Minutes
of July 24, 2007
Present were:
Public Hearing Site Plan Review
– The Fields at Chestnut Phase III
The Chair,
Jeff LeBeau, Baystate
Environmental Consultants said that Phase III is about 1,000 linear feet
completing the loop road and also the secondary cul-de-sac and that the projected layout is for single units which the
market has been demanding. He explained the
proposed overall outlay and said that the stormwater drainage is an underground
infiltration system with overflow piping that ties back into Phase I and that
the whole site will be sewer, all gravity with no pumping stations needed. Mr. LeBeau said that the units are all between
1,600 and 2,300 square feet and based on a single unit density for Phase III
would be about 22 units. He said that
there will be a landscaped berm to match the existing berm, traffic study has
already been done with Phase I and the major hurdles have been tackled and have
received approval by the Conservation Commission.
Ms. Richards addressed the Board
for any questions.
Mr. Przybylowicz
asked if the street signs and hydrants would be installed in what is being
developed? Mr. LeBeau said yes that most
of the signs where already in place and the Fire Department was happy with the
locations of the hydrants.
Mr.
Anderson asked if the houses where similar in style to the other phases? Mr. LeBeau said that they were very similar
in style and each one is custom.
Mr. Morrissette asked currently
there are 22 units approved would this make 67 already approved? Mr. LeBeau said right now Phase I & II
include 45 plus 22 so yes it would be 67.
Ms. Richards asked Mr. LeBeau that
he mentioned the average square foot of the units are 1,600 and the larger
units 2,300, so the ratio would be 4 units per usable acre, but they are not doing
that because they are all single units? Mr.
LeBeau said exactly so based on the formula for the middle category they would
be allowed to build 41 units but they are only proposing 22 units so that just
gives them an idea of the magnitude of how the development is shaping up. Ms. Richards asked what the average distance
between units is? Mr. LeBeau said that
the average is around 30 feet but they and that the minimum required is 25 feet.
Ms. Richards addressed the
audience for any questions.
Katherine Thomas, abutter said
that she was happy with what they are doing.
Ms. Richards asked as they become
closer to build out are they counting on the configuration of the roads to
basically act as a traffic calming measure or do they have other things they
might put in place?
Mr. Roulier said that they have 2
entrances,
Ms. Richards 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.
ANR –
Ms. Macdonald explained that Mr.
Meccia’s deck and barn are on Mrs. Brown’s property and she is selling Mr.
Mecca a portion of her property so that the deck is in conformity. The Board reviewed the ANR submitted and upon
motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (4-0) to approve the
ANR.
Miscellaneous
The Board reviewed the minutes of July 10, 2007 and, upon
motion duly made and seconded, voted unanimously (4-0) to approve, with
edits.
Public Hearing Site Plan Review
–
The Chair,
Brian Balicki, Civil Engineer
explained the existing property was surveyed in May by Smith Associates. He said that the existing parcel is .86 acres
and is zoned commercial which was formerly a doctor’s office, the soils on the
site are sandy and good for infiltration.
Mr. Balicki said that R. E. LaPlante Construction is proposing a 7,072
square foot commercial office building requiring 35 parking spaces and they will
be providing 40 parking spaces. He said
that the building will be wood frame construction and approximately half of the
building will a full basement with the remainder slab on grade and the site
will have public water and sewer.
Mr. Morrissette asked if the side
of the building that faces the residential will have the same architecture as
the remainder of the building? Mr.
LaPlante said the whole building will be the same.
Mr. Przybylowicz
asked which half of the building will have the full basement and why doesn’t
the whole building have a full basement?
Mr. Balicki pointed out on the plan and Mr. LaPlante said that there was
a cost consideration. Mr. Przybylowicz
asked if any equipment would be stored at the site? Mr. LaPlante said absolutely no construction
equipment will be stored on the site.
Mr. Przybylowicz asked what type of businesses they are looking for and
how many? Mr. Laplante said that they
didn’t know at this point and anticipate occupying roughly 2,500 square feet of
the building leaving about 4,500 square feet to be available with no more than
3 tenants such as a law firm or a insurance company. Mr. Przybylowicz asked if originally the
building was going to be 5,500 square feet?
Mr. LaPlante said they were right around 6,000 square feet with 2
stories and they went to a single story for an attractive rental space, all 1st floor direct access space as well as being
able to lower the building so it didn’t look so imposing from the street.
Ms.
Richards said that the Board needs to confirm the distance between their
building and the side yard. Mr. Balicki, said that it’s greater than 25 feet. Ms. Richards asked what the distance was between
the parking area and the side yard. Mr. Przybylowicz said it shows 11.5 feet.
Ms. Richards said that the by-law requires a 25 foot buffer strip
abutting a residential district so that 25 foot buffer needs to continue all
the way down the property line and parking is not allowed in buffer strip. She said so they are going
to have to finagle the parking a
little in the back and she knows they said they have 5 spaces that are above
the requirement and is not sure what it will do the size of the building or
whether they can do it, but the point is they need to have a 25 foot landscaped
buffer all the way down between a commercial district and a residential
district. Ms. Richards said it was
discussed and the argument in favor when they went to the town to do the zone
change to commercial was that a green 25 foot landscape buffer would be required
with a commercial district abutting a residential district.
Mr.
Morrissette said the way they have the parking structured and the two 5 space
section in the middle back to back and it looks to him if they eliminate 5
spaces they could move the green space over maybe 11 or 12 feet over and 5
spaces still allows them to keep the building the same, they just won’t have
the extra overflow of 40 spaces they were coming in with.
Ms.
Richards said that the buffer area needs to be planted, such area must be with
out building structures, parking or accessory uses.
Mr. Przybylowicz
asked if there was going to be a dumpster?
Mr. LaPlante said that he didn’t know.
Ms.
Richards addressed the audience for any questions.
David
Bressem,
on the
west side? Mr. LaPlante said the
proposed location of the sign will be about
20 feet
off of the property line, any lighting on the front of the building will be
typical to residential construction and possibly lighting on the front of the
building. Mr. Balicki added that there will be wall packs down along the
side walk. Mr. Bressem asked what is
required to be planted in the buffer zone?
Ms. Richards said it could be anything such as trees, bushes and the
whole purpose is to create some visual barrier between the properties.
Mr. LaPlante said one of things
they are dealing with is an existing row of arborvitaes almost to the back
corner of the structure and he can certainly see planting something more
decorative and that is going to stay smaller.
Ms. Richards said that the by-laws
allow a directory sign in the commercial district if there is are going to be
more than 1 tenant, not to exceed 40 feet.
She said as far as building signs they are not to exceed 15 square feet
on a building. Mr. LaPlante said they
are not intending to put any signs on the building. He said one of the comments from the Police
or the Fire Chief was that the trees and the canopy of the trees get high
enough not to impede the site line and the vision going in and out of the
parking lot.
Tony Cardolopoli,
Ms. Richards said that they were
not discussing signage that evening but certainly are hearing what they are
saying.
Mr. Cardolopoli asked if the size
of the building was a done deal? Ms.
Richards said that the size of the building relates to what they can do on the
parcel for lot and parking lot coverage.
She said that they have a narrow window to work with and based on the
suggestions that were made with respect to parking and if they cannot make parking
changes within the envelope they may have to bring the size of the building down
a little bit.
Mr. LaPlante said ultimately to
meet the zoning requirements for the lot they have the ability to propose a 2
story building that is significantly larger than the current one and still
maintain parking.
Amy Hebert,
Mr. Cardolopoli asked what the
requirements for hours of operations in a commercial zone are? Ms. Richards said that the town doesn’t
restrict operation, however, they could ask the developer what his plans are in
terms of the use of the building. Mr.
LaPlante said typical professional office space much like their current office
at
Ms. Richards said that the Board
was just dealing with the site plan in terms of structure, access & egress,
parking and when the building is complete then the issue of tenants comes into
play. She said that the tenants will have to meet with the Board
in a form of a waiver of site plan, however the Board will have the opportunity
to speak to each tenant with respect to hours of operation.
Mr. Bressem said that he was very
pleased with the design and layout.
Mr. Przybylowicz
said that he was glad that they revised the building and it’s a little more
aesthetically pleasing then their first proposal and knowing that they squeezed
it down from a second floor down to one, he thinks it’s a little more conducive
to the neighborhood than their original proposal.
Mr.
Morrissette said that he was impressed with the look of the building and feels
it’s going to have a positive effect on the neighborhood.
Ms.
Richards asked if they felt comfortable with making the changes in the parking
without changing the structure? Mr.
LaPlante said yes giving that the have 5 extra parking spaces above the what is
required.
Ms.
Richards addressed the Board for any further questions, being none and upon
motion duly made and seconded, the
Board voted unanimously (4-0) to close the
hearing subject to a revised plan
showing landscape, parking and the 25 foot buffer.
Request for Waiver of Site Plan
Review – Café Lebanon, 60 Shaker Road
After review of the request for
waiver of site plan review from Café Lebanon, 60 Shaker Road and upon motion
duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (4-0) to approve the Waiver
of Site Plan. The request is for change
of ownership to an existing restaurant and the restaurant was in operation
prior to 1999 so no Special Permit is required. Any signage must be approved by the
Planning Board and the Building Inspector prior to placing on the building
and/or the ground sign.
Request for Waiver of Site Plan
Review – Sleepy’s LLC
The Board reviewed a request for
waiver of site plan review from Sleepy’s to operate a retail store 32 Center
Square. Upon motion duly made and
seconded, the Board voted unanimously (4-0) to approve the Waiver of Site
Plan. Temporary signage was approved for
a period of two weeks until the sign application is corrected and re-submitted.
Spoleto Restaurant meeting to
discuss violations of Special Permit
Ms. Richards greeted Paul Maleck,
counsel for Claudio Gurera, and Claudio Gurera, owner of Spoleto’s restaurant
to the meeting. Ms. Richards explained
that the reason for the meeting was to address the violations of the Special
Permit that was granted to Spoleto’s restaurant in 2006. She explained that she had a late telephone
conversation with town counsel and that the Board’s position is to discuss the
existing violations to the Special Permit.
She acknowledged Paul Maleck as counsel for Spoleto’s and Claudio Gurera. Attorney Maleck stated that he was surprised
about the word “violations” as he thought they would be talking about
informally, what was happening, why it was happening and to go from there.
Ms. Richards interrupted for a
minute to explain that she needed to welcome them and to inform them that town
counsel stated that he would be happy to speak with Attorney Maleck, if he had
any questions. She added that before the
Board continued with the violations to the Special Permit, she stated that
submission for the amendment to the Special Permit for Spoleto’s cannot be
accepted as submitted this evening and will be returned to the applicant on the
grounds of the existing violations and errors to the current Special Permit.
Ms. Richards stated that the Board
felt that the purpose of the letter that was sent to Mr. Gurera and Bill
Collins pertained to putting them on notice that we had knowledge of a
violation to their Special Permit and we invited them to speak to us on July 10th
and did not work so we are here tonight to discuss the concerns with respect to
the conditions that were agreed upon at the granting of the Special
Permit. Further, she stated based upon
this evening’s discussion this meeting could potentially serve as Notice that
the Board may schedule a public hearing, the purpose of reviewing the violations
and the status at that time, and the potential to revoke the Special Permit
that is currently in place.
Attorney Maleck stated that he
submitted the amendment as a sign of good faith that they were trying to
rectify their wrong and get on the same page.
Ms. Richards stated that the Board voted, on July 10th, to
send a directive to the Building Inspector who is the Zoning Enforcement
Officer for the SPGA, the Planning Board, and this was based on the fact that there
was a concern that the violations would not be corrected. We know they are there and want to see them
corrected and if there was a possibility if they would be able to amend and
approve the plan to allow those issues – is subject for another process. But, there was conversation between our
Director and you during which you asked that the Building Inspector not serve
the official complaint – that would not bode well, and it would allow you to
put your client on notice that he was in violation of the Special Permit. There were two inspections this morning one
from the fire department and one from the building inspector showing that the
violations still exist and I would like to have read into the record, those
reports:
Sent: Tue 7/24/2007 1:43 PM
From:
To:
Robyn;
I inspected
Spoleto’s this morning.
·
All of the fire protection is currently up to date, not a
big surprise for a new facility.
·
This morning there was 6 employees prepping and cooking food
in the basement. There is several prep tables, a stove and other cooking
appliances located in the basement.
·
The rear stairs are extremely slippery and are showing signs
of wear and tear. This is a very dangerous trip or fall hazard. I will forward
this to the building inspector.
I hope this
information is helpful.
Paul J.
Morrissette
Sent: Tue 7/24/2007
3:57 PM
To: 'Don
Anderson corporate (E-mail)'; '
From:
Afternoon all:
I just got off
the phone with Steve who did another inspection of the seating at Spoleto's
prior to our meeting tonight. Steve
reports that there are 12 outside tables with the capacity of four persons per
table with ample extra chairs all over the patio area. When he went inside he verified that the
interior seating plan is not what was approved and believes that an additional
four seater table was added at the center of the restaurant near the pole. The closed off "banquet" room is
set for 12 not 10 as shown on the new proposed plan for amendment.
This, along
with the information from the fire department provides proof of several
existing violations to their Special Permit.
See you later -
e-mail me if you need anything before the meeting.
At
this time, Ms. Richards asked Attorney Maleck to continue. Attorney Maleck stated that had been called
by Claudio’s regular lawyer, Joe DiFazio, to assist in this matter because of
his background in municipal law and as a business lawyer. He added that he had no idea what had
happened or why, and he went on a mission.
He thanked Robyn and Marilyn, tremendous assets to the Town, who gave
him the time and opportunity. He
discovered that there was a Special Permit issued to Spoleto’s that restricted
seating to 140 and that there is approximately 220 or so seats currently being
used and yes, there is food preparation going on in the basement, contrary to
the Special Permit. He further discussed
– seeking a resolution of this matter – by contacting Frank Fitzgerald and they
had a meeting with the Falcones relative to what could happen if we were going
to try to apply what this Board has done in the past as it relates to parking
after 5 or 6 o’clock and what I was hoping that if the Board wanted to hear
from Attorney Fitzgerald or the Falcones, you would feel free to ask those
questions. First, he wanted to restore
some credibility. He stated that he
thought that Claudio had planned in the beginning for 140 for fine dining and
that is why he agreed to the 140 seats.
That fine dining did not work. He
put in over 1.3 million dollars into this project and he was not doing any
business and I can tell you as bank counsel, everything is cross-collateralized,
cross-guaranteed and cross-defaulted and he owns a bunch of other restaurants
which are all tied into our savings bank as well as the Bank of Western Mass so
it is a real house of cards and he needs to be economically viable and he was
not economically viable at 140 if he was trying to cater to fine dining. What he brainstormed with, and he is a very
creative fellow, through the Northampton events recently, he found that if he
offered a four-course meal for $20.00, and put an emphasis off of fine dining,
but instead to value oriented family style, it would work. It took off real quick and he started adding
tables and chairs as he grew that four-course meal. A vast majority of the business does not
occur during the lunch hour – it is less than 20%. Most of the income is
generated after 6:00 o’clock, with some between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.but
mostly after 6:00 o’clock. If you look
at the practicality of it, he made mistakes in that, from what I believe, the
outdoor dining was supposed to be offset by indoor so if he took 40 seats
outside, he would have to remove the 40 seats from the inside. That did not happen. To the extent that there should not be any
food preparation downstairs, that has happened from day one and he has a valid
building permit for that and it has been going on since day one, and I was
quite surprised to read the Special Permit issued by this Board that it was
restricted to storage only in the basement when he has a valid building
inspection and occupancy permit which the Building Inspector knew there was
stove, there was an oven and that there was a food preparation counter and that
people do work down there. It is restricted
to only food prepared for the restaurant – it is not going outside of the
premises. It was at one time the fact
that in the beginning Claudio did not want entertainment and he said no then,
but then there might have been an advertisement that mentioned entertainment –
all that ever occurred and to the extent that he has made mistakes, he
apologizes. I have apologized to Marilyn
already and I have apologized to Robyn for what happened with Claudio here, and
I apologize to the other three gentlemen of this Board. I want to restore his credibility. He is a successful business owner who has a
lot at stake and he is trying his best to serve the needs of East Longmeadow. That is why he went with the four-course meal
and it is under $20.00. He is not making
a lot of money on the food, the profit, as you can imagine is from the liquor
sales. He was read the riot act by me
when I first got involved about one week ago, about maybe we should limit it to
140 immediately and we can shut down the outside seating. Marilyn, when I talked with you, my sense was
when I told you that about 35 people would probably have to be laid off,
including many single mothers, you said that you did not want to see people
laid off, but at the same time your hands were tied and that you are,
rightfully so, focused on the parking ratio and how there has to be parking
here for one space for three customers and also based on the square feet. The fact is that Claudio tried to limit
capacity seating during the lunch hours but he also kept going last week as it
relates to the dining at night so that these people would not be laid off and I
submit that list to you now – there are some 37 people that would have to be
laid off if, in fact, seating were limited to 140 – again, I think the 140
happened because it was supposed to be fine dining. It did not work, it was not economically
viable, what has worked is a good recipe with a family emphasis on value orient
and that is what is going on now. To the
extent that there has been a problem with the Board of Selectmen receiving the
wrong plans, to the extent that this Board issued a Special Permit and we are
trying to get him into conformity and it has not happened, we apologize and I
think it would be more heartfelt, perhaps more appreciated if Claudio gives his
apology and then I would like to talk about a possible resolution.
Claudio
Gurera stated that he felt terrible that he is here and that this situation is
the last thing that you folks want to be dealing with and certainly him too. This thing kind of got out of hand – I had to
be completely honest about my financial situation because he is counsel for my
bank – but I was hemorrhaging in East Longmeadow and when we had restaurant
week in Northampton, we came up with this idea – the $20 thing and I said maybe
I will try it down there – so I did it and it became a success immediately and
it also came at the same time we opened the outdoor so it was kind of like –
serving there to accommodate – and I have a five-month old baby girl my first –
and five other restaurants and these 145 or 142 whatever it is – seating is
something that I did not honestly, genuinely not maliciously not handled
correctly – I did not even think about it and I should have – I did not know if
I was going to be in business – the reality is that I was this close for the
whole house of cards falling in. I had
many nights of restless sleep – took as much money as I could from my dad,
maxed out my credit cards – it was challenging – it is funny how things
come. It is now June 1st and
we have opened up the patio and it is a smash success. Like Paul mentioned, the fine dining is not
working so I was not due diligent and did not come here and handle it the way
it should have been handled and I really genuinely apologize and I hope we can
work out a solution. Like Paul
mentioned, I have a lot invested – I love the community – we have been giving a
lot to various fund raisers here in town,
quite a list – we can give you a list, thousands of dollars that we have
given to local East Longmeadow charities – we are a part of the community not
someone who just sucks out money – I have to tell, the people love what we are
doing right now. I had a customer come
up to me last night and say I do not care if you are not making any money – you
have to keep doing this. He asked the
Board if they had seen the ad on television – it has been fun. With all this craziness he has not had the
opportunity to do this properly. He said
he could understand where the Board was coming from – I would be rubbed the
wrong way as well if I were in your shoes.
I hope that there is someway we can work this out.
Attorney
Maleck stated that in terms of a possible resolution, and that he had talked
with Marilyn about this, and I found that there was a Special Permit issued for
another restaurant across the street where there was some creativity involved
relative to restricting parking by other tenants after 6:00 p.m. so he had
Claudio take pictures of the shopping center from the roof of Spoleto’s over the weekend and I would like to show you
those (Claudio – the dates are on the back) basically, the way he has been
looking at this over the last couple of days, putting emphasis on something
Marilyn had said, about how – because of the cross-easement between the town
and the fee owner – the Falcones, that this is somewhat of a quasi-municipal
private development partnership (Ms. Richards – it is) because of that – I want
you think about the activity of the town hall during the day and think about the
activity of Spoleto’s restaurant at night and I think that what you have is the
direct time reverse. During the day,
this place is buzzing – during the day, Spoleto has very little business – they
generate less than 20% at lunch – where do they get their money? Between 6:00 and 9:00 at night. What happens at the town hall from 6 to 9:00
at night? Fine people like you need a
place to park when you volunteer as Planning Board members or other boards come
and go but they can find a parking space at night with relative ease. When I came in here tonight there was plenty
of parking. I came in at 6:15 p.m. and there was plenty of parking and you will
see that the pictures depict the busiest nights that Spoleto’s have is Friday
and Saturday nights and the vast availability of parking during the hours of 5,
6 and 8:00 p.m. Now, Marilyn you
mentioned to me that I feel we are hamstrung in terms of I have a parking
ration and I have to follow the parking what the ratio is. Show me some discretion and I will listen. He continued by stating that he was asking
that the Board apply to Spoleto’s what has been applied across the street. They have contacted the landlord and the
landlord has immediately cooperated.
Frank Fitzgerald and he have talked about making a three-pronged
approach where the landlord joins forces with Spoleto’s to solve this problem.
They
are willing to restrict the leases to have a prohibition that the tenants there
– including the Falcones including Frank’s office, including others, will not
be able to park after 6:00. They are
willing to monitor the lease and enforce that employees of the various
establishments, including Spoleto’s which already does this – employee parking
down near the rail bed. They are willing
to submit a revised parking plan – they are willing to amend their own master
Special Permit to accommodate Spoleto’s parking so he can be successful and
contribute to the community. I think
that it is a Special Permit that it is a special thing – we have a special
unique circumstances here in that the profits that are generated for his return
on his investment occur after 6:00 p.m. and not before. If you go back to my analogy, about reversing
the business here at town hall with his business, you will see that the parking
does work – on a practical basis not the small picture of hung up on a parking
ratio – but the big picture. When you go
there every night at 6:00 there will be
safety – there is plenty of parking and it can work. But if you make him go down to 140 and he is
forced to go to fine dining he is not going to make it – it is just not going
to work. These poor people are going to
be out of a job, 37 people including single mothers – six or seven who have
children are going to be let go.
Mr.
Gurera – let me say that if we are restricted to 140 the business is not going
to be viable – we are done. Now that I
have given the $20 thing I cannot just take it away. We were going to do it for a month, but now
there is such a high demand for it – everybody loves it – so we are going to
continue with it. The fine dining thing
– I was charging the same prices that I was in Northampton and it was not
flying - $23.95 for a filet; $17.95 for chicken parm; it did not work. Talk on the street was that we were too
expensive. So, this is what has happened
here.
Ms.
Richards stated that she wanted to make a comment and then see what her
colleagues had to say. First of all, we
know that you are referring to the Special Permit for the Romito’s across the
street. (Attorney Maleck – I am), and we
know that why you think the circumstances are equitable they are not. The Romito’s (if I may speak of your business
– the Romito’s are here), purchased a pre-existing bank building which was a
bank with a parking lot. They renovated
the building into a very attractive, unique round deli with retail – some
different uses as to the existing tenants.
The retail component of that operation was met by the parking that is
currently there. Then when there was
discussion about them changing their dining offerings, they came to the Board
with a plan and, yes, we do have a creative parking situation with the
Romito’s. A single parcel, a single
owner totally in control of the tenant mix that takes place at that location. The Special Permit gave the Planning Board
the vehicle with which to control and establish conditions with this somewhat
creative approach to that single parcel – single owner and I am sure you have a
copy of that Special Permit – it deals with a retail use during the business
day with sufficient parking to support that retail use for the day. The retail use ceases and the restaurant
comes alive and the parcel becomes a restaurant use for the evening hours –
they have sufficient parking – we have met the parking standards of the by-law with
each half if you will, of the program.
It became a condition of their Special Permit. While their Special Permit only governs the
restaurant operation, in reality it controls the whole operation on the site
for the entire day and evening because the conditions in their Special Permit
enforce what they can do during the day with respect to their retail
establishment. Their retail formula is
six spaces per 1,000 square feet which is the standard for business retail use
in the town of East Longmeadow. When the
Planned Business Development component was created there was a recognition that
there would be a diversity in the mix of tenants and having done so, they
established relief to the retail parking requirement. Rocky’s, before they became part of the
Planned Business Development was required to have 6 spaces per 1,000 square
feet. When they became part of the
Planned Business Development, their requirement was reduced to 5 spaces per
1,000 square feet. So, the town recognized
that there would be diversity in hours of operation with respect to use and it
was the hope that there would be overlap as there would be some down time for
some when others needs would be heavier.
The by-law does not give us permission within the Planned Business
Development to alter the parking formula.
The by-law is also very specific with the restaurant by-law, knowing
that restaurants, as we have already experienced, have the capability of
creating a greater demand than the 5 per 1,000.
So the 5 per 1,000 is for everyone else in the Planned Business
Development except for the restaurant.
The library was even required to provide 5 spaces, everyone was – the
bulk of the development is retail and it is still 5 per 1,000. While we are under Special Permit, Special
Permit does not give us the authority to circumvent the by-laws – we got that
from town counsel and as I said, we have been asked under Special Permit by the
library for parking – they had to re-do their entire building because they
could not meet the requirements for the town – the attempt was through Special
Permit you could modify the by-law to provide relief and the answer was
no. We are not given that
authority.
Attorney
Maleck stated that he understood, however, felt that there was precedent that
should apply and he appreciates the fact that the Romito’s situation is not
identical on all fours with what is happening in this development, when you
think about practically thinking – what happens after 6:00 o’clock it is the
same thing. In terms of the fact that
you say there is a 5 per 1,000 and 3 people for every one space – again it gets
back to what is really happening in the field – what really is going on
there? You did have an idea going in
that there was going to be this mixed used for fine dining at 140 but fine
dining did not work – what is working is the accommodation to and the genuine
need of the community of family style is working and not causing any problems
in that there is ample parking that can fit those customers’ needs.
Ms.
Richards – does anyone else want to comment or do you want me to continue?
Mr.
Gurera: I have no problem shutting down for
lunch – I have no problem going down to 140 seats at lunch – lunch is not –
when I first came here for my permit I said to you folks that lunch is an
inconsequential part of my business – we are really open just as a – we are
spinning our wheels lunchtime 140 is no problem at all – it is just the evening
time – I have been here every night since June 1st and the parking
lot – there is plenty of space – it is less than half full – a third occupancy
at most in the evenings. I do not know
if there is any possibility of massaging it to that way of seeing it – but
lunch I do not need any chairs.
Paul
Maleck: We do not want you to think that
we think that way – we understand that there will be needs of others, including
those that are coming, but when you look at Starbucks – that is a come and
go. Denise Reynolds – she is done at
5:00 o’clock, AO White will be done at 5:00 o’clock. There will be times for example – the real
estate people on Thursday mornings – they need 40 spaces or so but it still is
working. There should be and I think
there is, plenty of parking despite the fact.
You make a good point that these other tenants are coming.
Mr.
Gurera: I walk the parking lot quite
diligently during the fourth of July fair with hundreds of people and there
were lots of parking here even with all those people. I thought to myself this could be a situation
where there could be a problem, but in front of the health club to the tracks
not a single car – and this is with the fair going on.
Ms.
Richards stated that the Board cancels their meetings while the fair is going
on – no one holds meetings because of the crowds – it is anticipated that the
town hall uses were severely curtailed due to the over-abundance use of the
parking lot by fair goers.
Mr.
Przybylowicz stated that the peak time for the health club is the fall and
winter and they have not seen the effects of the parking during those peak
months.
Attorney
Maleck stated that there will be no outside dining at Spoleto's during the
winter hours so the number of tables will be decreased during the winter
months. That would remove 48 leaving
approximately 240.
Mr.
Gurera stated that all the four top tables and booths have been used by 2
people, thus cutting down the numbers – using deuces instead of four.
Ms.
Richards stated that the standard applied to Spoleto’s is the same standard
applied to Romito's with respect to seats.
They are limited to 60, Fusion is limited to 90, 99 restaurant has their
own restriction as to number of seats and they are located, not in a planned
business development, rather a shopping center and there have been times when
the parking lot has more spaces than other times given criteria at any given
moment. I guess I am struggling
with - this is not something that we
forced on you (Mr. Gurera – no) We dealt
with you in good faith, and where I am coming from as one Board member, and I
would think that my colleagues would agree with me, is that we had to catch you
in your violations and we did not even find out about the basement violation
until the fire department said guess what guys - - I do not understand . . .
Mr.
Gurera: I do not understand either –
(Ms. Richards – you agreed to that ) I know but I also in my memory have
brought plans here with stove and hood – (Tom Morrissette – I was going to
mention that ) it was not meant deceitfully – I would never seat anyone
downstairs - Tom Morrissette said I
understand that – Mr. Gurera: from day
one the reason that I built it was for prep and storage space.
Tom
Morrissette said that the basement alone was another fiasco when the project
was being constructed. I do not believe
you were present at the time. It was
never supposed to be constructed – the building inspector gave a permit to
install a basement when it was not on the approved plan approved by this
Board. The entire project was supposed
to be slab on grade and that is the way it was designed and approved – when extra
square footage was added in the basement it added more stress on the parking –
now a restaurant that would use all that prep area upstairs –and take away
seats because you need that prep area – is allowed to add more seats so you
really have 140 seats by osmosis because the prep area really should have taken
up space instead of those seats. That is
the history on the basement. I know you
said that the building inspector gave him a permit and that may be true, but it
is still without approval of this Board – we do not know why the permit was
issued – at the time we thought it was for storage.
Attorney
Maleck stated that as soon as he knew about the basement he reported it to
robyn – and it is on the amendment to the Special Permit – it is not as if you
had to find out from the fire department for the first time. I want to restore
credibility for Spoleto’s – I will always be honest with you – if I see a
violation I will tell Claudio about it and we are going to try to work through
it by making amends and doing the right thing.
So, if I may, Frank Fitzgerald and the Falcones are here and I would
like them to verify my findings and my observations and lend some support to
helping you in your decisions.
Ms.
Richards stated that before we move on to that, I would like to add to the
discussion that the Planned Business Development has some quite specific
criteria. I mentioned the relief for the
parking and I mentioned to you on the phone the relief of the landscaping and
you said maybe you could take away some landscaping and create more
parking. I said that little by little
they have been taking away landscaping – creating a space here and there – I
think that we are just about the 10% as we just lost another strip because the
bank that is coming in needed a wider sidewalk.
So things have been evolving slowly with that criteria as well. So, with the issue of the restaurant and the
issue of high-traffic volume generators we are limited to 20% of the mix within
the development – I believe it is limited to the overall square footage – to
high volume traffic generators based on more than 700 vehicle trips a day. Based on the early reports on Starbucks, they
were at 550 vehicle trips a day – I would venture to say that they are greater
than that today – there is more activity.
With Spoleto’s there was great discussion as to how to categorize the
restaurant and it was going to be a quality restaurant and the vehicle trips
based on the IT traffic generating standards were based on 410 vehicle trips a
day as a quality restaurant. I looked at
the proposal for increased seats that that changes how the restaurant is
categorized – for vehicle trips. 140
seats – you are asking for 230 seats changes the impact of what is happening at
that location. We have a bank coming in,
Walgreen's already here – we cannot suddenly agree without studying what the
impact would be. 230 seats – the impact
could be closer to the 700 or could be in excess to the 700 vehicle trips a
day. That would be decided by a traffic
engineer. The overall project for the
Planned Business Development has a mitigation plan in place which will kick in
soon – the requirement is after 50,000
square feet – half of the occupancy within 6 months of opening – the monitoring
plan should trigger to see where we are going and to monitor the traffic,
traffic flow etc. on the site. This was
set up by the Special Permit. It should
red flag a trend or give us a notice that it is running fine. We would have to study this type of change
and see what impact it would have, if any.
Attorney
Maleck asked who commissions this plan?
Ms. Richards explained that the applicant must bear the cost. Mr. Morrissette stated that when a certain
occupancy is reached, the applicant is required to submit a report for the Board
to review – Ms. Richards stated that the Board did hire its own consultant to –
sort of a peer review – this is always an option. It is not an easy fix – we are not fully
occupied – not fully built out, there are 5 spaces for the library that are
sort of flagged as problem area – the police is watching those spaces and they
may be removed depending on the results of the studies. We are still evolving.
Frank
Fitzgerald stated he appreciated the challenge of the Planning Board. He understands that the project is important
to the town and that mistakes should not be made to be in a bad position at a
later date. He stated that he moved his
office to this location because he wanted to be able to find a good restaurant
after work in walking distance. It is
really a treat to look out his window and see the activity and to walk around
with the ambiance that this area now has.
He stated that we will not have a Spoleto’s restaurant if we cannot
adjust the seating situation. We know
him as well as anyone – we are his landlord and we have talked with him – we
have made concessions – we know where he is and I would ask that the Board – he
knows that they need to pay attention to the Special Permit rules – perhaps in
this situation, if we all work together to come up with some mechanism that at
least in the short run gets us to a place where we can save this restaurant for
the benefit of the town. Not to mention
the significant investment that Claudio and his family have made. One thing that Attorney Fitzgerald wanted to
ask is to have a fair and open public hearing on the amendment and it disturbs
him that town counsel has advised the Board not to accept it and he knew of no
reason not to accept it.
Ms.
Richards stated that she was not saying that it would not be accepted in the
future, simply not now because they were required to have a public hearing in
so many days, and they are required to deal with the violations first.
Attorney
Fitzgerald stated that one of the solutions to the violations to the saving of
this restaurant is to start the meter ticking on the amendment application and
it really I think it makes sense. It
does not put the town in any different of a situation to accept the application
and start the meter ticking on the public hearing process.
Mr.
Morrissette stated that on the same token, the applicant should comply with the
rules so the meter can start ticking.
Attorney Fitzgerald stated that it up to him. Mr. Morrissette continued, it runs both
ways. Attorney Fitzgerald added, I think
your point is well taken, from his viewpoint it is a matter of survival, from
the town’s viewpoint it is not. I am not
sure I am – I have been here for 3 weeks and I hear a lot of good things that
are going on, I have not heard any complaints about traffic, parking and the
like, I do not know, maybe you have, I have not heard any. I think practically speaking, there is not an
immediate issue with respect to what is happening here. So, I agree with you – a quick solution is to
comply.
Ms.
Richards stated that actually, Mech was given an order to remove the deck. Mr. Anderson added then we should not have
accepted the plan until he was in compliance.
Mr. Morrissette stated no. Mr.
Anderson stated he was using that argument – Ms. Richards stated that she does
not understand how that applies to what the Board is talking about. Mr. Anderson stated that if you have a
violation – Mech received an order that he was in violation – in order to cure
the violation he went out and bought the piece of land from the abutter – I am
saying that the argument being suggested by town counsel is that Mech should
have first removed the deck, then bought the land, then rebuilt the deck – is
that what I am hearing?
Ms.
Richards stated that town counsel said that Spoleto’s is under Special
Permit. This is not a surprise. The conditions of the Special Permit were
very specific and no one was forced, nothing was shoved down anyone’s throat,
we dealt in good faith in this particular process and everyone acknowledges
that from day one was in violation, and you know you are in violation and it is
like what is the value of the Special Permit?
What is the real benefit of having it if it is not going to adhered to
and honored and everyone else is abiding by the rules so why should not
Spoleto?
Mr.
Morrissette stated that if you want to use Mech as an example, within – it was
less than 30 days of him being notified of the violation that he stepped up to
purchase the property to correct the violation and now he is in compliance. Mr. Morrissette added that he understands
what Mr. Anderson is saying - Mr. Anderson stated that the strategies to obtain
the results and there are two ways to do it, one way is to get into compliance
then go out and put together a plan of what you really want to do – that is one
strategy and I appreciate that - the
other one is to say you are out of compliance, now put together a plan to bring
it into compliance – now that is what their approach is and what the Board is
saying is no, get into compliance and then we will look at the plan. Now, just to get to the Romito’s part of the
equation, I do agree with Marilyn on that.
That the distinction – the precedent is correct as far as the Board
using creative strategy – vis-à-vis this is not a straight Planned Business
Development – the differences are the fact that here we just approved Sleepy’s
to 10:00, 9:00 o’clock at night – and so forth so it is a different approach
that every player cannot be under control of the owner where Romito’s could
have everyone under control. You cannot
say to the library that you cannot have readings at night after 8:00 p.m. because
you are not allowed to park. You cannot
tell the town that you cannot have selectmen meetings well attended where it
would overflow – you cannot have those because you cannot park. So, the developer only has a finite amount of
control on this side, but not on the other side. There is a distinction there. The other distinction is that every business
across the street closes pretty much at 5:00 p.m.. That being said, I still think that if we can
get it into compliance there is still some wiggle room but not to say that it
is on point with what is happening across the street. My point is this – Attorney Fitzgerald,
Attorney Falcone – they have their offices – other tenants can say that the sum
of the total there would have to be restrictions that Spoleto’s cannot have –
almost an offset that while the Fitzgerald Law Offices and Falcone realty are
in operation you cannot have your 230 seats – it has to be a drop – an equal
number of spaces based on their ratios can be offset at night after their
businesses close with deed restrictions and so forth. I do not know if that would still even give
you 230 spots, I do not know.
Ms.
Richards stated that she ran that by town counsel – telling him that the
“Romito’s Rule” was going to be the topic of discussion for Spoleto’s and he
said that it would be an enforcement nightmare that the standards have always
been in place with respect to the Planned Business Development shared parking –
the formula in terms of landscaping, retail requirement and the anticipation
that the mix would be diverse anyway, and we do not know what the ultimate
space is going to be. You have not been
here when the library has an ice cream social – there is not a parking space
around when the library has an ice cream social because they come out of the
woodwork. That does not happen every
night but this is also a public lot. It
is a municipal lot – we have people park here to go across the street to Boston
Market and baseball games – because this is a municipal lot. This is not strictly a Planned Business
Development lot for the tenants – we have to anticipate that there is going to
be a certain percentage from time to time of a diverse use.
Attorney
Maleck said he thought the point was well taken – that if you do offset as you
say, by putting restrictions in the lease by Falcone Realty and Fitzgerald Law
Offices I think you do get enough
parking spaces when you think about the math and the practicality. I would hate
- (Mr. Anderson, from 140 to 230?) you would get above 200 anyway
because there is plenty of parking and there is enough that – you have
businesses closing at 5:00 p.m. (Mr. Anderson and you are sure that A.O. White
will be closing at 5:00?) Attorney
Maleck, except for Thursday.
Attorney
Falcone, what we wanted to do is to take the simplest approach to this problem
so we looked first and foremost at owner occupied and controlled space within
the shopping center first. Forget the
tenants that we would have to amend the lease with, forget the vacant spaces - let’s just concentrate on the owner
occupied and controlled space – the upstairs building “C” 6100 square feet - by my calculations that is 30 spaces. We are prepared and I brought with me copies of
the amendments to the leases to restrict the hours of operation of that space
to close at 6:00 p.m. If we do that,
essentially, following the logic of the Romito’s scenario, that would put 30
spaces back in the parking pool. With 3
spaces – 1 space for every 3 people, sounds like we are at 90.
Ms.
Richards stated that the logic of Romito’s is that they are required to have 6
spaces for every 1,000 to begin with and you are not so there is no logic. I understand where you are coming from and I
do not fault you for taking that position.
We, as a planning Board, and my colleagues can disagree with me, but we
have spent a lot of time and energy with this particular proposal – we have a
vested interest in it as well as Claudio does and I am not saying that we will
not consider something but right now we have to address the violations
first. We need a plan that is in
compliance with what is approved.
Attorney
Falcone stated that I think that the blurry point here is that it is not as
black and white as the by-law when it gets down to talking about the Romito
rule verses the Planned Business Development.
Ms. Richards stated that the Romito rule does not exist because this is
Planned Business Development. Planned
Business Development – you look at it and do what it says. Attorney Falcone stated that his
understanding is that is discretionary for the Board. Ms. Richards stated no discretion – Mr.
Przybylowicz asked where it states that in the by-law – Mr. Morrissette stated
that he does not see anything.
Attorney
Maleck said that it is not in the by-law but you can be as Don stated, creative
in your solutions as you were for Romito's.
Ms. Richards stated that you have to support the decrease in seating
with additional parking. Attorney Maleck
stated I think we can do that with what Jayson has mentioned about the
leases. Ms. Richards added, based on the
entire square footage of the development.
I am not talking about people closing or leases – that is not a
requirement for this particular use. It
does not say we can do this in the Planned Business Development. Mr. Anderson stated that it does not say that
we cannot. Ms. Richards stated that she
thinks he (Mr. Anderson) needed to call town counsel. Mr. Anderson stated that he would.
Attorney
Maleck thanked the Board for letting Attorney Fitzgerald speak. Attorney Maleck continued by stating that in
terms of where we go from here. Ms.
Richards stated that they needed to talk about the violations. She added that there is a violation with
respect to seating. The original Special
Permit states 140 seats and when the outside area is being utilized, the number
of seats at the outside need to be removed from the interior. This is no surprise, the Planning Board, and
I apologize to you Claudio that you are in a position that you have business
decisions that you have to make. Mr.
Gurera responded by stated that there is no decision – he understood the Board
has to do what they have to do.
Ms.
Richards stated that they do not get involved with whether you (Claudio) hires
or fires someone or whether you violate your Special Permit. This is a very specific discussion that I had
with town counsel as well and he was much more direct than I am being. Mr. Morrissette stated that we do not have
any desire to put you out of business.
Those are the rules – the rules they everyone signed on to play with at
the beginning of the game.
Mr.
Gurera stated that there is a solution here.
Somehow we will come up with a solution.
Because the alternative is something that I cannot imagine – it means
shutting down the restaurant. Mr.
Morrissette stated that he cannot imagine either - it is not what he wants to
see either. Mr. Morrissette stated that
he would love to see this work. Mr.
Gurera stated that he would lose his restaurants in Northampton as well. Mr. Morrissette stated that the solution
cannot be gotten until they get to the right starting place.
Ms.
Richards stated that 140 seats is the issue and also the food preparation in
the basement and that was very specific – no food prep no cooking any use that
would meet a commissary type use.
Attorney Maleck stated that there is no commissary use. Mr. Morrissette stated he did not think there
was that type either. Mr. Gurera stated
that no food left the building. Ms.
Richards stated that was at one time talked about. Mr. Gurera stated that he had heard that the
Board had concerns from the fire department relating to handi-capped
accessibility – those are not issues according to his architect who has done
the numbers. Ms. Richards stated that
those issues came about when there was a request for a banquet use in the
basement.
Attorney
Maleck added that he thought he (Claudio) meant that as part of the amendment
to the Special Permit – he has an opinion of the architect with regard to the
compliance with the building code and to the safety code who came to the conclusion
that 230 would be in compliance with both.
Mr. Gurera stated that using the first and second floor with
handi-capped accessibility – they would meet the codes just something to add to
the mix.
Ms.
Richards stated that with 140 seats going up to 200 you are talking 60 more
seats – 20 more spaces - up to 230 you are talking 90 more so you are looking
for 30 more parking spaces. Attorney
Maleck agreed. Ms. Richards added that
is what the by-law allows them to do.
She also said that this is no surprise – she feels frustrated that they
(the Board) is being put in this position.
She said that they struggled with the criteria for a restaurant in the
beginning and they were told that the site could not hold a full scale
restaurant, then we bought into the concept of an up-scale restaurant with a
limited impact and that the 140 seats was really going to work.
Attorney
Maleck stated, but it did not. It does
not work. East Longmeadow is not the
place for . . Mr. Morrissette stated
that unfortunately, that is not the Planning Board’s - - (Attorney Maleck –
that’s not reality) Mr. Morrissette – it is the reality.
Attorney
Maleck stated she wants to know why he signed on to the 140 - that is why. Mr. Gurera stated that it was not
deceitful. Mr. Morrissette stated that
we are not saying you were deceitful. Mr.
Gurera stated there are indications that I knew, I knew, I knew – personally I
did not know that he could not use the downstairs for prep – it was my
ignorance. Ms. Richards asked “you did
not know that?” Mr. Gurera said to be
honest, it came as a surprise to him the other day when Paul mentioned it the
other day about the basement when he inspected it. Ms. Richards stated that it is in the
minutes. Mr. Gurera stated that he is
not that sharp maybe, he did not know – honestly.