City of Westfield PLANNING BOARD Philip M ce w a n, C ha ir W illia m Car e lla s, V ic e C ha ir C her yl Cr o we

Transcription

1 City of Westfield PLANNING BOARD Philip M ce w a n, C ha ir W illia m Car e lla s, V ic e C ha ir C her yl Cr o we Ro bert Go yet t e, Jr. Ja ne M agar ia n Ra ymo nd St. H ila ir e Car l V ince nt Ber nard Puz a, As so c iat e May 16, 2017 Chairman McEwan called the Regular Meeting of the Westfield Planning Board to order at 7:12 pm in City Council Chambers, Municipal Building, 59 Court Street, Westfield, MA. X PB MEMBERS PRESENT X MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF X Philip McEwan, Chair X Jay Vinskey, Principal Planner X William Carellas, Vice Chair X Christine Fedora, Secretary X Cheryl Crowe X Robert Goyette, Jr. X Jane Magarian X Raymond St. Hilaire X Carl Vincent X Bernard Puza, Associate Chairman McEwan called the regular meeting to order at 7:12. A. Public Participation ( on any matter not the subject of a public hearing) Chairman McEwan asked if there was anyone in the room who would like to address the Board regarding items not currently on the agenda? Joshua Ouillet ~31 Meadowbrook Lane Inquired about the project on Southampton Road. Chairman McEwan responded there would be an opportunity to speak later in the meeting. Kristen Mello ~ Moseley Avenue Voiced her concerns regarding the aquifer and how sections of the Stormwater Management Chapter 16, Article 4 are not being addressed and they are in non-compliance of the conditions. B. Review and approval of previous meeting minutes ( , ) Carellas MOTIONED, seconded by Goyette to approve the 4-24 & Minutes. All in favor. C. Review of plans not requiring approval under Subdivision Control Law Rachel Terrace & Grandview Dr/ Cennama 1

2 Vinskey noted the zoning width requirement may be questionable, but the Buuilding inspector favorably interpreted it for this plan; but not relevant to the ANR review. The Board unanimously approved the plan as submitted. D. Posted Public Hearings (and possible deliberation & decision) Continuation Special Permit/Site Plan/Stormwater Permit-aviation museum at Barnes Airport Airport Rd. Addressing the Board was Rob Levesque. Mr. Levesque noted that Paul Dion and Attorney Mark Beglane were in attendance. Mr. Levesque informed the Board they are seeking a continuance of the hearing because additional information was requested from the Planning Department and Engineering Department, they are in the process of responding to those issues. He also noted in the meantime they had received a communication from the Airport Manager which Jay Vinskey forwarded to him; basically the E Mail stated the Airport Commission does not approve the project. Paul Dion treasurer of the Museum addressed the Board. Mr. Dion noted he was aware the Board has been asked by the Airport Commission to deny the continuance and asked if he could tell address the Board. He then read portions of a letter from Amy Corbit the Regional Administer from the FAA which stated the lease is with the city and not the F.A.A. There is no standing between the Museum and the City. He then proceeded to inform the Board they have had the lease since 1999, and the term of the lease is for 99 years. He further noted different work they have done on the project, noting they have tried to comply with the conditions as the F.A.A. has requested and asked they be allowed to continue with the Site Plan Review process. McEwan asked for a specific date? Mr. Dion indicated he would like to continue to July 18 th. Carellas MOTIONED, seconded by Magarian to continue to July 18, All in Favor. Levesque asked if there was anything that would prevent the Planning Board from taking action? Vinskey noted there is a section of the zoning ordinance that states the Airport Commission must approve anything in the Airport District prior to the Planning Board action. Levesque noted there might be some confusion as to whether the referenced the site plan permit or the building permit. Vinskey proceeded to read the E Mail into the record and said he had subsequently clarified it with the manager to be the Board s permit (site plan/special permit). Attorney Mark Beglane addressed the Board he indicated there has been ongoing problems. The plans have been submitted to the Airport Commission. He further noted if they don t act within 60 days it is deemed approved, he felt this was deemed approved according to the lease because of their lack of inaction. He felt this is a catch 22 situation because of the different boards. 2

3 Chairman McEwan interjected that the meeting has already been continued; the time to talk was prior to the continuation. Special Permit Fuel storage 1110 E Mountain Road (Comcast) Representing the petitioner was Rob Levesque of R. Levesque Associates. Mr. Levesque introduced Chris Carey Architect and Elaine Leahy of Comcast. Mr. Levesque proceeded to show the existing generator and the new tank. The new tank will hold 1763 gallons of fuel for the generators. He noted they have gone to BAPAC as this is a Special Permit located over the aquifer; some questions were raised at the BAPAC meeting, like how the fuel tanks get accessed/ filled? Containment? Levesque indicated currently there are no controls in place. They have looked at containment units and will work with Comcast to get a specific location as to where they would be located, he also noted they would fuel only once a year, they will not be switching fuel out, the fuel will only be used for emergencies. The Board further questioned the type of tanks? Levesque replied he was not sure of the specifics but noted he would have more specifics for the next meeting. McEwan further asked questions regarding the age of the tank? What kind of triple containment? What is the size of generators? He felt this seems like a lot of fuel, how many days storage for an outage? Fuel used during emergencies some point will have to off load and replace like to know procedure? Filling procedure to filling tank? Does piping run from fuel storage to generators? He further voiced his concerns he wanted to make sure everything was in place for a safety response if there are any issues that arise. Room fact? Barbara Rokosz Asked if the tanks get tested on regular basis? Like to know results and report for public access to verify information she also asked who conducts the tests and if it gets filed with the government? Levesque replied he would check into it. Councilor Babinski noted the BAPAC will be meeting the first Tuesday in June, if the project needs to go back. Goyette MOTIONED, seconded by Magarian to continue June 20 th. All in Favor. Site Plan/Stormwater Commercial Development 710 Southampton Road Chair McEwan read the public hearing notice into the record and noted this application is a Site Plan review for an allowed use. Presenting the proposal was Rob Levesque of R. Levesque Associates. Mr. Levesque informed the Board the site is located on the west side of Southampton Road. The proposal is for 3 3

4 buildings, 2 retail uses in front and a drive thru restaurant, there will be ample parking to meet the zoning requirements. Levesque noted the zone change the Council approved left a 50 foot strip to provide neighbors to the south with a buffer. He also noted there will be 2 curb cuts off Southampton Road; they will be filing with the MA DOT. He also noted they stayed out of river front area and have filed a NOI with Conservation. McEwan expressed concern that the northern driveway was close to the abutting facility s driveway. Vinskey noted there were revised plans submitted, addressing some of his comments. Puza inquired if there is a home on the property now? Levesque replied it would be demolished as well as a couple buildings out back. Magarian inquired if there are tenants in the home? Levesque replied they would like to get the approval first then get the tenants out. Vincent asked what they are doing to protect the abutters? Levesque informed him they agreed not to strip the south side of the trees; there will be a buffer and a double row of white pines. 6 foot stockade fence. Magarian inquired if there is a restaurant drive thru? Open 24 hours? Levesque informed him they might want to be 24 hours, noting he could not speak for sure right now. Vincent asked if there would be bicycle racks? Yes. Vincent asked if the businesses take off would it be a higher traffic? Study? Levesque informed them if it changes they would need to come back to the planning board. Room fact? Meridith Salois -15 Meadowbrook Lane - Inquired about the 6 foot fences noting a lot of the residences already have 6 foot wooden fences. She also inquired if it is a 24 hour operation would it require a special permit? Vinskey noted it s not a regulated use. She further noted her concerns regarding water drainage, tenants, use, traffic, noise. Concerns were also raised regarding large trucks making deliveries. Levesque indicated they have a program they use with auto turn, which shows a tractor trailer would be able to make the deliveries and come in and out. The gentleman from Microabrasives addressed the Board and asked who would be coming in? McEwan noted retail use is an allowed use you can t prohibit them from coming in. Doug - 30 Meadowbrook Lane - Inquired if this has been approved? McEwan replied it will not be denied, this is an allowed use, the Board is more of a regulatory authority with site plans, physical layout. He further inquired if they foresee the need for access road at some point? Is it designed for tractor trailers? Need for access road? He further asked if they considered reversing the plan and putting on the north side and larger on the south side. He voiced concerns regarding pine trees and 6 foot fence. Levesque informed him they have been to Conservation and received their approval as well as the endangered species have signed off as well. 4

5 Kristen Mello - Asked about the amount of proposed impervious coverage as well as the environmental impact there would be from the clearing of the trees. Mature trees, environmental impact analysis done ability to clean air? Levesque replied there is no requirement for air quality when clearing trees, very few, entirety of project. The trees Ms. Mello was speaking of are all outside the river front area except a small area. Meridith Salois - 15 Meadowbrook - Voiced concerns regarding the demolishing of the building and the fact it used to be an automotive facility, she inquired as to if it is dug up how will that affect the soil quality? How will this impact the lot? Levesque replied a geologist would be required to be at the site. Councilor Babinski - Inquired as to if they have any plans for tenants? They informed her office would be first and then they would seek tenants. Barbara Rokosz - Inquired if they have done a 21E? Levesque indicated they would have the first phase, after that they would determine if further testing is needed. Vincent inquired if this was city water or well? City. In favor? Opposed? Joshua Ouellette - 31 Meadowbrook Lane - Voiced concerns regarding the environment, habitat one of the biggest problems worlds today, won t be able to survive. Brought up animals out there. More fast food restaurants, bank, no sidewalks, really decrease quality of life, more pavement, strip mall. Meridith Salois - 15 Meadowbrook Lane - Don t know best plan for this location, impact road, traffic, noise lights, pollution land, Stormwater. Barbara Rokosz - Not against business, runs big risk don t have control over when businesses can run. Moved here because of location and businesses. Doug - 30 Meadowbrook Lane - Opposed plan in general, property value, general concerns. Kristin Mello - Cannot support as written, think could be developed more responsible fashion, reduce impervious coverage, don t think have to disturb environment. Carl Vincent - signs? Pylon sign front of property. Will have to go building department. Truck delivery routes? Designated? Specific area did label it. Showed loading area, 5

6 Dumpster? Yes enclosed 6 foot enclosed. Photometric plan? Rob property line to the north, pine trees, directly on property line, drive isle here. Cheryl white pine trees and 6 foot fence? Voiced concerns regarding fencing and tree distance. Bernie understand business, opportunity drive up issue with drive up abutting residence in that area, will see tractor trailers pulling up, drive up issue with him. Rob drive up itself, showed area where drive thru would be. Phil row of white pines, staggered? Yes. Jay stormwater comments rec d and responded to; no final sign off yet from city engineer. Carl motion continue to June 20 th. Additional information? Carl like to see more detail on the lights. Rob make sure will have cut sheets. Carellas inquired about the car stacking is there an appropriate number of spaces? Make sure no stacking issue. Question as to interpreting required 10-car stacking needed for the a drive thru. Two 5-car lanes ok? Rob could stack 40 cars before Southampton Road. Felt more than ample. Reviewed stacking. Goyette seconded the Motion to continue to June 20, All in Favor. The Westfield Planning Board will conduct a Public Hearing on May 16, 2017, at 7:00 P.M. in City Council Chambers, Municipal Building, 59 Court St., Westfield, MA on the application of Roots Athletic Center, Inc. for an amendment to a Special Permit, Site Plan Approval & Stormwater Management Permit (granted 1/6/15) allowing for a commercial athletic facility at 181 Root Rd. (Map 62R Parcel 24-1C), to include the addition of field lighting. Such hearing will advance only if the Board consents, at the same time and place, to specific and material changes from conditions upon which a previous denial was based, pursuant to Sec The application is available for public inspection at the Planning Office and at Members inquired as to what changes have been made since the last time? The Attorney noted they have installed shrouds on the lights, making zero lights on the property line. Attorney noted the most recent application shows 0 foot candles at the ground level and vertical on the southern boundary, Root Road zero foot on property was other side of Root Road not part of the initial submittal. 6

7 Secondly install shrouds on all lights to be erected and reduce the hourly usage, 3 months of the year the facility will be closing at 9:30 rather than 10:00. Those are the changes to the plan the Board is asked to consider. Roll call to consider materials changes and accept re-application? McEwan - Yes Carellas - Yes Crowe - Yes Goyette - Yes Magarian - Yes Vincent - Yes Puza - Yes The Board proceeded to ask questions regarding the light? How different than previous? Carellas asked if there would be shrouds on every light? Current and future? Yes, the shrouds would be on every light and each light would be zero foot candles? They were tested on 2 separate occasions, he noted they would not be here if they couldn t do it. Bryan Balicki indicated the lights would be at a 90 degree angle down set on original calculations, they would be lock shot and then there would be shrouds on, with weight shrouds, make so can t move. Would not go in other direction. Vincent asked if the lights tested are at zero candles and if they were independently done? Going to be done; part of proposal - city decides who they want to test. The applicant tested it on their own, city hasn t selected anyone yet to perform test. Carl address to work on buffer zone? Part of what was approved. Bryan revised landscape plan would be part of this moving forward, Fact room regarding lighting? Coni Adams - Root Road - How many lights are being added and where? Bryan Balicki informed her there is nothing being added that is not shown on plans. Zero not adding any new lights there, currently there are half of the lights installed, the lights that aren t installed yet are on the rear field, adding the buffer plantings would be done at the same time. Michael McCarthy Root Road - Hours of operation? Winter months? Time during summer months? Phil lights out by 10:00. January, February and March lights out at 9:30. The rest of the year would be 10:00. Jennifer Dallmeyer root road- Voiced concerns this was never part of the initial application. Coni Adams - Planning to plow soccer fields? To be determined; typically don t plow. 7

8 Kristin Mello - Inquired if the Board approves the amendment does it imply approval to other situations? McEwan informed her it doesn t apply to anything else, just the lights. In favor? Opposed? Barbara- opposed any project lights at night. Maryann Babinski- Voiced concerns that lights would be on until 10:00 with the exception of 3 months a year, she felt the Board should wait until they see if the shields are working. She also voiced concerns regarding noise pollution as well. Jennifer Dallmeyer Root Road - Voiced concerns regarding how this affects the neighborhood with the noise, speeding traffic,, frustrating not just the lights, increase all of that noise, traffic, parking issue, nonstop. Kristin Mello - Opposed, do not believe this amendment should be approved concerns she addressed were the light information without study, blind permit, foolish, highly recommend do not do that, how asked how they can be in noncompliance and ask for something more, she felt the Board should use their authority now. Coni Adams - Root Road - Objection everyone thought great idea when no lights, fact lights, better for Roots, originally no lights, thought reasonable think stop, adding lights extending lights, noise pollution, and traffic atrocious. A lot of neighborhoods here, quality of life and real estate will be impacted, all result of lights, agree with Kristin fact rewarding bad behavior for installing could get away with something, bad thing, bad precedent, careful clear planning, up to you guys to do that, asking to job. Gail Pase - 66 Sherwood Avenue - Felt the applicant is writing a new play book as to how to get away with everything. She also mentioned that she heard that city employees were getting a discount if they signed up at Roots she felt this was a funny thing. Opposed? Kevin Conley Root road - Opposed lights, traffic, noise, factors will exasperate studies done no light trespass, disagree with that, not accurate. Lack of good faith no permit for lights and against wishes, set dangerous precedence. Opposed all above reasons. Dangerous precedent. Jay noted there was also an from neighbor, Leonard. Phil read into the record. It was noted the firm that would be testing the lights would be chosen by the city, it s not based on what the applicant is saying but rather what the third party will say. Comments? 8

9 Goyette MOTIONED, seconded by Puza to close. All in Favor. Crowe addressed the room stating there are a lot of people opposed to the lights. She stressed the Board is doing their jobs. The Board reviewed the draft decision: Amendment to Special Permits and a Site Plan per Sections (13), & of the Zoning Ordinance and a Stormwater Management Permit per Section of the Code of Ordinances to allow for a an indoor/outdoor commercial recreation/athletic facility and associated uses, as granted in Case #2667 and recorded in the Hampden County Registry of Deeds in Book 20578, Page 525. Draft Findings The scope of this amendment and the Board s review concerned the addition of sports field lighting; such change will have no effect upon matters regulated by the water resource protection district. Therefore, the findings described in said original decision are hereby reaffirmed, with the additional finding that the proposed field lighting is a reasonable addition to the site and will be sufficiently contained on the property, thereby mitigating neighborhood impacts. Further the Board finds, by this supermajority, specific and materials changes from the basis for the previously denied amendment (Case #2760) which also sought to add lighting. Such present changes include the elimination of light trespass across property lines, achievable through the use of installed shields. Special Conditions The conditions described in said original decision shall remain in force, EXCEPT Conditions #1, #14 and #15, which shall be replaced/augmented with the following: 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved site plan entitled Roots Athletic Center, sheets C-2, C-4, C-7 revised ; C-3 revised ; C-5 revised ; C- 6 revised ; C-15 dated ; C-8, A1.1, A1.2, dated ; A2.1 dated , project no , and the associated Site Evaluation Statement and Stormwater Management Report revised , all as prepared by Furrow Engineering, signed and sealed by Frank Demarinis, P.E., and as may be amended herein. (The Planning Board may allow changes to the approved site plan, which it determines are minor, at a regularly scheduled public meeting of the Board, and did allow certain changes from said plans at its 12/6/16 meeting). 14. General hours of operation for the subject use shall not occur earlier than 7:00am nor later than 1:00am, with the premises vacated (except for facility staff) and site lighting off by 1:15am (except for limited security lighting), provided a. The use of the outdoor athletic fields and/or their lighting shall not occur later than 10:00pm from March through November, nor later than 9:30pm from December through February, and b. The lighting for the outdoor athletic fields shall not produce more than zero (0) foot candles measured horizontally (ground level) or vertically anywhere along the property s southern boundary, the property s boundary with Root Road, or at adjacent properties across Root Road. 9

10 15. The Board retains its jurisdiction and right, on its own motion, to reconsider, revoke or amend this approval (after holding a public hearing in accordance Section ) when it has cause to believe there had intentionally been false or misleading information given, or there is repeated material noncompliance with any condition imposed herein. Discussion? Bill motion approve, Bob seconded. discussion? Roll call: McEwan - Yes Carellas - Yes Crowe - Yes Goyette - Yes Magarian - Yes Vincent - Yes Puza - Yes Amendment approved 7 to 0 vote. F. Other Business Schortmann/Union St. Not ready to proceed still in front of Council, put on for the 20 th as well. Carellas MOTIONED to continue to June 20 th. All in Favor. Wal Mart - Grocery pick up Jim Granston, Bowler Engineering Addressed the Board informing them Wal-Mart expanded years ago, There is a new feature they have been adding to their stores and would like to include Westfield s store. They are adding on line ordering process. The orders are packaged at the store, the customers drive to the site to pick up their order. There will be signs indicating the pick-up area which will be located on the left side of building, 6 parking spaces will be dedicated to this operation and will be under a canopy, each customer will be assigned a parking space number to pick up their order. There will be a slight change in grade so a ramp will need to be installed. Board members voiced their concerns regarding the Christmas season and if this could cause a problem during the Christmas season. The Board also inquired about the possibility of a liquor store coming. Vincent had great concerns regarding consumers and deliveries and traffic markings. Vinskey felt this could be a minor change, but wanted to ask if the Board also felt it was minor change or proceed with formal amendment? Goyette felt this would be a minor change. McEwan in the scope of things, small massive building except traffic flow, doesn t think big deal. Vincent felt it was a big deal, he didn t think it was a minor change adding you can t put findings and conditions on minor change. Vinskey noted the Board could come up with an agreement or arrangement. 10

11 Phil parking already there, door already there, difference someone walking out with groceries. Bernie doesn t see something good happening there; traffic conflicts. Concern was also raised about new car traffic using the truck access. Cheryl traffic flow think could be expansion coming down road increase traffic trucks and people. Vincent MOTIONED to deny the request as a minor change and seek full amendment application; he felt the Board should do the job right. Crowe agreed she would like to see things done as simple as possible but would like answers to the Boards concerns, she would like to have a third option to give them the opportunity to come back and if they can t answer everything they have an opportunity to file a site plan. Vinskey felt as far as a timing issue they could proceed with a formal application and get on a hearing for the 20 th instead of having same discussion and ending up pushing off further, noting it does not seem like the Board thinks this is minor. Bill seconded to require an application, AIF. Vinskey noted if the application is received by the end of the month it could be on the June 20 th agenda for a hearing. Stormwater permit review - Roots Discussion initiated from last meeting. Goyette under Board s purview to contact Stormwater Coordinator. Representatives do that as body, and have him look into the issues brought up by Ms. Mello. Jay copy of her was sent to him, does have that information if board wants to follow up with something it can do, but should find something in permit directing him to know what aspect to looking. Ms. Mello addressed the Board siting sections of the Stormwater Management ordinance she felt would clarify her feelings. Attorney Reed addressed the Board and informed them the Stormwater Coordinator is well aware of what is going on and if he felt there was a violation he would have sent out a notice of the violation. The Board did not decide to take further action. Motion to adjourn at 10:18. AIF. 11