffic. Franklin
Miorandi, Assistant Town Engineer wrote after review of the plan he had no
concerns and approved the site plan. The Selectmen reviewed the subject plan
together with reports from the Police and Fire Department and voted to
recommend approval subject to their requirements and recommendations. The Police recommended that exterior lighting
be installed above the newly constructed entrances and to illuminate the area
between the modular unit and the existing building to improve security and to
assist officers checking the site during overnight hours.
Mr. Strandberg said that the 4
additional classrooms would be accessed off the end, if you were to visit the
site you would see an entrance with a ramp to be removed along with the steps;
that the overhead canopy will be removed and from there the addition will be
added. He said that a corridor will be
added to create a little narrow space which was one of the items that the
Police where concerned about in adding lighting. He said there will be a main corridor with
steps to the exterior and an entrance off of the canopy and a concrete walk
going to an entrance, which he pointed out on the plan.
Mr. Strandberg said that there are
104 existing parking spaces and 2 spaces will be added that will total 106
parking spaces. He said that the existing
school is rather large 53,000 square feet and they are adding 6,500 square feet
and one of the unique things about this site a brook ran across the site back
in the 1960’s and the original designer put it into a 24” reinforced concrete
pipe and as you can see it goes from 24” to 36” and out to an outfall into a
wetland. He said the main concern they
had with doing the original modular addition was to stay away from that pipe
and he was faced with the same situation with this project as to try to fit the
modular addition in and stay away from that pipe so they do not get involved
with digging up and replacing an old concrete pipe. He said another feature of the site is a 6”
water loop that goes from
Mr. Calabrese addressed the Board
any questions, being none, he addressed the audience for any questions. There being no further discussion 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 waive the traffic study. Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board
voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the site plan as presented.
Public Hearing Site Plan Review –
The Chair, Louis Calabrese opened
the hearing and introduced the Board members.
Clerk, Mr. Anderson read the legal notice and correspondence into the
record.
John Strandberg, JLS Architects
wrote due to the small size of the modular addition to the school Dr. Ed Costa
and the school committee was requesting a waiver from the requirement for a
traffic study the additions are in response to the need for an increase to
classroom space due to existing student population and that it will not
increase the traffic. Franklin Miorandi,
Assistant Town Engineer wrote after review of the plan he had no concerns and
approved the site plan. The Selectmen reviewed the subject plan together with
reports from the Police and Fire Department and voted to recommend approval subject
to their requirements and recommendations.
The Police recommended that exterior lighting be installed on the two
newly constructed doorways and on the walls on both side of the modular unit to
illuminate the areas between the modular units and the existing building to
assist officers during site checks in the overnight hours.
Mr. Strandberg said that he did
add 2 additional parking and the location they chose for these was a result of
wanting to keep them close to the existing parking area. He said that the additional 4 classrooms are
being added to the west side of the school with a connecter corridor and it is
brick construction with 4” brick exterior walls, concrete crawl floor slabs on
metal deck and a crawl space underneath the just as the other 2 schools.
Mr. Strandberg said because of the
addition is taking up some the paved access area he included a loop for fire
truck access to get around the addition because there is no circular road
around the school. He said that the
existing parking was 66 spaces and 2 more will be added for a total of 68
spaces and the school is 37,628 square feet and they are adding 6,275 square
feet for a total of 43,903 square feet.
Mr. Standberg said that lighting will be added to the new school rather
than to the existing building because it will be built into the package and the
exits will have lights and emergency lights outside of them as required by
code. He said the option is to increase
security lighting with some wall packs.
He said that there will be additional paving and luckily they have about
300 feet of travel between the paved area, the roof, and any wetlands. He added that the drainage calculations
showed a minimal increase in flow because a lot of the area is already
paved. He then presented the drainage plans
and explained them.
Mr. Morrissette asked if this site
was the wettest? Mr. Standberg said that
it really was not that bad and one catch basin was full of water so there might
be some sort of an obstruction and he has called for that to be cleaned
out. Mr. Morrissette said the he did
mention the possibility if they find another spot to put those other 2 spaces the
Board would need a new plan showing them.
Ms. Richards said the existing
plan shows spaces all the way through the turn around. Mr. Standberg said when he was out there
looking for additional parking spaces he noticed that the original drawing has
parking spaces on the curve but constructed some kind of bus turn around so the
lines where eliminated so he took the liberty to show them eliminated. Ms. Richards asked if the 66 parking spaces in the area shown do not
include the turn around? Mr. Strandberg
said right.
Mr. Przybylowicz asked if the construction was going to be
the same type? Mr. Standberg said yes. Mr. Przybylowicz asked if all 3 additions
where going to be built at the same time?
Mr. Standberg said they should be concurrent and they should take about
6 months to complete with completion on or about August 1st .
Mr. Anderson said if anymore parking spaces get eliminated
the Board has to have something that reflects what is really there.
Mr. Calabrese addressed the audience for any questions.
Mr. Mazarello said that the
school committee is very excited about the project and looking forward to
seeing that the kids in East Longmeadow have the appropriate space and learning
facility.
With no further questions 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 waive the traffic study. Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board
voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the site plan as presented.
Public Hearing – Amendment to Special
Permit – Steve Graziano
Clerk, Donald Anderson, read the
legal notice into the record. Attorney
Stephen Manning wrote that they were requesting that the Special Permit that
was granted on October 23, 1984 for the alteration and enlargement of a pre-existing
non-conforming structure at 37 Prospect Street, 30 - 34 Shaker Road be amended. He said that the original applicant/owner at
the time was Steve Graziano who has since conveyed the premises to East
Meadow’s Realty LLC an entity he formed and is the manager of. He submitted a copy of the original decision
and the permit granted restricts the use to the rendering of personal services by Veritech Corporation. The entire premises is located on and has
entrances on both Shaker Road and Prospect Street.
Attorney Manning said at the time
of the decision and currently several retail establishments occupy the store
front units on Shaker Road. As for the
premises accessed by the Prospect Street entrance and the subject of a second
story enlargement of the building in 1984 and the Special Permit, the premises
has been occupied solely by Veritech Corporation until last year when it
relocated to a newly constructed building in the industrial park on Denslow
Road. Attorney Manning said that the
application to amend the Special Permit requests that any use of the premises
on Shaker Road not be restricted under the permit and be allowed to be used for
all purposes allowable by the East Longmeadow Zoning By-law located in a
business zone.
He said that he understands that
it may have been the intent to limit the use of the building constructed in
1984 and accessed by the Prospect Street entrance to commercial and/or office
uses given the parking limitations. He
said that the number of parking spaces was also the subject matter of a
variance granted by the East Longmeadow Board of Appeals granted in 1984. He trusts that the current members of the
Planning Board would agree that the language of the 1984 Special permit restricting to only Veritech Corporation is
overly restrictive. He added that it
would be unfair and could result to significant
economic harm and detriment to the property if another business having a
similar use was not permitted to occupy theses premises.
Attorney Manning stated that Mr.
Graziano was requesting that the restriction to use by Veritech Corporation be
deleted and the permit amended appropriately.
At that time the Chair, Louis
Calabrese introduced the members of the Board and explained the procedure and
rules for the public hearing and then welcomed the petitioners.
Attorney Manning said that he
brought copies of the original Special Permit and he also attached the
variances granted with respect to the parking issue. He said that it was pretty clear that the Special
Permit that was granted to Veritech and Veritech’s use. He said that Veritech left the premises more
that a year ago and they are suggesting the premises be permitted for use by
other tenants having a similar use. He
continued by stating that they recognize the parking issue. He said if you read the variance 43 parking
spaces would have been required and the Board of Appeals chose to alleviate 13
spaces permitting 30 spaces. Attorney
Manning said largely it’s topographical the way the property is situated but he
also thinks at the time it had to do with the public parking that serviced the Shaker Road property as well
as the Ski Haus, Boston Chicken. He
added that, in his opinion he understands the Board of Appeals considered the
topography as well as the availability of public parking and they are asking for
an amendment to permit them to find other tenants.
Mr. Calabrese addressed the Board
for any questions.
Mr. Przybylowicz asked if the prospective tenants had been
identified? Attorney Manning said that
they have one tenant with them that evening, Mr. & Mrs. Gomes who operate a
beauty shop. He said that they recognize
that it is not an office use but they also believe that the use is not anymore
burdensome and during Veritech’s days up until 2005 - they had anywhere between
20 to 30 employees on the 37 Prospect Street premises. Attorney Manning said again 1,200 square feet
is proposed to be occupied by the beauty shop with 5 employees and no more than
4 operators working at a time.
Mr. Graziano said they have also spoken with the church across
the street and to use the public parking as well for the employees. Attorney Manning asked him if they had an
agreement with the church? Mr. Graziano
said that they have already spoken to them and will be getting it in writing as
well. Mr. Graziano said originally the
Zorzie plan of 1980 specified what zones around the buildings would be used for
parking as well and submitted the plans as well. Mr. Graziano said that the church uses his
parking on Sundays and they use the church parking during the week. He said there are 29 spaces and there have
never been parking issues.
Mr. Przybylowicz asked what the size of the building was
excluding the lower retail? Mr. Graziano
said 3,700 square feet of office space and 700 square feet of storage space.
Attorney Manning said that he would suggest to the Board to
amend it to make it subject to in each case having a full site plan
review. Mr. Graziano said that they
would not try to put a restaurant there because it is not a use and he tries to
get it to a service type of business and they would never change it to anything
other than that.
Ms. Richards asked Mr. Graziano
why he thought the Planning Board back in 1984 placed the condition on your Special
permit for Veritech use only? Mr.
Graziano said he remembers that the only thing they did not want in there was a
restaurant, the restriction was a type of use and Veritech was the use.
Attorney Manning said that he has
never seen that type of a restriction and in his defense Mr. Graziano was not
represented by counsel and he probably did not understand the connotation of
it. Ms. Richards said it was her
understanding that the strong argument at that time was while the space was
going to be dedicated to your business the need for square footage was more for
equipment and production. Mr. Graziano
said if they look at the plan that was submitted and 90% of the building is
office space and that’s the way we proposed it. He added that he did not know
where they were getting their information.
Ms. Richards said from the record.
Attorney Manning said that there
really isn’t much of a record other than the decision from what he understands
and finds it hard to believe that the Board would tie it up recognizing that
there is not going to be a business that is going to stay there forever –that
putting significant dollars into a facility and all of a sudden you cannot use
it and cannot afford to pay taxes, cannot afford the rent, what are you going
to do tear it down? Ms. Richards explained
that the Board understands the situation and it was something that you said in
your introductory letter replacing it with a similar use, a use that requires
space but does not generate a substantial amount of impact with respect to
parking. She said at the time the
decision was made there was sensitivity to fact that the Board was trying to be
proactive with a business that wants to continue to thrive in the center of
East Longmeadow and recognizing the fact that parking is an issue. She said that was why the Special Permit was
very specific about the conditions so that it was clear that the expansion was
dedicated to that type of use. Attorney
Manning said again things have changed it’s now 25 years later. Ms. Richards said and the Board doesn’t argue
that. Attorney Manning said lets hope
that we can work out something.
Mr. Calabrese said let us look at
what happened back then. He said
apparently there was a variance granted for 13 parking spaces and it was not
challenged then and he thinks that they should be in agreement that it stands,
right? The Board replied yes. Mr. Calabrese said so that means that 30
spots are ok at that location because of the variance, so know they are dealing
with the non-conforming structure.
Attorney Manning said that it is a non-conforming structure and the use
is business. He said that they could
probably agree when the Planning Board back then that was why they put that
stipulation - that it would work and that is why that requirement was for that
business.
He said that he would look at that
to see how the Planning Board has to work within the confines of that agreement
to see how this is going to be no more
offensive then what is there now. Mr.
Calabrese said that it would seem more appropriate in this case if Mr. Graziano
could get a parking agreement with the church so it could be a matter of record
for this tenant and whoever may come along in the future so that a cross-parking
easement is drawn up between the two parties. Mr. Graziano said that he had no problem with putting
in the lease that their tenants/employees need to park in the public parking
which was where his employees where required to park while he owned the
building. He said if they want to park
in the church across the street that’s something that they’ve worked out but he
is going to require them not to park their employees on that level.
Mr. Calabrese said what he was
looking to address was when he rents to someone and they are gone a year or two
later and you don’t want to have any lag time between renting again to go
around and get the permission again. He
said that it would be nice to get something in place that’s there for good or
at least a 5 or 10 year period. Mr.
Graziano said before they get any tenants other than the one that’s at hand he
would address that with the church. He
said again the public parking was always what they relied on they didn’t rely
on the church.
Mr. Anderson said the 2 issues
are, a 1984 Special Permit and then a future site plan request for the
prospective tenants. He said what he is
trying to focus on is that the minutes say that a Special Permit shall be
restricted to the rendering of personal services by the Veritech Corporation. He thinks what is being asked is to remove
the Veritech Corporation from the equation and focus on personal services, so
then the question becomes if the personal services that a Veritech Corporation
would be is hairdressing or whatever the proper terminology is that less or
equal to that type of personal services that would be offered? He would make the argument that the answer is
probably that it’s some sort of parody to it.
Attorney Manning said that was his
impression but he has to defer to the Board saying that you had some problems
in the past with some beauty shops. Mr.
Anderson said that the Board is not being asked to interpret the existing Special
Permit to say hairdressing is allowed because of that Veritech but by removing
the Veritech language then it becomes the scope of personal services.
Ms. Richards said by removing the
Veritech language - that there is a variance for 30 parking spaces but that was
granted based on the Veritech language.
She said if they remove the Veritech language then the Board is
obligated to apply what would be our current standards for parking.
Attorney Manning said that he was
suggesting that they look at personal services not Veritech Corporation and it
might be broken up amongst several different entities providing different personal services. He said again they could look at it in such a
way it’s still the same number of square feet and for providing similar type
services your formula is the same. He
said in fact what’s the difference, if the formula was the same back then and
they permitted 43 to 30 spaces why should that change if it is just a different
entity and the traffic is still going to be about the same? Attorney Manning said Veritech had 20 to 30
employees at any given time and he suggested that they call it personal
services and further add some
requirement that the Planning Board would review for a site plan even if it
doesn’t apply in the by-law, we can make it apply under this Special Permit -
you have the opportunity to site plan review for any prospective tenant in
there.
Mr. Morrissette said one of things
they could look at is a hairdresser is a high volume generator and the section
they are taking is 1,200 square feet. He
asked what’s the parking requirement was for 1,200 square foot
hairdresser? Ms. Richards said 6 per
thousand. Mr. Morrissette said that if they
took a normal requirement and applied that towards the hairdresser they would
meet the requirements however, the rest of the building has to be some sort of
very minor office use and cannot be retail. Mr. Graziano said that it could not be used
that way it would be practically impossible – you would have to destroy the
building - the way that building is laid out.
Mr. Morrissette said that his thought was they apply the strongest
amount for the hairdresser so they can get in and get opened. He said then look at what comes in next, you
can’t break up into 5 different spots because you’ll have 5 different
owners. Mr. Graziano said the most it
would be is 3 uses and the other 2 would be very soft use because they are 150
square foot offices.
Ms. Richards asked if there was
some reason why he did not put the dumpster on Shaker Road on the parking
plan? Mr. Graziano said had no reason
that he didn’t do it.
Mr. Morrissette said when the next
site plan comes in it would be dealt with by an iron fist on the other
use. He said because high volume
generators would not work and he thinks that’s goal to try and come up with
something of low volume with the benefit of the church parking lot. Mr. Graziano said they could pursue that
before the next tenant comes in. Mr.
Morrissette said it would help you to alleviate the problem that you are going
to have but it’s not going to go toward satisfying any additional parking. He said the next tenants will need to be low
volume tenants.
Mr. Przybylowicz said why the Zoning Board restricted to
Steve’s use was impractical because whether it was 10 years after that, 50
years after that Steve would unfortunately not be here.
Mr. Morrissette said he was pretty sure what got played to
the Board was that Steve was a nice guy, he’s been in the center of town for a
long time, low volume uses and that is how it was sold.
Mr. Graziano said in those days they were doing about 30 or
40 weddings a year, it was a retail store at that time where the wedding
parties would come and it was a personal service business, it was an expansion
of the photography studio next door.
Mr. Calabrese said that it would seem that personal service
has to go because then you could restrict it to sticking with personal services
like a barber, beautician, massage therapists.
Attorney Manning said again if you have site plan review
what’s the difference if you had personal services/commercial office? Mr. Morrissette said that he thought the Board
could deal with it on the next tenant and he thinks the goal is to get these
people in, get going and put an understanding together so what’s going to
happen to the rest the property and the rest of the parking.
Ms. Richards said one of the things that needs to be
developed is a philosophy on the issue of public parking and itsuse for all of
his employees and questioned if that is going to be the standard that the Board
is going to use? Mr. Anderson said that
he thinks they need to take it on a case by case basis and he thinks in this
particular case there is 7 spaces within it, with a tentative agreement with a
neighbor which is beyond the scope but the next tenant that goes in there needs
to be warned.
Mr. Calabrese said if the Board where to change the Special Permit
it must be clear for boards in the future as to what was on our minds and what
they should be looking to do because what we are going to do is take the
pre-existing non-conforming structure and every time there is a change there we
are going to want to hear what that change is going to be and see how that fits
the situation. Mr. Graziano said that he
agreed with that.
Mr. Morrissette said the thing that needs to be addressed is
that someday you are going to sell the building and that person has to be made
aware that there is an issue
there. Attorney
Manning said that it would come up in a title examination and if the Board
agrees to amend the Special Permit, he would like to participate in the
drafting of it before it gets to record.
He thinks that it is important to refer the prior decision, to refer to
the variance for the parking that this a special circumstance but this is what
has to happen in the future.
At that time Mr. Calabrese addressed the audience for any questions. There being none addressed the Board for
further questions.
Ms. Richards said first of all there is a variance that says
30 spaces and reconfiguring the 2 spaces in the middle or the parking lot is
ridiculous and unsafe.
Mr. Graziano said they could put a handicapped spot in the
front and move the dumpster so that the parking isn’t encroached on anymore
Ms. Macdonald said that they also need dimensions on a least
one of them and the legend needs to be recorded on the plan.
Mr. Calabrese said the Board will need an updated parking
plan showing 30 spaces and a formula designated on the plan.
Ms. Macdonald asked if the Board does amend the Special Permit
and you decide that a hair salon can go in the certain number of square feet
and any other use will be limited to a low volume use only, would that be
another amended Special Permit?
Mr. Morrissette said it would probably need to be amended
again.
Ms. Richards asked if the Board even wants to limit it to a
beauty salon, it’s a business use. Mr.
Morrissette said that it is important to identify it as a beauty salon now because
it’s high volume. Mr. Morrissette said
that it would probably need another Special Permit. Attorney Manning asked why cannot it be tied
into a site plan review? Mr. Morrissette
said each tenant would have to come before the Board. Ms. Macdonald said that it would just be a
waiver because a new building would be not be built and that’s where a site
plan kicks in but the Special Permit would have to be amended if you are going
to be as specific as you are.
Mr. Morrissette said that the problem becomes that it’s
standard operating procedure for the Board most of the time. Mr. Calabrese said what they could do is write
the language so that the structure cannot be enlarged and that the uses will
never exceed the 30 parking spots, with the combined uses. Mr. Calabrese addressed the Board and asked if
they would like to come up with some language and continue the hearing.
Ms. Macdonald said that they do not need to continue it, if
you have made your decision that you are going to allow the amendment we could
work on the decision language. Mr.
Calabrese said that they could do that only because of the fact on the 20th
is the last time you are going to
have 5 members in attendance for a month.
Mr. Morrissette said he felt that the hearing could be
closed and the Board could work on the language. He said that they could come in with their
request for site plan for their hairdresser next time.
Tony Gomes, 8 Timber Drive said originally he put in a
request back in October for that location and they are currently being evicted
from their building owned by Chapdelaine
on Shaker Road. He said that they are against a time limit
and he apologized what he was about to say.
He said if he owned a business and if he took this long to make a
decision he would be out of business so he asked the Board if there was anyway
they could consider making the decision that evening to allow them to start construction
on the site to upgrade it to the requirements that are needed.
Mr. Morrissette said let us deal with one issue at a
time.
Mr. Calabrese said that it was difficult because the Board
was trying to correct something that was done in an unjust way back in
1984. He said that it has left the
Planning Board in a dilemma if we want to deal with the language that is there
we would say that you cannot do anything, but we are trying to rework this so
that for now and hopefully in the future it will be a lot clearer.
Mr. Calabrese continued by stating that as far as time goes the
Board will still need to review the language - it looks like we would be into
the 20th before we
finally button everything up and then there’s the appeal period. He told Mr. Gomes that if the Board does not do
it in the correct way you could move in there and someone could challenge this
and you could be moving out on 3 months because the Board gave the Special
Permit illegally. He said that it has to
be done in the right way and he thinks by the 20th everything will
be pretty much done and that after that there will be a 20 day appeal period.
Mr. Morrissette said if they decided to move in there before
the appeal period they would be building at their own risk because if someone
appeals the decision, it stops and your money is gone - it’s over with.
Mr. Calabrese asked when they had to be out of the
Chapdelaine building?
Diane Gomes said that she was supposed to be out by the
December 31st but they allowed her to stay to the end of January and
she just received an eviction notice that will be up on March 1st .
Mr. Calabrese addressed the Board and asked them how they
felt about what they were doing so far.
Ms. Richards said that it was complicated and she appreciates
their circumstances but the Board needs to make sure that they are doing the
right thing and there are steps that need to be gone through.
Mr. Calabrese said that the hearing will need to be
closed. 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 amend the Special Permit to remove the restriction
for personal services of Veritech only and the language in the decision will be
addressed at the next meeting and also an amended parking plan with the
formulas, numbers of spaces and dimensions of the spaces will need to be
submitted. The members asked Ms.
Macdonald to draft a decision for them and asked that she allow Attorney
Manning to comment on it.
Miscellaneous
Ms.
Macdonald asked the Board if they were able to review the warrant articles and
if they had any difficulty with them.
Mr. Calabrese said the he must have been out of the loop when it came to
the accessory buildings being used for residences. Ms. Macdonald said that was up to the Board
because that was a suggestion and reminded the Board that this about when Dan advised
someone that they could build a second house on their property to house their
parents as long as their parents baby sat for their children - then they were
considered employees of their children’s.
Ms. Richards said in listening to the Selectmen’s meeting there was a Board
of Health complaint regarding Forbes Garden and somebody was living in a
trailer on the premises. She said that
Fred Kowal ruled absolutely not because it is not a working farm anymore. She said that she was sensitive to why that
by-law was created and if there is an established arrangement on a working farm. Ms. Richards also stated that when Ms. Macdonald
told her the circumstances, she felt that we are seeing some real bizarre
interpretation of our zoning by-laws.
Ms. Richards said that she thinks it has real potential for abuse and
her comment was that they need a 1099 or a W-2 that indicates that these people
are employees of the premises and not simply babysitting for grandchildren. Mr. Calabrese said one thing that he was
always disappointed in that the accessory by-law never went through because he
felt that it would address a lot of issues that people had in town and this
almost seems to strikeout that ability. Ms. Richards said but this is not an
accessory by-law that they are striking out.
Mr. Calaese said that he wasn’t sure that they would be able to stop it
by the language. Ms. Richards said that
it would stop the Building Inspector from issuing a building permit so someone
could live in a shed and baby sit the children.
Mr. Calabrese said maybe they should pass it and then start looking at
accessory uses in the future.
Ms. Macdonald said that there is
the article for the new map that she and Franklin Miorandi are finalizing along
with the street takings for Orchard, Pine Grove, Nottingham, Sherwood,
Balmoral, Lori Lane Extension, Halon Terrace and Deer Run Terrace.
Ms. Richards said that there was
also another zoning change being proposed by a resident. Ms. Macdonald said a zoning by-law, Caroline
Kozec wants to amend the zoning by-laws on unregistered motor vehicles by
deleting “ or otherwise out of site of all abutters in public ways” and add the
following “any unregistered motor vehicles must be able to pass Mass State
Inspection, motor vehicles with broken windows, flat tires, etc. shall not be
permitted on the premises for more than 30 days. Tractor trailer beds shall not be permitted
as a storage unit at anytime in sight or out of sight on residential properties. Ms. Macdonald said that she still needs to
schedule the public hearing.
Mr. Calabrese said that they were
all aware of the fact that at a
Selectmen’s meeting there was some discussion about the Zoning Enforcement
Officer and Jimmy Driscoll and Joe Townshend said that they were not for it. He said he since has spoken with Wayne
Bixley and he thinks that we should
still go forward and try to get an article through at Town Meeting to go for a
Zoning Enforcement Officer that works under the direction of the Planning Boar. He said that Wayne even suggested that if you
think it’s difficult fund it for even part time to start and anything that we
do would be good and he would be happy to come back before the Board and talk
about Zoning Enforcement again. Mr.
Calabrese stated that Mr. Bixley said his job has gotten a lot easier in
Enfield and they very seldom go court because everyone knows that they mean
business. Mr. Calabrese said that he
thinks that the Board should give it some serious consideration and put their
own article forward at town meeting. The
Board agreed that they should go forward for a funded position.
Mr. Calabrese left the meeting at
this time due to possible conflict of interest issues.
ATM Machine to Countryside
Store
The Board informally discussed the
idea of an free standing ATM at the Country side Store. However, with no plans to review, they did
not make any decisions.
Premier Source Credit Union –
Saturday Hours
The Board voted unanimously (5-0)
to allow the new hours of operation on Saturdays for Premiere Source Credit
Union at 292 North Main Street from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Daniel Handzel – Zoning
Violations
The Board discussed the issue of
Daniel Handzel erecting an 8 foot stockade fence on Anthony Bordoni’s property
at 347 Elm Street. The Board asked Ms.
Macdonald to send a letter to Mr. Bordoni advising him to talk to the temporary
building inspector.
ANR – 25 & 29 Edmond Street
The Board reviewed an ANR
submitted and owned
by Oreste & Karen Varela and Timothy J. Murphy for the creation of two new parcels, parcel 2-R which contains 13,200
square feet and parcel 1-R which
contains 22,547 square feet. Both
parcels have the required frontage on a public way, namely Edmund Street.
After discussion and upon motion
duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the ANR.
ANR – Route 83 Somers, Ct and
East Longmeadow MA - Richard Punderson
The Board reviewed an ANR
presented by Richard Punderson for property owned by Barbara Hobbs for the creation
of two new parcels in East Longmeadow, parcel 1 which will contains 140,827.90
square feet (3.23 acres) and parcel 2
which will contain 53,483.80 square feet. Both parcels have the proper frontage on a
public way, namely Route 83 (Somers Road).
The property in Somers, CT has been presented to and approved by the
Town of Somers.
After discussion and upon motion
duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the ANR.
The Board reviewed the minutes of January 23, 2007 and upon
motion duly made and seconded, voted unanimously (5-0) to approve them, with
edits.
Therefore, with no further business and upon motion duly
made and seconded, the Board voted to close the meeting at 10:40 p.m.
Very
truly yours,
Donald
J. Anderson, Clerk