February 12, 2008
MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE: |
Doug Moglin, Chairman |
|
Roz Terry, Vice Chairman |
|
Bob Johnson |
|
Sam Santaniello |
|
Cal Chunglo |
|
Richard Utzinger, Associate |
OTHER: |
Marcus Phelps, Town Planner |
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Board was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mr. Moglin.
TOWN PLANNER’S REPORT: 7:00 p.m.
1. Attended the Conservation Commission meeting on February 4. The Commission closed their public hearing on the Southwick Inn and will be preparing an Order of Conditions for the project. Also, there was a continued public hearing on the Williamsburg Estates subdivision with Mason Maronn representing D.L. Bean and providing a response to 11 comments issued by the Conservation Commission on the proposed project. Their public hearing was continued to March 3.
2. Received a letter from Attorney Richard Sypek withdrawing the request for a zone change at the 20 Depot St. property owned by the Phelps-Southwick Realty Trust.
3. Prepared paperwork for six (6) rezoning requests including three submitted by the Planning Board along College Highway and on Tannery Road. This rezoning will affect over 250 acres on 19 parcels. The other rezoning applications are for 25 Industrial Road (Dziengelewski), 787 College Highway (Silan) and 76 Sunnyside Road (Bannish). Public Hearings are scheduled for March 11 and 18 with 3 hearings each evening.
4. The Valley Development Council will be meeting on February 14 at the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission’s office in West Springfield. The agenda includes sharing information on Smart Growth projects and efforts to implement the Valley Vision 2 plan.
5. An article in the Springfield Republican on February 3rd discussed efforts by Agawam to review their policy on temporary signs. The results of this review may be helpful in revising Southwick’s sign bylaw.
6. Prepared paperwork for a public hearing on Honey Pot Road tree removal in response to a request from the DPW asking for written consent from the Planning Board to remove public shade trees on a designated scenic road.
7. Received a copy of a letter to the Board of Selectmen from R. Levesque to withdraw the zone change request for Lot 2 on Jarry Drive.
Mrs. Terry asked about the condition of Honey Pot Road and if any thing was being done. Mr. Moglin went to a meeting with the CAO, Mr. Neece, DPW and Mr. Phelps, the Town Planner. At the Planning Board meeting five months ago Mr. Neece said he could maintain the road. The Planning Board voted accordingly. Now he has reversed himself and feels that he can no longer maintain the road. Mr. Phelps looked at Honey Pot Road and said that it was a disaster and a safety issue. He also attended the Selectman’s meeting on February 4 and February 11 to hear the discussion on Honey Pot road. The selectmen voted to authorize DPW to re-apply to the Planning Board regarding the matter of removing trees along a Scenic Road. He said based on the information that we have from Mr. Neece and from the condition of the road that the Planning board
needs to revisit this issue. A MOTION was made by Mrs. Terry and seconded by Mr. Johnson to revisit Scenic Honey Pot Road. The motion was passed unanimously. The Public Hearing is scheduled for March 4, 2008.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no public comments.
APPOINTMENTS:
7:20 p.m. 280 College Highway CHO
Larry Pelletier of 280 College Highway applied for a CHO permit to have an office in his residence for a business called Spike Custom Design. He stated that there would be no customers on the premises, no business sign, no trucks or heavy duty equipment and no additional employees.
A MOTION was made by Mrs. Terry and seconded by Mr. Chunglo to approve the CHO application as reviewed. The vote was unanimous.
7:25 p.m. Lexington Circle Discussion
Doug Williams, of Lexington Circle Development cancelled.
7:30 p.m. Williamsburg Estates Continuation of Public Hearing
The hearing is continued from the 8th of January. Mr. Moglin read into the record a report form the Historical Commission.
See Attachment A.
Mr. Chunglo asked if we know if the trees mentioned in the Historical Commission report are actually on the right of way or are they on the golf course. Mr. Shute replied that they are on the plan. Mr. Moglin commented that on the plan there are varying widths of the road to the subdivision that seems to bring it out of conformance with the Town Bylaw for that type of road. According to the bylaw it is supposed to be 60 feet. Mr. Shute said that it is supposed to be 60 feet if it is a connector street. The preliminary plan was approved with a 50 foot width. Mr. Moglin said that the preliminary approval of a plan does not signify anything as far as going forward for approval of a definitive plan. Preliminary approval is a less stringent review of the plan. We reviewed the Subdivision of Land Chapter 315 and believe that street is
connecting from one part of town to another. We believe that this street needs to be 60 feet wide all the way through. A discussion followed as to whether the street will be a connector street or a local street.
Mr. Phelps reported that the peer review of the plan should be available by the end of February and before the next public hearing on this matter. The report will be distributed to the board and to Mr. Shute as soon as it is received. Mr. Shute submitted a request for a 30 day extension.
Fred Filios of 23 Meadow Lane read a statement opposed to the peer approval selection process, concerns of the buffer zone, and connecting roads. He also expressed concern that the Planning Board has not met with the Conservation Commission. He did not leave a copy of his objections because it is in draft form. He has agreed to forward the statement to Mr. Moglin. Mrs. Terry responded that there are some things the Board cannot do by law. Mr. Moglin explained that the he went back to Town Council and the CAO of the Town to revisit the peer review process that the Board had put in place. The Town Attorney reviewed the process and agreed that it is acceptable as presented. The attorney did suggest that the peer reviewer sign an affidavit to the affect that they have no financial interest in this application nor any business relationship with
Mr. DePalma. We have that affidavit on file and anyone who wants to review the contract and the agreement that was signed with the peer reviewer is welcome to do so. The contract is administrated by the Board of Selectmen, they are contracting authority. Mr. Moglin added that the Planning Board has a scheduled meeting coming up with the Conservation Commission on this project on February 26, 2008. The Conservation Commission meets less often than the Planning Board and they are still in the middle of their Public Hearing process. Therefore, meeting before this would be premature. The Conservation Commission has their issues and the Planning Board has their separate issues. It is not the place of the Conservation Commission to tell the Planning Board who to use for a peer review and it is not for the Planning Board to tell the Conservation Commission who they should choose as a peer reviewer. This application will not decided upon tonight or in the near future.
Fred Filios of 23 Meadow Lane said as far as the peer review I do not feel confident and am concerned with the way the Board is doing the selection of the Peer Reviewer. Even though you may be following the letter of the law the spirit of the law is questionable.
Jeff Carrigan of 4 Stagecoach Road spoke to his concerns of the peer review process. He said that with a little effort the Board could improve on the process by using a rotating selection process or selecting at random instead of letting the developer choose a peer reviewer.
Lynda Mizanoglu of 19 Meadow Lane asked if Conservation Commission has their own peer review and Mr. DePalma has his own peer review, is that correct? Mrs. Terry replied that the peer reviewer for the Planning Board is looking at zoning, land use, and the stormwater laws. The peer reviewer has the expertise to review the entire plan according to the laws. The peer reviewer that was chosen was not the first one approached and accepted. The Conservation Commission hires their own peer reviewer to look at conservation issues.
Mr. Johnson stated that the Planning Board is a volunteer Board trying to do the best job for the Town. He said that those in the room were here because of a Developer. Other people have the right to do the same thing; to come in and live here as long as they are doing it properly. The Board appreciates the concerns and issues expressed by those present.
Mr. Chunglo reminded those present that Meadow Lane was originally designed to be connected to somewhere else. That street does not conform to either of the zoning books due to their length.
Gary Schlichtirs of 12 Meadow Brook Road asked who is responsible to do a traffic study to see what the impact will be of putting that road down Sunnyside Road. Mrs. Terry replied that she did not know how a study could be done on a non existing road. There will be more traffic because of the additional houses.
Mr. Moglin replied that he would go back and review the bylaws to see if a traffic study is required. He agreed to have the answer at the next hearing. He offered to reply directly to Schlichtirs if he left a telephone number.
In response to a question about communication among Boards and Committees, Mr. Moglin stated that there is a process in Town Hall to provide continuity by meeting with all department heads on at least a monthly basis. The Planner attends this meeting and they discuss issues of mutual concern.
Anthony Frasco of 8 Meadow Lane asked about the grade of the road. Is the primary reason why the road that goes through the Ranch a private road because of the grade change from top to bottom? Mr. Moglin replied that the Ranch development is a gated and private road. There is no intention to make Williamsburg Estates a gated community. Mr. Shute said that the grades were waived on the golf course.
Mr. Shute asked if the Ranch was a Flexible Residential Development (FRD)? Mrs. Terry replied that an FRD can get narrower roads and smaller lots by giving up open space.
Mr. Moglin scheduled the Continued Public Hearing to March 25, 2008 at 7:30 p.m.
Mr. Shute requested a thirty-day extension for the application. Mr. Moglin assured Mr. Shute that he would receive a copy of the peer review as soon as the Planning Board received it.
Mr. Moglin explained to those present that no work is being done on this plan as yet. However, under the by law the applicant must stake the road. They have been doing some perk testing.
Lynda Mizanoglu of 19 Meadow Lane stated that they had been working on the property and had been ticketed. They have not paid for the tickets. Mrs. Terry suggested that she talk to the Board of Selectmen. She also explained that the Planning Board is not an enforcement authority.
Mr. Moglin stated that under the law he has to hear this application from the Zoning and Land Use perspective. He has made an effort to follow up on the concerns that have been expressed at public meetings. The Planning Board zoning enforcement is a key component in writing our decisions. The Zoning Enforcement Officer, Dennis Gaido has the power to enforce the Planning Board decision, the Zoning Laws and Massachusetts laws The Planning Board has no enforcement power.
Anthony Frasco of 8 Meadow Lane said that there is no continuity. Department A does not know what Department B is doing.
Scott Ricker of 8 Lakeside Drive asked if the department heads would meet on a weekly basis to review this project.
Tim Lakata of 10 Meadow Lane said that he would like to see the road similar to Meadow Lane. The road he wants to put in does not qualify. Mr. Moglin said that there is some concern with the grade and the width. Mr. Moglin explained to Mr. Lakata that the public hearing had been continued. He asked if he would be willing to send his concerns in writing to the Board so they could be read into the next Public Hearing.
Being no further business to be brought before the Board, A MOTION was made by Mr. Chunglo SECONDED by Mr. Johnson adjourn at 9:00 p.m. Vote was unanimous.
Respectfully submitted,
Ruth Preston
Recording Secretary
| 
