Minutes of April 3, 2007

Present were: Louis Calabrese, Chair; Marilyn Richards, Vice Chair; Donald Anderson, Clerk and Thomas Morrissette. Michael Przybylowicz arrived later.

Meeting with Temporary Building Inspector/Zoning Officer

Ms. Macdonald introduced the temporary Building Inspector/Zoning Officer Steve Houle to the Board. Steve spoke to the Board about the vehicles at Bach’s towing and advised that some had been removed on flat beds. He said that he will go back and take another look. Mr. Calabrese asked if they were storing junk or wrecked vehicles? Ms. Richards said the waiver of site plan was strictly for an office location so they could bid on the Town’s Contract, no storage or vehicles was requested or allowed, and they said they took their vehicles home so they would be able to respond 24/7.

Mr. Houle said in Mr. Hellyer’s defense there is one thing about building officials - they are trained in building code issues but very few of them received any training on zoning enforcement - there are certain procedures that have to be followed when you get into a court system. He said that he had personalized training from Judge Fine of the Springfield court system. Ms. Richards asked if something like that was still available for Inspector’s if they wanted additional training? Mr. Houle said yes that they can usually arrange that depending on the judge’s timetable, but they have been very very good. Mr. Morrissette asked Mr. Houle what his background was? Mr. Houle said that he was a retired Civil Engineer from the Air Force and from there became the Building Commissioner for the Town of Ludlow.

Mr. Anderson asked Mr. Houle if he has seen anything that might be out of date in the Zoning By-laws? Mr. Houle said that he did notice that in the unregistered motor vehicle law the word “motor” should be eliminated - keep the section as it is because that will cover all the trailers, boat trailers, utility trailers, ATV’s, RV’s, etc. which are all classified as vehicles by the Registry. He said anything that requires a registration plate to be attached to it is going to be a vehicle and he said if you have the word “motor” you restrict yourselves to what you really want to enforce. He said anything that requires a registration plate cleans up the language so that the enforcement agency can say ok you’re only allowed 1 unregistered vehicle. He said people don’t mind fairness – it is when you’re not consistent with the law, if you make up your own laws that’s bad because that’s worse than doing nothing.

Mr. Calabrese asked Mr. Houle if he has seen any situations where there’s an enforcement agent that works primarily for the Planning Board just enforcement of zoning by-laws? Mr. Houle said no - usually within your general by-laws most cities have the Building Inspector as the Zoning Enforcement officer.

Ms. Macdonald said the Connecticut statute reads that the Zoning Enforcement Officer is under the Planning Board; however, the Massachusetts statute reads if there is a Building Inspector then the Selectmen shall ask him to be the Zoning Enforcement Officer. However, Town Counsel stated that could be changed simply by going to town meeting and having the change accepted as part of the general by-laws of the town.

Mr. Morrissette asked Mr. Houle if he has had time to do the job of issuing permits and inspections along with the zoning enforcement? Mr. Houle said barely but it could be done but it’s getting to point of being pretty thin.

Ms. Richards asked Mr. Houle if he would provide the office of the Board with copies of building permits to allow Ms. Macdonald to see if there were any red flags (i.e. §6 requirements or restrictions) so as to then initiate a visit with the Planning Board? Mr. Houle did not have a problem with making sure that the Planning office got copies of all the building permits. Mr. Houle said if Munis works out the minute the application is done it will be available through the computer.

Ms. Richards asked Mr. Houle if he had received any signage change for Veritech in Industrial Garden Park? Mr. Houle said no. Ms. Richards said that a while ago the Board was told that the sign people were going to be meeting with the Building Inspector to talk about the specs for the movement of the illegal sign that has been illegal for the past 2 years. Mr. Houle said no he hasn’t received anything but has had a lot of sign companies call him in the past 2 weeks on what it takes, what the rules are and regs, sizes and stuff like that. Ms. Richards said that for this particular issue there is acknowledgement that it is an illegal sign and there has also been some cooperation in trying to make it work by attaching it to the building to make it more of a legal sign. Mr. Houle assured her that he would look into the matter.

With no further discussion the Board thanked Mr. Houle for coming in and asked him to stay for the remainder of the meeting

Public Hearing – Ramona Circle Subdivision

At 7:10 p.m., Chair, Louis Calabrese opened the hearing and introduced the Board members. Clerk, Mr. Anderson read the legal notice and correspondence into the record. Frank Miorandi, DPW reviewed the revised plan dated March 16, 2007 and wrote the following comments and observations:

The sidewalk beginning at the intersection at Parker Street should have a landing area and also a ramp northwesterly across the granite to the road surface and should comply with the American Disabilities Act, the westerly side of the sidewalk is shown terminating at the proposed driveway as you know this is a much smoother transition rather than from sidewalk to a turf area. It has always been the Planning Board’s preference to continue the walk to a point half way around the cul-de-sac as there is no driveway in the immediate vicinity he would suggest a ramp to the road surface at this end of the roadway as well. The fire hydrant located at lot 3 should be extended westerly approximately 30 feet to a location just easterly of the 100 foot buffer and the proposed water main located stations from 3 plus 40 to 4 plus 20 may conflict with other utilities if there is need for any further excavation. The entire water main should follow a reasonable location dimension as shown on the standard road section layout shown as dimension F catch basins and covers should be concrete with a rectangular grade and all with a drop inlay. A second review will be necessary to ensure town standards.

The Selectmen’s letter stated that they voted to recommend approval subject to Police and Fire requirements and recommendations. The Police Department recommended that street lights be installed to improve the safety for pedestrian and vehicular traffic at the site. Illumination also reduces a potential for criminal activity at the site and the issue was discussed at a meeting with the developer. They recommended that sidewalks be installed at the site to improve the safety for pedestrian traffic and sidewalks will also allow for a centralized school bus stop location at the intersection of Ramona Circle and Parker Street, the issue was discussed with the developer and an agreement was reached which will meet the recommendations of this section. They recommended that the street sign be installed as soon as construction at the site begins to assist emergency personnel in responding to calls for assistance, the issue was discussed with the developer and an agreement was reached which will meet the recommendations of this section. The police also recommended that the developer comply with the existing noise restriction by-law. The Fire Department wrote that fire hydrants shall be located and installed as directed by the Fire Department. The hydrant currently shown on the submitted plans may be moved to the lot line at the discretion of the water department. The Fire Department is requiring that an additional hydrant be located at the intersection of Parker Street and Ramona Circle in lot #5.

Mr. Calabrese asked the developer to make his presentation.

Gary Sufritti introduced his father, Everett Sufritti. Mr. Sufritti explained that they had a Conservation meeting and he is making a few changes according to their requirements. He said as for the sidewalk issue, he has no problem if it is the Board’s decision to bring it to the middle of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Sufritti said that he thought that the fire hydrants were already changed on the revised plan that Mr. Cafarelli did and he faxed the letter that Mr. Miorandi gave to him over to Mr. Cafarelli’s office and believes that he brought it to Don Smith with the revisions. However, he would get a revised plan to the Board - they are proposing a 5 lot subdivision at Parker Street.

Mr. Morrissette advised that since the Conservation Commission has continued its’ hearing – the developer must provide revised plans and obtain the DPW’s approval for the drainage system, the Planning Board will have to continue the hearing and have them come back .

Ms. Macdonald reminded Mr. Sufritti the same revised plan must be filed with both boards. Mr. Sufritti said that he was hoping to have that with him. Ms. Macdonald asked if the fire hydrants, lighting and the signs were done? He said the issue had just come up after the on-site walk with the Conservation Commission on Sunday. They checked all of the flags, the soils were checked and the Commission agreed with all of Pioneer Enviornmental’s findings.

Mr. Houle stated that he believed the sidewalk should go completely around on both sides of the street in case there were handicapped people on the street. Mr. Sufritti said that there were 2 ways they could do that instead of going all the way around, stop and leave it stopped right at here (pointed on the plan) and put another sidewalk walk to go to the other driveway that way they are all covered. Mr. Houle said his suggestion was fine.

Ms. Richards asked if he said that he would be willing to put sidewalks on both sides to the furthest driveway? Mr. Sufritti said yes, extend it to the driveway Ms. Richards asked if their intention was to have the street accepted by the town once everything is completed? Mr. Sufritti said yes.

Mr. Morrissette stated that the street name would have to be changed. He explained - if it was an actual circle they could call it a circle but the Board would prefer if they called it drive, lane, road, way or street.

Mr. Calabrese addressed the Board for any further questions. Being none, he addressed the audience for any questions.

Dawn Bretta, Fern Glen Road asked if there was going to be a privacy buffer between the houses? Mr. Sufritti said he does not intend on clear cutting the property.

Mr. Morrissette reminded Ms. Bretta that when someone buys the house and they want to clear to the edge of their property, they have the right to do that - the Board cannot require a buffer that will remain that way forever.

Ms. Bretta said that she understood that and asked if 25,000 square feet was the required size for zone A? Mr. Calabrese said yes, with 140 feet of frontage. He then addressed the Board for any further questions.

Mr. Morrissette reminded Mr. Suffretti that he must have to a clean bill of health from Conservation and DPW before the Planning Board would vote on an approval.

Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to continue the hearing until to April 17^th at 8:00 p.m.

Follow up meeting with Jessica Allan re: Valley Vision 2 and inclusionary by-law

Ms. Macdonald reminded Board that they wanted to meet with Ms. Allan again to see if it was going to be feasible to join in on Valley Vision 2 and to prepare an inclusionary by-law. She reminded the Board that they need to make a decision whether or not they want to go forward.

Ms. Allan from PVPC started the discussion regarding the Board’s feeling on exclusionary housing, a mixed use by-law and Valley Vision 2. Mr. Calabrese was in favor of an overlay by-law for the town’s future however it was the consensus of the other Board members that the town was not set up as a walking community and they felt that the available grant money would be better served for a community that was conducive to being a walking community. Further, Ms. Allan readdressed the Board’s negative decision for Valley Vision 2. After further discussion and the guarantee that the Town’s only obligation would be it’s promise to consider future proposals for by-law changes and suggested economic development, the Board unanimously agreed to recommend that the Board of Selectmen endorse the memorandum of agreement and join Valley Vision 2 all with the other surrounding communities. The members thanked Ms. Allan for her understanding their position not to go forward with the by-law.

Informal discussion with John Blaine re: Industrial Garden Park proposal

Attorney Edward Hill, John Blaine and Earl Phillips were present to talk about their client whom they could not identify. However, the client would like to move its’ operation to East Longmeadow and create 100 jobs. They are interested in the site of the old Package Machinery building at 330 Chestnut Street. However, they think they have a technical problem that relates to the land use classification. Attorney Hill said that their client does metal processing where they take metal turnings from titanium, nickel and cobalt. He said they run them through a crushing operation and then run them through a cleaning solution that is filtered with any residue being packaged and taken away. He said they take samples and run them through their laboratory to make sure they are the right mixture and the only waste that could be considered hazardous is what comes from the laboratory analysis process, which is extremely minimal.

After they determine that the analysis is correct the material is then packed and shipped by trucks. He said their customers take that product and melt it down and use it to create new airplanes and new airplane engines. He clarified that 80% of the business relates to processing the turnings and 20% of the business is the solids. Mr. Calabrese asked where the turnings come from - is it machine shops? Attorney Hill said all over and you might expect Boeing, Pratt & Whitney or Airbus. Mr. Calabrese asked if it would actually be a recycling operation? Attorney Hill said except that the front end is the bid process because of the value of the metals. Mr. Blaine said when their client came to them and said that they like the site at 330 Chestnut Street the first thing they did was to go to the zoning regulations and looked in the IGP zone. He said §3.01 says junk yards are prohibited and they read the definition of a junk yard and decided that they should come in talk to the Planning Board.

Mr. Blaine continued to state that all the operations will take place inside the building and trucks will be parked outside. They do not believe that will qualify as a junk yard but they do deal with scrap metal and reclaimed material. They do not want to be considered a junk yard and that was why they wanted to talk with the Board. He said if they cannot get comfort that they are going to meet the regulations and be allowed in the IGP zone then they will have to look elsewhere.

Mr. Przybylowicz asked if there would be any outside storage, how many trucks a day will the facility generate and does it currently exists in the Northeast? Mr. Blaine said about 15 in and 10 out with a 25 daily trip total. There would be no outside storage. Mr. Blaine stated that the business does exist in the Northeast and one of the reasons why they can’t tell the Board who the client is because they want to move this business with its’ employees and they do not want to alarm any employees at this point in time with everything being so uncertain. Mr. Phillips said part of the attraction of this facility is that it is big enough to be meet their needs.

Ms. Richards said in all the years that she has served the town no one has ever asked the Board to sign a resolution before they got to know the property or who the tenant would be. She said right away you developed the aura of suspicion - what it is you do not want the Board to find out? She asked what they would do if the Board didn’t sign? Mr. Phillips said nothing, but they would love to have a written assurance that the use would be permitted. He said that they would be back at some level of site plan review and the plan is not to change the footprint of the building at all but plan to make it look better. The Board members all agreed that they would not consider this use a “junk yard” if the process was as it was explained with no outside storage of metal. They advised that the plan needed to go through regular site plan review. The members all agreed that they would not sign the resolution.

Parking Plan – Amy St. Germain, Pleasant Street

The Board reviewed the parking plan for Amy St. Germain and the changes made in compliance with their last discussion. Upon such review of the plan as presented, and upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the parking plan.

Signage – Diane Gomes DBA Diane & Co

The Board reviewed the two sign applications that were submitted for signage for Diane & Co. Hair Salon. After review of the application, and upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the application for replacement signage on the ground sign at 37B Prospect Street, measuring no more than 24 square feet conditioned upon approval by the Building Inspector. The Planning Board then reviewed the second application for signage to be placed on the building. Upon motion duly made and seconded, the sign was approved measuring no more than 4 square feet and conditioned upon approval by the Building Inspector.

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

Very truly yours,

Donald J. Anderson, Clerk