Minutes of February 20, 2007

Present were: Louis Calabrese, Chair; Marilyn Richards, Vice Chair; Donald Anderson, Clerk; and Thomas Morrissette. Michael Przybylowicz arrived at 7:20 p.m.

Public Hearing Mapleshade Elementary School – Chain at driveway

Clerk, Donald Anderson read the legal notice into the record. Chair, Louis Calabrese said at the request of the applicant they asked for the hearing be continued until March 6th at 7:30. Upon motion duly made and seconded the Board voted unanimously (4-0) to continue the hearing.

Request for Waiver of Site Plan Review & Signage – William Raveis, 36 Center Square

Clerk, Donald Anderson read a request for waiver of site plan from Jayson Falcone for William Raveis at 26 Center Square at Center Village. Raveis Real estate office will be relocating from 37 Prospect Street to 36 Center Square and will occupy a 3,485 square foot space directly across from Spoleto’s Restaurant. The hours of operation will be Sunday – Saturday from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. during winter months and Sunday – Saturday from 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. during the summer months. Storefront signage will be in accordance with attached rendering that will be in conformity with all zoning regulations, internally lit with channel letters for a total of 77.6 square feet. They anticipate on average 7 sales agents in the office at any given time and all office operations will be in conformity with the by-laws and the Special Permit and subsequent amendments granted.

Mr. Falcone said that the same sign company that did Gilbert’s sign will be making Raveis’ sign with white colors but with the same methodically and level of quality.

Ms. Richards stated that the address identified in the permit is 50 Central Street and should be Center Square so for the record we note that the permit reads 50 Central Street and should read 36 Center Square. She said that they are obviously occupying a larger space than they are vacating and with 7 sales agents in the office at any given time - asked if they would be bringing in other people from other areas?

Chris Raveis said with the real estate business agents come and go at all times of the day so they want to have enough desk space for them. Ms. Richards said that she was more interested in the space that they are leaving, were there 7 agents at a time there? Mr. Raveis said when Mr. Falcone called him regarding the issue he looked through the office, there would be 5, 6 sometimes 7 or 8 agents. Ms. Richards asked how much space they occupied on the 2nd floor? Mr. Raveis said the whole 2nd floor.

Mr. Falcone said for clarification purposes it’s not really a larger space that they are moving to the area which is about 4,000 square feet over there but it’s on two different levels. Ms. Richards said that the Board was struggling with some issues for the Prospect Street site and that Mr. Graziano is on the agenda for that evening so they need to get a handle for how that location works for different uses. She said that Mr. Graziano was talking about dividing the space up into to a maximum of 3 tenants and depending on the uses and the combination of uses it might create a different parking situation they had occupying the whole 2nd story. She asked if their parking needs where ok? Mr. Raveis said that the parking needs where adequate. She asked if they parked in the back lot but did the use the church parking lot across the street? Mr. Raveis said at any given time they might have a sales meeting and they might have to use it for an hour or so but typically no. She asked if they had to sign something in their lease saying that they would park in public parking. He said he wasn’t part of that and did not know.

With no need for further discussion, and upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (4-0) to approve the waiver of site plan. Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (4-0) to approve the sign as presented and reminded Mr. Falcone that there was to be no LED lighting.

Miscellaneous

The Board reviewed the minutes of February 6, 2007 and upon motion duly made and seconded, voted unanimously (4-0) to approve them with edits.

Public Hearing Site Plan Review – The Fields at Chestnut Phase II

Clerk, Donald Anderson read the legal notice and correspondence into the record. The Selectmen’s letter indicated approval to recommend subject to the Police and Fire requirements and recommendations. Police recommended that streetlights be installed to improve the safety of the site for pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Illumination will also act as a deterrent to potential criminal activity in the neighborhood. The sidewalk shown for road C needs to be extended to a point at least halfway around the cul-de-sac. This was a portion of the Phase I review. All proposed crosswalks within the site conform to those currently installed in the Town of East Longmeadow. Street signs are to be installed as soon as practicable to assist emergency units in locating a specific address. The site signage proposed for Chestnut Street shall be located so as not to interfere with the visibility of vehicle operators entering and exiting the site. A traffic count will need to be submitted to determine the impact of this proposed development on the surrounding street. The expanded environmental notification form submitted by the applicant indicated an estimated 790 trips per day at the site. Stop signs shall be installed at the exit locations on Chestnut Street and Benton Drive to control vehicular traffic exiting the site. Sgt. Bates also wrote that the stop line should be installed on the pavement in conjunction with the installed stop signs at Chestnut Street and Benton Drive. Any plantings are to be located so as not to interfere with the visibility if vehicle operators entering or exiting the site. The Fire Department wrote that the fire hydrants must be located as shown on plan submitted for review. Frank Miorandi, Assistant Town Engineer had no concerns and wrote that the DPW approved the site plan.

At that time Calabrese introduced the Board members.

Jeff LeBeau, Civil Engineer from Baystate Environmental presented and explained the overall proposed plan of the potential build out which would include five phases and they are anticipating 17 additional single units. He said that phase II is proposed to extend off the temporary cul-de-sac with sewer service and three manholes - that the drainage will drain to the underground network for which they have provided calculations to Frank Miorandi. Mr. LeBeau said that they have received approval from the Conservation Commission for all 5 phases. He said all of the limit of work lines on the Planning Board plans are valid and have been crossed referenced to their Notice of Intent. Mr. LeBeau said that they left off the units because they did know the exact placement of each and every unit and that they would also like to ask for approval like they did for Phase I and as they get built and the actual square footages are known they will keep a tally for the Board’s information and review.

Ms. Richards asked what the lot coverage is? Mr. LeBeau said for Phase I & II combined and the whole site is 54 acres and are proposing 9% coverage. She said that meets the requirement and asked if they were anticipating all singles, she asked if that was based on what they are hearing from people or is it a decision that the company has made? Mr. Granger said primarily feedback from prospective clients and different projects that they have done. Ms. Richards asked what the average square footage that they have built? Mr. Granger said that they have three under contract and the model is about 2,200 square feet on two floors and they have 3 ranches that range from anywhere for 2,600 square feet on one floor to about 1,600 square feet. He said the 3 that they’ve got at the cul-de-sac are all ranches and they are 1,600, 1,800 and 2,600 square feet. Ms. Richards asked if Mr. Roulier was going to honor his commitment to the town and offer some units under $300,00? Mr. Granger said that was the target when they had thought there would be some mixes of tri-plexus however, by going to all single units they lost a number of units so there is nothing offered below $300,00 - $360,00 as their starting point. Ms. Richards asked how they are dealing with proposed applicants in terms of the limit of 3 people and the age restrictions and has there been a drafted homeowners association? Mr. Granger said that there is a condominium document that is in place and people have to sign it when they sign their reservation. She asked if the information is always available? Mr. Granger said that the by-law is basically part of the condominium documentation. Ms. Richards asked if the Board could get a copy of it. Mr. Granger said that they will get the Board a copy.

Mr. Calabrese addressed the audience for any questions?

Arthur Solowinski, 403 Chestnut Street asked if the taxes would rise after the completion of the project? Ms. Macdonald explained that the tax rate is set every year by the Assessors and the Board of Selectmen and it really doesn’t have anything to do with this project. She said that this project per say would not be the reason for taxes to increase, the taxes may rise next year but it will not be because of this project.

Mr. Anderson said when the project is done it will be one of the top tax payers in East Longmeadow. He said that the street will be private so as taxpayers will not have to pay for the plowing or any type of maintenance there.

Mr. Solowinski asked if Chestnut Street was going to be fixed because it is very bumpy?

Ms. Richards suggested that Ms. Macdonald bring it to DPW’s attention.

Mr. Calabrese addressed the Board for any further questions, there being none and upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (4-0) to close the hearing. Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (4-0) approve the site plan as presented.

Request for Waiver of Site Plan Review – Meadows Driving School, 169 Shaker Road

Ms. Macdonald said Geof Spear from Meadows Driving School on 143 Shaker Road has been denied licensure from the state to move in because it is not ADA compliant. She said he is now looking at 169 Shaker Road which is handicapped accessible and is looking for a waiver of site plan for this location. Mr. Anderson read the request from Meadows Driving School for a classroom and office for teaching drivers education, hours of operations will be Monday – Thursday, 3:00 pm to 5:00 p.m. and Friday, 3:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m., Saturday, 9:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. and will have 3 employees. Upon motion duly made and seconded voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the waiver for Meadows Driving School. The applicant must appear before the Board for approval of any signage that is requested.

Request for Signage – Game Stop, 406 North Main Street

Ms. Macdonald informed the Board that EB Games at 406 North Main Street has been bought out by Game Stop and they would like to replace their sign. Upon motion duly made and seconded voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the signage that was so presented with regard to the directory signage, the Board allowed the directory sign, showing that the area and size thereof is equal in size to the existing tenants on the directory, conditioned upon approval by the Building Inspector and that the sign contains no LED lighting. Further, the Board approved the replacement of EB Games to Game Stop on the front of the building, conditioned upon approval by the Building Inspector and that the sign contains no LED lighting.

Raymond Fusaro, 29 Fisher Avenue – Site Plan

The Board endorsed the revised site plan for Raymond Fusaro, 29 Fisher Avenue, which was previously approved with revisions.

Public Hearing Special Permit – James Motors – 607 North Main Street

Clerk, Donald Anderson read the legal notice and correspondence into the record. Attorney Levine said that JDJG Properties LLC will be acquiring 607 North Main Street from George Crosier who operates a used car dealership under the name of Crosier Motor Sales, Inc. He said that his client will be operating a used car dealership under the name of James Motors, Inc. and it will be operated in the identical manner in which it is currently being operated with the same number of vehicles allowed under it’s existing license and with no changes to any structures on the property. Attorney Levine said the use of the property has been used continuously by Mr. Crosier as a used car lot for at least 47 years and they are requesting a waiver of site plan review.

George Crosier wrote a letter stating that he consented to the submission of James Motor’s, Inc. for a special permit and site plan review to operate a used car lot at 607 North Main Street. He said the property is to be conveyed to JDJG Properties, LLC which shall operate a used car lot under the name of James Motors, Inc.

The Police recommended that interior lighting be installed to illuminate the site and to the illuminate the entrance of the south side of the building to improve the safety of pedestrian traffic at the site, reduce the potential for criminal activity and assist officers in checking the site in overnight hours. A meeting with the applicant determined that lighting will be installed to meet the requirements of the recommendation. Sgt. Bates recommended that the sign at the business be located so is to not to interfere with visibility for vehicular traffic exiting Barnum Street onto North Main Street. Sgt. Bates also wrote that he recommended that the Barnum Street side of the property be modified to present only 2 distinct entrances to the site, 1 entrance for access to the front paved area and an additional entrance for access to the proposed rear paved area. A modified site plan was submitted that shows 2 distinct entrances/exits on Barnum Street will meet the requirements of this recommendation. The police also recommended that the proposed parking area for employees and customers be clearly separated by pavement markings from the proposed storage area in the rear paved section of the site. The modified site plan submitted shows a separation between the customer and employees parking spaces and the car display area and car storage area. However the employee parking space located inside of the building and the employee parking space located in the front parking area should be reconsidered.

Sgt. Bates also recommended that the North Main Street entrance be closed off with a gate and fencing to eliminate the potential for public access to the lot. Further, Sgt. Bates recommended that the fencing start at the southeast corner of the property and continue across the front of the property and continue around the corner along Barnum Street to the proposed front lot driveway. He also recommended that the fence posts be positioned close enough together to eliminate confusion and to allow clearly visible sight during the nighttime hours.

Sergeant Bates stated in his report that the modified site plan submitted did not indicate the location of any fencing or gate at the site and the amended site plan does not fit the requirements of his recommendations. His report continued that it was his recommendation that any plantings at the site be located so as not to interfere with visibility for vehicular traffic exiting Barnum Street and the applicant agreed that any plantings at the site will be installed to meet the requirements of this recommendation.

Lastly, Sgt. Bates stated that the Town of East Longmeadow Parking guidelines do not address this type of commercial automobile sales or car display area parking plan. Sgt. Bates wrote that the submitted plan by the developer cannot be approved by the Planning Board based on that fact, however, the site use is not being altered and there have not been any safety issues in the past and he believes that the plan will be sufficient, once the above recommendations have been meet by the developer.

Franklin Miorandi, Assistant Town Engineer wrote that he had 2 concerns, the first being the existing access to the site located at the southeast corner should be removed, if in the future the driveway should be needed he sees no reason that the request would not be granted. He said during the round table meeting the Board requested additional drainage information detailing the capacity of the storm drain system downstream and the detail was omitted from the stormwater management design report, a second review will be necessary to insure compliance with town standards.

At that time Mr. Calabrese introduced the Board members.

Attorney Larry Levine introduced himself and the principals for James Motors - Jim Garvey, Jim Ricco and George Crosier (present owner and holder of the existing used car license) and John Masuck from Ecotec Environmental. Attorney Levine explained that the current used car lot has been in existence for 48 years or so and it has been in continuous use by Mr. Crosier. After discussions with him it was found that there have been no safety problems violations over the last 48 years. Attorney Levine said when the process began months ago he had discussions with Town Counsel whether in fact the regulations of the town (specifically on used car lots and within those regulations) applied to this site and if there was a need for Special Permit or whether it would be a grandfathered use. He said although it is a gray area, they proceeded to go forward with the Special Permit process. Attorney Levine continued by stating that they will be meeting with the Board of Selectmen the following week for the hearing on a class 2 license.

Attorney Levine said over the previous weekend he met with Sergeant Bates and Robyn Macdonald to go over some of his concerns and recommendations. He explained that they went through the submitted plans and he wanted to express his client’s views as to why they might disagree. Attorney Levine said they have an issue with the fact that currently there is no curbing on North Main Street, and over the years the existing concrete curb cut has worn away, and that Sergeant Bates’ original recommendation was to remove the curb cut. Attorney Levine said that the primary access will be on Barnum Street, however there will be times when cars need to be maneuvered in or out of the site, and it would be easier at those times to have access to move certain cars on the North Main Street side.

Attorney Levine added that, after speaking with Sergeant Bates, they came to an agreement that they would add posts with a chain and lock preventing entry from North Main Street, but allowing access to move cars off the lot when the need occurred. Attorney Levine also said that Sergeant Bates wanted some type of fencing around the parameter and, for his clients, they would like to landscape with shrubs because they feel it would be more aesthetically pleasing. Attorney Levine said that currently there is chain link fence and if you compare that to a properly landscaped front he thinks that the Board would agree that landscaping is a more aesthetically pleasing setting then fencing.

Attorney Levine said that he was not certain why the drainage calculations were not submitted, however, he would look into it.

Mr. Masuck said that what they are proposing is to capture the stormwater runoff from the building and the impervious surfaces with the pavement and the berm. He added that they have been able to capture the water on site and do some infiltration thus minimizing the impact to the town system. He said currently it just runs off the paved site directly into the town system without any of the remediation or removal of solids or infiltration. He said so as far as what Mr. Miorandi is looking for, he believes there is an addendum to the report as submitted to show that the existing town system that their impact will not increase or over tax the existing system. He added that he will provide the information that Mr. Miorandi requested.

Mr. Przybylowicz asked if there was such a thing as a class 1 or class 3 license? Mr. Ricco said that a class 1 is a new car license and class 3 is a junk yard license. Mr. Przybylowicz asked how many cars would be displayed and how will they be positioned on site? Attorney Levine said up to 50 which is the allowed maximum under the regulations and he presumes that they will display them which would make them the most attractive for sale.

Mr. Calabrese said in the Special Permit they are not addressing the number of cars. Mr. Morrissette said that he did not say anything about the number of cars but he thinks the number of cars allowed is high for that lot. Mr. Calabrese said that they are calling it a storage area, Ms. Richards said it’s business property and she feels that one could park cars there. Mr. Morrissette said that you probably could park cars there. Mr. Calabrese said so you are looking at car storage area, can you sell those car from there - well that’s licensing authority.

Mr. Anderson asked if cars are parked at that spot would they need to put the standards of a parking lot or can cars be just be parked there for storage? He said because he was trying to get past what Sergeant Bates said about the parking guidelines – that it did not address this type of commercial automobile sales or car display area parking plan and he wished that Sergeant Bates was there that evening. Ms. Macdonald advised that she would call him and ask that he come down to the town hall if he was available.

Mr. Morrissette said, realistically, if a car is parked in the storage area and somebody comes in the front say to look at a Toyota Camry and that’s not the one they want and they are told that there is one in the back, they are going to sell it from the back, they are not going to say that they cannot sell it because it’s in the storage area. He said the effective use has just expanded the lot and he thinks that the Selectmen have to determine whether or not the entire piece of property is licensed and he thinks that it is a legitimate question – no one can prove to the Board that it is or is not, it’s just the fact that it has been used that way over the years, that doesn’t make that right.

Ms. Richards asked Attorney Levine what the car dealer regulations are currently? Attorney Levine said there has been an implication that they have been running illegally. Mr. Morrissette said no, they were not saying they were. Attorney Levine said that the presumption was that Mr. Crosier has been operating under the legal jurisdiction of a licensed issued by the town. Mr. Morrissette said that they could not base their approval of a Special Permit based on assumptions. He said that the Board always makes sure that somebody actually owns a piece of property before they do a Special Permit or Site Plan on it. Attorney Levine said that Mr. Crosier owns the piece of property. Mr. Morrissette sad that he was just using that as a example. Attorney Levine said that he thinks it is getting mixed up with the Selectmen’s jurisdiction over a Special Permit or Site Plan, what the issue is currently. Mr. Morrissette said the question is can they legally just park cars on the entire site?

Ms. Richards said that she was going to comment that he has been in business far longer than the rules and regulations which the Board of Selectmen adopted when they were on the Board. Attorney Levine said that‘s why the gray area and there is no specific language addressing this issue. Ms. Richards asked if the license requires a plot plan that shows abutters or that shows the area that is being considered for licensing? Attorney Levine said that he did not think one was ever required. Ms. Richards asked if the licensing process itself required a filing of a plot plan. Attorney Levine said no not for the Selectmen’s purposes. Ms. Richards said so there is no way that the Board go back and determine what was applied for in prior years. Attorney Levine said that photographs, testimony, etc. would have to be shown or heard.

Mr. Calabrese said he thinks with a Special Permit they are looking at the use of that site and in this particular case it is a pre-existing non-conforming lot as far as what is required and the same use is going to be continued. He said if for some reason the Board approves a Special Permit and a year from now the license is challenged as to the area allowed for selling cars – the Special Permit is still good but they just could not sell cars (without a license). He thinks the licensing authority is the person that makes the call.

Mr. Morrissette said that he thinks it is the original piece of property not counting the parcel next to Mrs. Small, the original parcel, if that was licensed for 50 cars you cannot fit 50 cars based on the parking regulations. He said that it doesn’t seem to work and he understands that it’s pre-existing non-conforming, he was allowed to do what he needed and he didn’t even have to come to the Board, however, for the Board to glorify it by saying that we approve the Special Permit - now that it ices everything, he thinks it locks it all in place but he is not sure it is the right thing to do.

Ms. Richards said the process of the Special Permit is to look at the parcel - look at the issues that have come up within the pubic hearing. She added that perhaps the Board can address some concerns - maybe some landscaped buffer on the side that abuts the residential property that might make things a little more appealing to the neighbor and less encroaching on her driveway.

Mr. Morrissette said that her property is residentially used but it is business zoned.

Mrs. Small asked how many square feet was involved? Ms. Richards said if the lot was being built today it would require 20,000 square feet minimum but it is a pre-existing lot. Mrs. Small asked how many square feet he was grandfathered in for? Mr. Calabrese answered for whatever he has and - he knows in Springfield it the size of the building and the dimensions of the lot on the license, but he is not certain how it is for East Longmeadow.

Mr. Anderson asked once a license was issued how long is it good for? Mr. Morrissette said 1 year. Mr. Anderson said so every year does the same plan have to be submitted.

Ms. Richards said that if there were no changes renewals didn’t go before the Selectmen, rather simply a license renewal.

Mr. Przybylowicz asked was it the license that maximized the numbers of vehicles sold or that something the town establishes? Attorney Levine said that the town establishes within his file there is a notation up to 50 cars allowed on the premises.

Mr. Calabrese addressed the audience for further questions.

Mr. Calabrese asked Ms. Small if there was something that could be done between herself and the new owners to try and satisfy her concerns? Ms. Small said that she wasn’t sure because she doesn’t know what he is going to put in there. She said that she doesn’t want another junk yard in there. Mr. Calabrese said that the Board doesn’t want that either but he was concerned about what she said before about people parking on your property and he is sure they can address that situation with no difficulty at all.

Mr. Calabrese asked her what she saw as a solution to make people not park on her property? He added that the building that he owns is also pre-existing, non-conforming and he has worked for the last 27 years to have a harmonious and good relationship with people who live in the neighborhood, and he is sure that these people would like to the same thing. He said that they cannot go back and erase what was going on for the last 42 years but with a Special Permit the Board could address concerns like that and he thinks perhaps that maybe it could be done. Ms. Small said if he already has a place in Chicopee that’s jammed packed with cars is she going to get jammed packed in East Longmeadow?

Mr. Calabrese said that he didn’t know if he was jammed packed with cars in Chicopee.

Attorney Levine said that he has been up to the Chicopee site and it is not jammed packed, it’s quite the opposite. He said that they where just asking to be allowed the maximum of 50 vehicles but it doesn’t mean he is going to have it.

Mr. Calabrese said he would like to know what could be done to make her situation better in the future and so far it is someone impeding on your property. He asked Ms. Small if she would like a chain link fence along her property line? Ms. Small said that she doesn’t care for chain link fences and she would still be able to look and see the cars. Mr. Ricco said that he was opened to suggestions.

Attorney Levine asked if he could make a suggestion in that the parties would meet Ms. Small directly and discuss it. Mr. Calabrese said that they could do that but it would entail another meeting. Attorney Levine asked what impact would that have on the Special Permit deliberations? Mr. Calabrese said that they would make that a condition of the Special Permit that the new owners are agreeing to put a fence because Ms. Small has been complaining over the years that she has had problems with cars parking on her driveway or near her driveway. Attorney Levine said if they agree to a fence and you tell them the set back then they are giving up their rights to their land. Mr. Calabrese said that’s why the question - is the 3 foot issue really her land?

Ms. Richards said that it is business zoned and there is no side yard criteria. Mr. Calabrese said that he was talking about the back property line. Mr. Morrissette said the property is the property line and someone has to determine where the property line actually is and that is the not the Board’s issue. Ms. Richards so even in the business zone a fence would have to be 3 feet. Ms. Macdonald said a chain link is 6 inches from the property line.

Mr. DiRicco said if the line was determined they would not park cars on her land. Attorney Levine said that the line could be determined because it was surveyed.

Ms. Richards said that the license, based on December 31, 2006, is subject to the car dealer regulations of the Town of East Longmeadow, so if there is anything that the Board wants to emphasize or discuss they should do that because the license is based on this.

Attorney Levine said that they might want to ask Town Counsel his opinion because it is not clear as the regulations were adopted after the issuance of the first license for this site.

Mr. Morrissette said when it is renewed it is renewed with that statement saying that the new license is subject to those regulations. Attorney Levine asked the Board if there were certain issues within the regulations they have concerns with?

Mr. Calabrese said that they were close to resolving the issue and asked the parties if they wanted to take 5 minutes to discuss it? Attorney Levine said yes they would like to take 5 or 10 minutes to speak with Mrs. Small.

At this time, Sergeant Bates arrived at the meeting. Mr. Calabrese said after speaking with Attorney Levine, and if they were not to use the other drive and put chain there that would be satisfactory to you? Sergeant Bates said originally he had said no, just because of the confusion it would present, but at the original meeting it wasn’t brought to his intention that they intended to move vehicles in the front lot. He added that they really needed that entrance/exit for their own private use to facilitate the moving of those vehicles. He thinks with the fencing and landscaping it will probably sufficiently address the issue.

Mr. Przybylowicz asked if the fencing would be chain link chain? Sergeant Bates said that his biggest concern about the fencing is that it present something very clear to the motoring public so he is suggesting that they start at the southeast corner go across the front and whatever gate section they have there, and then go all the way around to the driveway on Barnum Street. He said he would place the poles close enough so that when people see the poles they are going to understand that it is a fence, that they cannot drive onto the property. Sergeant Bates also said that he would place them close enough so that they present a nice clear facade all the way around so that it is be visible especially at night time when people are driving down there.

Mr. Przybylowicz asked if landscaping would be better than the chain link fence or would you want to see both? Sergeant Bates said without the curb cut being removed he would rather see both, if the curb cut is removed then he probably wouldn’t be recommending the fence because the curbing would be all the way around to the driveway. However, without the curb cut being sealed he thinks they probably should make it clearer that’s not an access for the general public.

Attorney Levine said that he was confused, if they merely left the curb cut for that one entry way and put the post and one chain link and the rest of the property continue onto Barnum Street has a curb, why would you need fencing?

Sergeant Bates said that his personal opinion is it would be clearer for the people going to that property. He said the poles are there now and there are wheels with poles sticking up and are attached by chains and for some reason it goes all the way down around Barnum Street. He said at some point there must have been some confusion even by the previous people there and, personally, he thinks that it should be continued further down Barnum.

Mr. Calabrese asked Mr. Crosier what his intention was when he did that? Mr. Crosier said the insurance company required it for safety reasons.

Attorney Levine said they discussed guide wire going through the chain and one of the problems with snow removal and the maneuverability of a snow plow. He asked would it help the situation where the curb cut remains if a small directional sign was placed there saying entrance with an arrow on Barnum Street? Sergeant Bates said in addition to some fence, yes. Attorney Levine said just the curb cut area because most people if there is a curb there with all the remaining section - won’t most people understand that is not an entry way?

Sergeant Rick Bates answered that he didn’t know and normally when the plans are done like this the petitioners planning to upgrade the site go to him with something showing what they are anticipating on doing and then they go from there and try to fine tune it. He said like he told Ms. Macdonald there is no fence indicated on the plan and so his personal opinion for the safety and maybe even for the looks it would be better off if they had some kind of fence that at least made corner on Barnum Street so along the front of North Main street and around the corner. Sergeant Bates said if you don’t want to go all the way to the driveway on Barnum Street that is negotiable as well but he thinks that they should at least address the front of the property on the North Main Street side.

Mr. Calabrese said basically you are looking for something that would just alert the driving public that they can’t access there. He said so they need to come up with something that work there. Attorney Levine asked if that would resolve the Board’s concern? He said that he thought that it would resolve Sergeant Bates concern. Attorney Levine said if it was mandated that the front line along North Main Street had to have to cars constantly there.

Mr. Morrissette said that he thinks that Sergeant Bates’ concern was the curb cut itself because people look at a curb cut as an entrance. Attorney Levine said the curb cut itself has 2 poles and chain link that is always there with a sign on it. Mr. Morrissette said personally he thinks that curb cut should be gone.

Sergeant Bates said another concern was the parking space inside. Attorney Levine said that they didn’t have a problem changing it and they can designate a space outside. Sergeant Bates said with the chain he would be willing to figure out something so it was very clear that you can’t drive over there and Mr. Crosier said that he never had a problem with doing anything that Sergeant Bates asked.

Mr. Calabrese said that it seemed to him that they could probably put some railroad ties to create somewhat of a barrier, and from a marketing standpoint it certainly would be a lot more attractive than any fence. Sergeant Bates said that he couldn’t address marketing, only safety. Mr. Calabrese said that he realized that but, it should accomplish the same thing from a marketing standpoint, putting a fence there if you want to show off your shiny cars there and if they are behind the fence that couldn’t be done.

Sergeant Bates said that he didn’t want people to get the wrong idea, he is not looking for a solid fence or chain link fence or anything like that and it wasn’t his suggestion just a few of the yellow poles with one connecting piece of chain as long it’s visible would be fine with him.

Mr. Calabrese said that he thought they were showing some landscaping so that would enhance the looks of the outside.

Mrs. Small asked if the signage is moved would that do anything to the visibility for getting on out of Barnum Street? Mr. Calabrese said that was why they were moving it. Sergeant Bates said that it would be set back far enough according to their design and it shouldn’t effect visibility. He said that it really doesn’t prohibit visibility now – it is simply that they indicated they were moving the sign so his recommendation was that it be positioned so as not to interfere with visibility exiting Barnum Street.

Mr. Przybylowicz asked what about the parking of cars in the storage area? Sergeant Bates said the only thing that they tried to address was a different way so that there was a travel isle but there is not enough room on that piece of property to do that as indicated in the by-laws. He said at the bottom of his report he mentioned the fact that we really don’t have any guidelines for this type of setup the are proposing, so he really can’t say it’s going to be okay or not. One thing in favor of this site is the fact that the police has not had any problems with the business in the past and he doesn’t anticipate any problems with the business in the future. Sergeant Bates said that it would have to be left up to them to indicate that it’s a safe storage of vehicles back there and then if it is not we would probably address it with them until we found the problem.

Ms. Richards said that the Board has dealt with the issue of the storage of trailers and the Fire Department requesting so much space between trailers for accessibility. She said they have also have dealt with that pretty unsuccessfully with Potter’s Sport Car and the fact that they are just sandwiched in at that site.

Sergeant Bates said that it is a very difficult area for the us when we respond if one of the cars is broken into and it is very difficult to get to the back fenced area to adequately check vehicles. He said the way they are presenting it is backing in 3 or 4 lanes wide, nose to bumpers, as long as there is space to move between the vehicles, that would be fine.

Mr. Calabrese asked if the Board could hear about the discussion with Mrs. Small whether we were able to remedy her problem with the concerns she had over the past?

Attorney Levine said they agreed to put a hedge the entire length of the property line. He said that there is a practical matter even if they had the hedge there they wouldn’t want to put the vehicles right against the hedge because they wouldn’t be able to walk around the cars. Mr. Calabrese said that the shrubs would give her a little bit of a buffer. He asked Mr. Small if that made her happy? Mrs. Small said as of now.

Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to close the hearing.

Attorney Levine asked if the term “buffer” not be used, they don’t mind putting a hedge but not called a buffer.

Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the Special Permit conditioned upon a landscaped edge along the property line between the parcel and Mrs. Small property, the employee parking space will be eliminated within the existing building, the curb cut on North Main Street will be secured with a chain and 2 poles at all times, fencing to extend from the curb cut on North Main Street around the parcel to the first driveway.

Decision on Special Permit – Steve Graziano

Clerk, Donald Anderson, read an e-mail dated February 20th from Ms. Macdonald advising that she spoke with Attorney Donahue and he feels that the Board is trying to issue a permit to allow one person to do what they want to do and that this permit as written is inappropriate. With that said please consider:

1. This permit creates an enforcement nightmare.

2. There are no reasons why the restrictions currently on this site are unfair and why they should be lifted.

3. The plan must be in hand and fully referenced and all the issues fully described in the permit.

4. Low volume must be addressed specifically and defined.

5. A restricted covenant should be imposed on the owner regarding the low volume identifying the use, the number of employees and the number of trips.

6. A restriction on the deed.

7. The permit appears to be granted to someone because he is a nice guy and Attorney Donahue feels that it will be huge problem for future Boards and future owners.

Overall, Attorney Donahue would like to discuss the issues with the Board members before the Board provides any permit on the site.

Attorney Manning said that he attempted to do some redrafting and provided some language for the Board to review.

Ms. Richards said that she had an opportunity to look at the findings and the conditions that Attorney Manning redrafted and she cross referenced it with their draft Special Permit and some of things she personally didn’t agree with but the Board needs to talk about it. She said that the Board struggled with it 2 weeks ago with respect to the outstanding issues in leasing the building and getting things moving and working out the language. She said after they got input from Town Counsel she personally thinks they need to meet with him to talk about this before we move forward.

Mr. Anderson asked if there was any way if they moved in at their own risk. Ms. Richards said that the existing Special Permit says no, they cannot get an occupancy permit. Mr. Morrissette said that they cannot get any permits until the Special Permit has been filed and the appeals period has expired. Mr. Przybylowicz said that it is unfortunate that these people are in this position and it is kind of an awkward situation for all of them but the Special Permit that was issued years ago is very specific.

Attorney Manning said what he was trying to do in the redrafting - because the original draft refers to the fact that the Board would have site plan review or waive site plan review and was intended for low volume uses. He continued by stating that Attorney Donahue has a problem with but he thinks the most important thing is to try and define what they discussed and what he has proposed is that there is a limitation on the tenant’s use. He said that the discussion they had last week indicated that the Board would consider having one personal services shop which hopefully would be in the form of Mr. & Mrs. Gomes beauty shop, to be limited to no more than 1,200 square feet. He said the remainder of the premises would be limited to professional/commercial office use which backs it away from the purposes that are found in the business zone and it brings it back to the commercial zone which hopefully would be lighter use, would not impose the same kind of traffic that some of the business uses would. He said that was what he attempted to do by trying to define specifically and again it is always subject to coming before the Board and requesting waiver of site plan and ultimately approving the use within those parameters.

Ms. Richards said the struggle with this particular issue is the combination of the uses and she doesn’t disagree with him and with what he suggested as being as one personal service and the rest of the space being dedicated to commercial/office space. Attorney Manning said with no more than two occupants you do not get involved with five or six little spaces that could create a greater burden. Ms. Richards asked if he was talking about the Prospect Street section because we are also dealing with Shaker Road? Attorney Manning said yes and he cannot see how they could deal with Shaker Road.

Attorney Donahue said in the draft he tried to point out that they are dealing with the expanded version of that property which is known as 37-39 Prospect Street. Ms. Richards said what she is struggling with is that Steve Graziano has a responsibility in the process also in that the Board talked with Raveis Realty and they had the entire floor and said that on average it was 5 to 7 agents at a time for the entire floor and so it was a good use it was a reasonable use and her concern is over utilization of the site in a section of town where there is not adequate off-street parking. She said that it could work but the way she read the language it was basically if the Board says yes to that then that’s what is going to be allowed. She said the impact of the combination is the is the key to the whole process because, for an example, a commercial use of one tax accountant would create X amount of impact, a commercial use of 2 physicians with people coming and going - the impact is greater. Attorney Manning said that they are really not that far off from what would be required for that space.

Mr. Morrissette said they are talking about under 5,000 square feet at 5 per thousand is 25 spaces. Ms. Richards said that Town Counsel said that we also shouldn’t divide the property up. Mr. Morrissette said that he could understand Town Counsel’s issue with

that but the Board has to deal with practicality and be realistic. He said that the Board is trying to deal with the issue and he is trying to get something in writing that would deal with the issue, that doesn’t work, they don’t match in this case. Mr. Morrissette said the 3 units on the lower part on Shaker Road are about 3,000 square feet and they have no parking for them - virtually.

Mr. Calabrese asked if there were 30 parking spaces currently? Ms. Richards said no there are only19 spaces and what they added a handicapped space (referred to the plan for the location) and the Board asked that the spaces be identified in measurements and we don’t have that. She said in the last plan that they received the parking space (referred to the plan for the location) was not identified. Mr. Morrissette said that they got rid of the dumpster. Ms. Richards asked if the dumpster was gone and she asked him why it wasn’t on the plan.

Attorney Manning said that he recalled that he said he was going to move it so that the parking space would come back into play. Ms. Richards said when she asked him 2 weeks ago why it wasn’t on the plan he said he didn’t know why and the minutes reflect that but she doesn’t want him to put it back after the plan is approved.

Mr. Morrissette said there are 19 spaces with a 4,700 square foot building with 1,200 square feet being taken away with 7 spaces so that would leave 3,500 square feet left. Attorney Manning said no that they are starting with 3,700 square feet on the upper floor because the total building is not quite 7,000 square feet so they will be left with about 2,500 square feet. Mr. Morrissette said ok that was what he was trying to get to but after they left the Board had a discussion about some discrepancy in the actual square footage of the upper level.

Ms. Macdonald said yes the total of the building is 7,099 square feet and the 2nd level added was 3,875 square feet. She said that the existing building (lower Shaker Road) consists of 3,224 square feet.

Mr. Gomes said that there is 86 square feet that is not occupied - that is a staircase on the right side that goes down to the cellar and the staircase is 12 x 6 and then there is duct work box which is 6 x 6 for the air conditioning that can’t be occupied also.

Mr. Morrissette said they now have a building that’s very close to being in conformity the idea is how do we word the Special Permit to allow the fact that they are going have a professional service, actually anybody that fits into the commercial district whatever that zone change be used for would be able to fit in there.

Mr. Morrissette then read the language that Attorney Manning proposed for #5 restriction. “The use by any prospective tenant or occupant intending to occupy that portion of the premises at 37-39 Prospect Street shall be limited to no more than 3 separate business tenants/occupants conducting a business of commercial or professional offices except, however, there may be one personal service shop having an area of the building not exceeding 1,200 square feet. Not withstanding this prevision all such uses by any prospective tenant or occupant shall be subject to review by the Board”. He said that it makes sense.

Ms. Richards said she had the opportunity to think this through and went back to the minutes and looked at the discussion they had over low volume uses and understands that is subjective just like overburden the parking area is subjective. She also said they talked about why the initial permit was created, and while some people may think it was an unjust thing, she really believed that the Planning Board at that time tried to make the right decision to benefit an existing business man and the location of his business and the fact that his business was marketed as being a low volume use. She said that he needed space for his studio, he needed space for his equipment and 20 to 30 people coming and going wasn’t an issue at that time and obviously his business grew and that’s why he moved.

Attorney Manning said that he thinks any reasonable Board Member or Business Applicant, if you look down the road that’s going to happen. He said they rely on that decision, rely on the variance. Ms. Richards said she went back and tried to reflect what they talked about and she thought review and approval of any future tenant/occupant and combination of uses on the premises will be subject to available parking pursuant to section 5.6 off street parking in East Longmeadow by-law. She said that consideration will be given by the Planning Board to that of low volume uses in the event the minimum parking standard is not met - all of which are to be determined by the Planning Board. She said that Board doesn’t have the authority to circumvent their by-laws and if you take away the restriction that’s there then the rules apply. In this case is that fair?

Attorney Manning said he thinks that Attorney Donahue has probably more of a problem with that then they do. Ms. Richards said she didn’t know because he hasn’t seen it. He thinks it’s important to tie that into the commercial office use too because again that backs you away from the business so he can’t even come in and ask the Board for anything within that business zone.

Mr. Calabrese said that he would like to go back to the original Special Permit if that were coming before the Board today they wouldn’t be able to issue a Special Permit to create a non-conforming structure, right?

Attorney Manning said that they have the same issue now with the Shaker Road building. Mr. Calabrese asked if the Shaker Road was non-conforming? Ms. Richards said yes and Attorney Manning said and that’s what triggers the need for the special permit. Mr. Calabrese said so what he Board did is created another non-conformity in a sense that they allowed this building to go up that didn’t have the proper parking?

Ms. Macdonald said that the Zoning Board is the Board that made the error because they issued a variance when they had no authority to issue it. Mr. Calabrese asked so did the Planning Board give him a Special Permit because he was expanding on a pre-existing non-conforming structure? Ms. Macdonald said correct and it was no more detrimental to the neighborhood. Mr. Calabrese asked if it was business zone? Ms. Macdonald said yes. Mr. Calabrese said now there is a Special Permit and now it is going to be amended so with that Special Permit we can address what we have there and basically say that 1,200 square feet will be the most they can use for retail and the balance has to be used for commercial?

Mr. Calabrese said that it would be confusing to some Board in the future saying it’s zoned business why are they doing that? He said but by saying this is only for a 1,200 square foot retail business and the balance would be used for commercial purposes and the Planning Board would have to make a determination if there is any kind of a change in use. He said that the change of use would trigger a need for a Special Permit.

Attorney Manning said any change in use or any new tenant or occupant that comes in and you are hearing what they are doing it’s in your minutes and if all of sudden they aren’t doing what they said they were doing when they came in first to see you the that would be a violation of the Special Permit.

Mr. Calabrese said the way the non-conforming use by-law reads is that it could continue in that business and it can also change as long as it is not more detrimental.

Ms. Macdonald said that it’s not a non-conforming use it’s a non-conforming structure.

Ms. Richards said that it’s not a non-conforming use at that location. Ms. Macdonald said that it’s the structure but the Special Permit because of the constriction limited it to Veritech only.

Mr. Calabrese said so we are saying that they can’t use it for business for more than 1,200 square feet but they can use it as commercial for the remainder or all of it?

Ms. Macdonald said that was what Attorney Donahue had a problem with because he thinks it’s overstepping the authority and too subjective. Mr. Morrissette asked what was subjective about it. Mr. Anderson said because it’s taxed as a business property. Ms. Richards said that they were also trying to make sense out of a decision that was in 1984. Mr. Calabrese said back then they could have given approval for a smaller building, it would not have the problems.

Ms. Macdonald said Attorney Donahue said you have to deal with the hand your dealt, the variance for the parking as well as the way the special permit reads. Mr. Morrissette said that was why he went through the exercise because he thinks they’re close with the square footage and everything else. He said that there is enough parking with 1 space short and they could limit it 2 tenants if you want because if you have 3 tenants you have 2 owners so they definitely are going to have 2 parking spaces taken up.

Ms. Macdonald asked if they were showing 30 spaces on the plan? Mr. Przybylowicz said he thought 29 spaces. Ms. Macdonald said if there is not 30 spaces they would be in violation of the variance. Ms. Richards said that it shows 30 spaces and she wasn’t sure of the dimensions of the spaces. She said they added the handicapped space in front of the walkway and there was discussion about moving the sheds. Ms. Richards said the plan doesn’t have dimensions and that it says that parking stalls are existing except for handicapped #12.

Attorney Manning said he could get a revised plan from Smith Associates.

Ms. Richards said what complicates things is that they put together with Ms. Macdonald, an original draft for the Special Permit and she reviewed the findings and the conditions and sent it back to her and the Board members agreed with the decision. She said then it went to Attorney Manning and he came back with different findings and she e-mailed everyone back with her concerns and now they have additional findings and conditions which should at least warrant some discussion in terms of whether it is valid or not valid.

Ms. Macdonald said the one thing that the entire Board agreed upon is that the permit run with the owner and not the land, as long as it did not hurt a new owner.

Attorney Manning said he thinks it almost an unreasonable restraint on title -he is proposing the Special Permit as amended shall run with the land and shall be binding on any grantee or successor owner. However if such grantee or successor/owner intends to occupy the premises, such occupancy shall be subject to the approval of the Board as provided here and after.

Ms. Richards said that the Board’s position has been consistent - that’s the way we have been handling Special Permits with restaurants, all go with the owner. Attorney Manning said the restaurant itself - not passage of title - for the business because you have licensing procedure there, there is a difference when you have a licensing procedure. Ms. Richards said her concern was that the property would go from one person to another and that new person would not even have knowledge of a Special Permit. She said with all do respect to the current owner he didn’t know that he needed to come to the Board when he rented - when he leased the whole 2nd floor to Raveis Realty. Attorney Manning said that he doesn’t disagree that is an enforceable kind of issue.

Ms. Richards said the second thing is that the whole focus of the Special Permit is not the structure, not the land but actually the impact of that use at that location because of how we got to where they are now. She said that the Board is not challenging the fact that it’s zoned appropriately the whole issue deals with how is that parcel going to be used and she feels more comfortable if it’s in the name of the owner of the that parcel. Attorney Manning said he feels that is totally unreasonable, he never heard of that. Ms. Richards said that they have been doing that for a long time for all the Special Permits. Attorney Manning said that he thought they have been doing it under limited circumstances. Ms. Richards said when have we not put a special permit with the owner? Attorney Manning said it is for the use - it’s not for the title of the building and he thinks the distinction is the licensing of a particular use. Ms. Richards said that she thinks they should meet with Town Counsel and hash it all out.

Mr. Morrissette felt that nothing was going to get settled unless Attorney Donahue is present because nobody is going to agree on anything until someone is present to straighten it out.

Mr. Anderson said that he agreed that the distinction is the licensing and a simple change of title for purposes of forming a corporation, partnership or something like that.

Ms. Richards asked how the Special Permit was handled for the Center Village? Ms. Macdonald said that it was in the owner’s names and the old Special Permit for Graziano was in his name.

Mr. Morrissette said the modification is just the fact that it said for Veritech and all we want to do is get the name Veritech out of it, that it was just specific for that company and to be able to put in 1 or 2 or maybe 3 other companies with a restriction to low volume. He said the Board of Appeals granted them a variance for reduction of the parking and there’s nothing they can do about it.

Mr. Anderson asked Attorney Manning if we remove the name Veritech but allow it to run with the land for title purposes only, would you be ok with that? Attorney Manning said yes.

Ms. Richards said that she thinks they really need to give Town Counsel the opportunity

weigh in on this and discuss all theses issues. Mr. Calabrese said that he thinks that it makes sense that Attorney Donahue, Attorney Manning and Ms. Macdonald come up with something and Ms. Macdonald will send us the results of what they thought as a group would work. He said at least 4 members of the Board have to be able to review it and agree to it.

Ms. Richards said that really tried to push through this process, 2 weeks ago we were really hopeful that we could come with some language tonight to button it up and move forward so that they could get into the building when they wanted to. She thinks the one piece of information that has never been out on the table is the fact that the owner of the building who went into an agreement with you before this process was even settled needs to take some responsibility for it. She said that they are attempting damage control. Attorney Manning said that’s why he is there. Ms. Richards said the Board is being pushed into making decisions. Attorney Manning said that they are not being pushed at all because they have agreed to about 3 continuances and it has been going on since the fall and he doesn’t mean to bring that up but they agreed to about 6 weeks of continuances, he said they aren’t pushing, they should be pushing and if it was any other lawyer they would be pushing.

Mr. Przybylowicz said he understand the predicament they are in and he is somewhat embarrassed about it and they are stressed that they are occupying a building that they are no longer welcome in. Mr. Calabrese said that he thinks what is important is that all 5 of us Board members voted for this and all 5 of us shall have the opportunity to review what ever language comes up so if that’s the case there is nothing to worry about.

Attorney Manning said hopefully it won’t have to be put off for another 2 weeks, maybe we can agree that you bring it home and finalize a few things and get it signed a few days after that possibly, if we can work something out with Attorney Donahue & Ms. Macdonald.

Mr. Calabrese said that Ms. Macdonald will get together with Attorney Manning and Town Counsel and whomever from the Board would like to attend. He said when that is completed and there is a resolution that’s satisfactory by all the parties, Ms. Macdoanld will inform all of the Board Members by e-mail and until each Board Member is satisfied with the language the Special Permit it would not be approved. He said that way everyone has an opportunity so if it’s 2 weeks or 4 weeks, whatever it works out to be because all 5 people voted, all 5 people should have the right to review the language.

Therefore, with no further business and upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted to close the meeting at 10:45 p.m.

Very truly yours,

Donald J. Anderson, Clerk