Minutes
of August 7, 2007
Present were:
Louis Calabrese, Clerk; Michael Przybylowicz and Donald
Anderson.
Request for Signage – Sleepy’s
The Board reviewed the signage
presented for Sleepy’s that measures 99.9 square feet. The sign will be interior illuminated with
red plexus acrylic letters. Ms. Richards
addressed the Board for any questions. Mr. Morrissette asked if they still had the
ability to lower the intensity of the sign if it turned out to be too bright? Mr.
McBride said that it will be no brighter than the Walgreen’s sign and that they
could change the brightness if it was found by the Board to be offensive or
disruptive. He added that, in the event any lighting is
offensive, they will use a diffuser on the interior portion; that the second
surface will be plexiglas whereby the intensity could be turned down and, in
addition, they had eliminated some of the LED lights. Mr. Przybylowicz said that there
appears to be a conflict between the application and the sign rendering itself,
in that the dimensions mentioned on the rendering shows a height of 4’ 4” where
their application shows 3’8”. Mr.
McBride said that he made a mistake on the application, and the overall
dimensions are correct and are actually the 3’8”.
With no further discussion, and, upon
motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the
signage conditioned upon lowering the intensity and approval by the Building
Inspector.
ANR & Parking Plan – Fazios,
Ms. Macdonald explained that Fazio’s
combined their lots they own so that their parking would not cross the lot
lines. The Board reviewed the ANR
submitted and upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (5-0)
to approve the ANR. Upon motion duly
made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the parking
plan as presented.
Ms. Macdonald explained that the
parking that was originally in the buffer area was removed and they have made
their buffer 33.5 feet in the back; have added ornamental buffer trees in
buffer zone area abutting the residential district; the sidewalk was extended
along the south side; the addition of a screened dumpster pad was added and the
dumpster will be emptied during non-business hours to allow for the use of
parking spaces adjacent to the pad. This
plan now meets all the requirements of the Board and the police
department. Therefore, the Board members
being satisfied, and upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted
unanimously (5-0) to approve and endorse the revised site plan.
Chef Lou’s - Club Meadows, 621
North Main Street
Mr. Calabrese read a letter from
Luis Maravilha, president of Chef Lou’s informing the Board that he will be talking
the kitchen over in the basement at Club Meadows, that he will be providing an extensive menu, Thursday –
Sunday and also is the new owner for the catering hall. Ms. Macdonald advised the Board that this is a
use that is allowed under the pre-existing status of the club and that Mr. Marvilha
is simply a change in the name of the caters.
Mr. Przybylowicz asked Ms. Macdonald if the operation will
remain the same? Ms. Macdonald said she thought
so but would have Mr. Marvilha provide the Board with written guaranty that it
will.
Partial Release of Subdivision Bond
–
Ms. Macdonald advised the Board that
there was an oversight with the release of bond money for Peachtree of a
misunderstanding regarding the top coat being completed. She said that the additional release is in the
amount of Twenty Three Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty One and 20/100 ($23,821.20)
Dollars and The Town of East Longmeadow will continue to hold Ninety Nine
Thousand Seven Hundred Forty Eight and 80/100
($99,748.80) Dollars. Upon motion
duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously(5-0) to approve the partial
release.
Miscellaneous
Mr. Calabrese read a letter from
Jayson Falcone regarding employee parking for the
Ms. Richards said that is part of
the condition of Planned Business Development Special Permit and it was agreed
upon by the landlord that it would be included in the leases requiring that the
employees use the rail trail for employee parking. Mr. Przybylowicz said that they should get clarification for the
Board’s own liability. Ms. Richards said
that she thinks the fact that the rail trail spaces are remote and not all visible,
that would probably be the area where the cameras should be. Ms. Macdonald said that she sent a letter to
Jayson Falcone and went over the original Special Permit and it stated within 6
months of the anticipated half full capacity of 25,000 square feet of the
50,000 square feet, the applicant would provide another traffic study and
monitoring plan. She said she asked him
to provide the Board with the names of three (3) consultants to do studies so
that the Board could choose one.
Public Hearing Special Permit – Ominipoint Communications,
The Chair,
Bob Wallace, Fire Chief said his only
concern would be with the electric supply for the main shut if a fire arises any issues that
lighting draws. Ms. Macdonald stated
that she had previously e-mailed the applicant Attorney Simon Brighenti what
additional documents the Board would need:
1.
Certificate of insurance
which is to be provided on an annual basis.
2.
Corporate
documentation granting authority for assistant treasurer to
sign for church.
3. Designation of parking space for the maintenance van.
4.
Speak to Omnipoint
regarding the lack of maintenance at the
5. Provide a maintenance plan.
6. Provide the Fire
department with the information they are requesting.
Attorney Simon Brighenti said that
Omnipoint was trying to increase their service in
Attorney Brighenti said the issue
with
Ms. Richards addressed the Board
for nay questions.
Mr. Anderson asked if the church
was under any historical commission because of it’s age? Ms. Macdonald said no. Mr. Anderson said in the event another
company comes in would that change the
interior of the tower? Attorney
Brighenti said that in that location it would be difficult for another carrier
to get in there because of the size of the interior so essentially it is a one
site facility.
Mr. Przybylowicz asked how wide will the cable tray and what
kind of material will it be made of?
Attorney Brighenti said it will probably be about 8” wide and usually
made of metal that is non-reflective and painted to match the existing facade.
Ms.
Richards addressed the audience for any questions.
Pete
Punderson, 131 Pease Road asked where the electrical equipment was going to be? Attorney Brighenti said to the rear of the
church.
Lynn Martin, 28 Somers Road asked if it would impact any of the surrounding houses,
such as noise? Attorney Brigenti said
the only noise would be from the air conditioner condenser that is no larger
than a regular household air conditioner compressor.
Tom Fitzgerald, Somers Road feels that the location is an ideal place because you
won’t even know it’s there. He said one
other thing that is good is the new system for the electrical that has an
outside shut off which makes it much more safer for the fire department.
Ms. Richards said the by-law
requires the posting of a bond to protect the town for a tower that may be
abandoned or damaged. She said that the
bond gives them the dollars with which to be able to remove it and the situation
is a little unique with it being located within a church and she was not sure if
they need to require a bond.
Al Peterson, Hampden Road said that the church has a signed contract with the
carrier pertaining to dismantling the equipment.
Mr. Morrissette said that the
Board would like a copy of the section of the contract that talks about the
removal and he would recommend that the Board waive the requirement for signage
for designated parking space.
With no further discussion and
upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to close
the hearing. Upon motion duly made and
seconded, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the Special Permit conditioned upon matching the existing
architectural design and providing the documentation that Ms. Macdonald
specified.
Jim Donahue discussion re:
Spoleto’s Special Permit
Ms. Richards said for the record
an enforcement letter went out August 6, 2007 and the information given to the
Selectmen last week was slightly incorrect only because it was her
understanding that the letter had previously been sent.
Attorney Donahue said that he had just
come from the Selectmen’s meeting and was given a copy of the letter and that
the Board of Selectmen had finalized their letter to Spoleto’s with respect to
their licensing issues. He said that they
gave Spoleto’s 30 days to come into compliance with the Special Permit and
their licensing requirements for their all alcoholic beverage licenses. He said if Spoleto’s was not in compliance that
the Selectmen would reserve the right to take what ever enforcement actions
were necessary.
Ms. Richards said that they met 2
weeks ago with the applicant to discuss the perceived violations and it was
confirmed at that meeting that those violations did exist based on recent inspections
and testimony from Paul Maleck, Counsel for Claudio Gurera and Claudio
Gurera. She said that the meeting was
used as notification to the applicant in the event that the Board was
interested in scheduling a public hearing to further discuss modification or revocation
of the Special Permit. The land owner has
said a plan to come up with a temporary arrangement to basically bring them
into compliance is in the works. Ms.
Richards said currently their Special Permit limits them to 140 seats, no food
preparation in the basement and when outside seating is provided, the same number of seat inside have to be
removed. She also stated none of those
conditions are being adhered to. She
said to date there has been no attempt to try to rectify that. Ms. Richards said there is the 30 day limit
from the Building Inspector in terms of his formal enforcement letter, the
problem is where do they go after 30 days?
She then asked Attorney Donahue to
help them with the process.
Attorney Donahue said after talking
with Attorney Maleck, it is his (Attorney Donahue) understanding that they intend
to implement plans for a temporary solution to the parking issue which would entail
the short term lease of approximately 6,000 square feet of space in the
shopping center. The applicant is
hopeful that would be sufficient to address their current parking short
fall. Attorney Donahue stated that that
would entail the need for an amendment to the Special Permit and an amendment
to their licenses with the Board of Selectmen as both of those are related to
the Special Permit. Attorney Donahue said
that he did not ask Attorney Maleck whether or not leases were actually
executed to run from August 1st through the end of October.
Mr. Morrissette said it was his
understanding that no leases had been executed as of that afternoon and he is
concerned about whether those spaces are going to be unfinished and without
CO’s - can they be used in the approval process? Attorney Donahue said they need to know how
the spaces are going to be used and the primary issue with respect to parking is
that the concern is that there will not be enough parking in the facility to
address the total square footage of the project given Spoleto’s current usage
of excess seats. He said what would
probably have to happen is that Spoleto’s’ would have to come in with a request
to expand their facility to include the
additional 6,000 square feet with the understanding that 6,000 square feet,
although part of their facility, will not be used as part of the operation of
their restaurant unless or until all the other requirements with respect to the
operation were complied with. He doesn’t
believe that there is any intent to use that 6,000 square feet that’s it’s
space that’s going to be dedicated to that operation and not used. He said if that works in connection with the
requirements of the Special Permit and is acceptable to the Board, that might
be a short term solution to the issue of the excess utilization of the seating
capacity of the restaurant.
Attorney Donahue then added that
the other issue that has to be addressed or modified is the violation with
respect to the use of the basement area and they need to determine what action should
be taken. He understands that it relates
to the overall parking situation because the use for preparation increases the
area of seating capacity on the first floor.
However, on a short term basis, assuming that the numbers work out based
on the ratios in the by-laws for different types of uses, that may be a short
term solution that would allow Spoleto’s to step outside of the violation they
are currently in assuming they file everything that they need through the
outdoor eating season.
Attorney Donahue said that he was
advised the permanent solution to be sought by the applicant is that Spoleto’s intends
to seek town meeting approval for the modification of the parking requirements in
so far as they relate to the zoning district.
He said it may be a solution for them, it may be a solution for the
project, it may be a solution for the development, it may not be and then again
they would have to come before the Board for review. Attorney Donahue said Attorney Maleck had
counted the parking spaces and determined there was in excess of 200 vacant spaces
and indicated that the requirement used to determine the space ratio for
parking may be able to be revised to make the project more viable. Further, Attorney Donahue stated that he was
advised that the developer may seek to expand the overall parking connected
with the site and seek to dedicate some of that parking to Spoleto’s restaurant. He doesn’t have the specifics on where it
would be and doesn’t recall how the inter play of the cross parking easement
works. Attorney Donahue said he did not
believe that under the existing easement that any one tenant has any more
rights to any of the parking spaces, except the health club which has a minimal
number that are dedicated but they are dedicated in the original agreement so
if they were going to modify that it would require all 4 of the participants in
the original agreement to agree to those amendments, the town being 1 of the
participants. He said that those were
the 2 areas being looked at for long term solutions. He said that Attorney Martel is in the
process of preparing the warrant article and amendment for the change.
Ms. Richards said with the
exception of Mr. Przybylowicz
all of the Board members were contacted by one of landlords within the last 24
to 48 hours and the information given
was the temporary arrangement to bring them into compliance with regard to the
vacant space which is next to Spoleto’s and next to Sleepy’s. She said that they are talking about 25
parking spaces that would be available based on 5,000 square feet and they are
looking at 75 additional seats for the restaurant with the outside seating
closed. She said the offers extended to
her over the phone were policing of parking on the rail trial and the requiring
employees to park on the rail trail – that if they did not comply, the landlord
would engage in a parking sticker program for employees so enforcement could be
easier. She said they want 25 additional
spaces on the rail trial if the Board agrees to them for employee parking with
or without stickers and in conjunction with a valet service to get people to
park out there and that would solve their problem.
Attorney
Donahue said that Spoleto’s did propose valet parking on Friday & Saturday
evening from 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. He
said the issue he raised with the Board of Selectmen with respect to the
parking issues, he would be concerned if enforcement responsibility were to fall
to the town. He said that is not a
situation that the Board should accept.
Ms.
Richards said in the discussion she had with the landlord and her deepest
struggle with this that there has been no attempt to go into compliance, that
they have been in violation since day 1.
She said all of the studies, all of the information that has been
obtained with respect to Planned Business Development Special Permit (in
addition to the restaurant Special Permit) all hinge on a certain set of
criteria. The landlord has not provided
a new monitoring plan, nothing has been done with the 1st phase of
the mitigation plan regarding updating it as required at 25% occupancy. Ms. Richards said that they are still
struggling with traffic flow throughout the site and there are still 5 parking
spaces in limbo by the library - that is still a decision the Board still needs
to make. She said they are changing the
criteria for the restaurant in of itself which was originally considered a
quality restaurant and now it’s being changed to a full scale restaurant, which
drives the trip generations.
Attorney
Donahue said the Board can, through the Special Permit process, demand a
direction or an order to the developer for him to comply with his obligations under
the Special Permit or find that he is in volition of the overall Special Permit
for the project. He said if the
developer is looking for a modification they need to submit a request to the
Board.
Mr. Anderson said unless there is an
economic incentive for people to use the valet parking, he thinks the average
person would probably just park and not use the valet services.
Attorney Donahue said maybe he
missed the degree of problem with parking but he assumed that the reason
parking for Spoleto’s is an issue is that there will not be any viable parking within
an acceptable radius for people to park and walk to the restaurant. He said that is the reason that the over
utilization of the site becomes a concern.
Ms. Richards said that the issue
is the number of spaces and the reason the Board was so careful with the
original restriction for the basement use anything other than storage was
because the Board felt that there was an opportunity with 5,000 square feet in
the basement for them to transfer some of their operational responsibilities
from the upper level to the lower level which would create more room for seats
and the seats drive the parking spaces. She
said when they were dealing with Spoleto’s’ the 140 seats was the maximum the
Board could give them in terms of a Planning Board and the landlord could give
them because all of the parking requirements that were in place for every other
structure within the site.
Attorney Donahue said that he was
wrestling with is the parking for the facility is maxed out using 140 seats for
Spoleto’s and the only way Spoleto’s could increase their seating is to get
more parking spaces tied to it, they either have to take more space in the
project or come up with more parking spaces.
He said the issue with valet parking seems to be saying that there are
parking spaces designated to the project but those parking spaces are so off the
beaten path that no one who wants go to Spoleto’s will park in those spaces,
and therefore, they are part of the number but they are not used so those
people need to be forced to those locations, if that’s the case.
Ms. Richards said no that was not
the case, the numbers are the numbers and the 55 spaces were put on the rail
trail to accommodate Spoleto’s to begin with.
She said whatever parking spaces are on the plan are spoken for with
either the total square footage of the parcel or number of seats for Spoleto’s. When you go through and calculate using the
formula, that’s what we have in our parking lot.
Attorney Donahue said he was
trying to address Mr. Anderson’s position that one will not use valet parking. He said people will use the valet out of
necessity if a space is not available close to Spoleto’s then the valet service
should work.
Mr. Morrissette said the goal of
the parking plan and calculations is that there will always be spaces and if it
gets to the point where the only spaces that are available are the ones that nobody
wants then it does not work. He said
that is what they are dealing with - there is not enough of empty space in the
location that is needed that other uses will want to use.
Mr. Anderson said that the
Building Inspector said that the number of seats counted inside was 243, 52
outside totaling 295 which exceeds the capacity by 155. He said the point is that the parking plan
numbers do work if they had the right number of seats in the first place.
Attorney Donahue said you know the
number of seats that Spoleto’s was approved for and you know the number of seats
now from the Building Inspector’s most recent investigation and you have some
historical history as to where the average falls between the 140 and 295. He said it that the information the Board
really needs
is the parking analysis and
traffic plan from the developer now that a real portion of the facility is
actually in use. Additionally, with an
idea what the new tenant such AO White will generate you will get a better idea
of how the proposal by Spoleto’s for increased parking will actually work with
the overall project as it’s designed. He
said that the Board might not know the entire makeup of the tenant mix but you
are going to have much better numbers today then you had 3 years ago when you
were looking at the unknown mix of tenants.
Mr. Morrissette said that he
thinks the Board is willing to talk about modifying the permit and re-looking
at the numbers. He said the issue is the
way they did it and the fact that they are not doing anything to correct it.
Attorney Donahue said that the
applicant has to amend the Special Permit and come in with new applications but
those applications are not necessarily going to be processed in 30 days. He said that the Board should consider
requesting the missing or late parking and traffic flow plans from the
developer based on current occupancy.
Ms. Macdonald said that she sent a letter to Jayson Falcone that day
asking where that report was and reminding him that it was due to the Board.
Ms. Richards said the spot that
the Board is in right now is that another restaurant is coming before the Board
for an amendment to their Special Permit for outside seating and a change in
their entertainment license. She said
that they are waiting for approval and the Board has a restaurant that has
expanded their use without the benefit of having an approved plan and they are
also creating some issues with the existing restaurants in town.
Attorney Donahue said the issue is
what is the Board going to do? He said a
hearing could be scheduled but are they going to close the restaurant down,
revoke the special permit or suspend it? He said if the Board does not know what they
want to do and do not have the information to make the decision they what they
want to do – do you really want to have
a disciplinary hearing on the restaurant at this point and time?
Mr. Calabrese said that everything
involves a process and the letter from the Building Inspector dated August 6th
is the starting point for the violation and in the letter he is giving them 30
days to be in compliance. He said the
letter almost seems to him while they are in violation now they have 30 days to
correct the situation, it’s almost saying they could go on and continue to do
that but they have 30 days to correct the problem.
Attorney Donahue said that a cease
& desist was not issued for the operation, he indicated that there were violations
and he gave them 30 days to bring the property into compliance. He said that he believes that is the normal
process the Building Inspector follows.
Attorney Donahue said that the Planning Board is the authority and they have
to decide what you want to do with respect to the violation. The Building Inspector said that they are in
violation of the Special Permit, they may be in violation of the building code
and he gave them 30 days to correct it. Attorney
Donahue added that it would not be out of line for the Board to say the
Building Inspector is giving them 30 days we recognize there’s a violation, we
are not happy that this situation exists to begin with that there are more seats
then there should be and that the basement is being used, it’s a violation of
the permit. He said the Board could recognize
that you do not want to be at odds with an existing department who’s in charge of
enforcement, you can give them 30 days to get into compliance and if they don’t
come into compliance within 30 days then a hearing will be scheduled. He said that the Board could schedule a
hearing before the 30 days, schedule it some time after the 30 days on
September 10th or 13th and if they are in compliance then read them
the riot act and tell them that your not going to take any action, but the
Board is not going to take it in the future from them or any other restaurant. Additionally, state that once there is
violation the Board will come back and take action on the permit. Attorney Donahue said that the Board could
determine to send a notice to Spoleto’s that says a letter was received from
the Building Inspector giving them 30 days to get into compliance with the Special
Permit and other licensing requirements of the town and for the Boards Special Permit
purposes a hearing will be scheduled sometime after September 6th to
consider if they are into compliance with the order of the Building Inspector
and with the provisions of the Special Permit.
Attorney Donahue added that if he was giving the impression that the
Board should not do anything, he was just saying that the Board has to take a
direction as to what you really want to do and how fast you want to move
forward.
Ms. Macdonald asked if the Board
did that would it require a public hearing?
Attorney Donahue said although it would a public hearing for enforcement
action, it would not fall under the requirement of legal notice, and he thinks
if the Board follows through and goes forward with the game plan they agreed on
that evening, he thinks that puts them where they want to be.
It was then agreed that Attorney
Donahue would meet with Robyn and prepare a letter to Spolteo’s notifying them
of the time and date for an enforcement hearing on the violations of their
Special Permit.
Miscellaneous
Ms. Macdonald introduced Courtney Luellen, reporter from the
Reminder who was there to cover the meeting.
Ms. Macdonald said that she needs a date for a special
meeting on the enforcement for Spoleto’s.
The Board agreed on September 11th, and the cancellation of
the meeting normally to be held on September 4th.
Therefore, with no further business and upon motion duly
made and seconded, the Board voted (5-0) to close the meeting at 9:20 p.m.
For
the Board,
Louis
A. Calabrese, Clerk