April 15, 2008
MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE: |
Doug Moglin, Chairman |
|
Roz Terry, Vice Chairman |
|
Cal Chunglo |
|
Richard Utzinger, Associate |
|
|
ABSENT: |
Bob Johnson |
|
Sam Santaniello |
|
|
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. Fulfilled an information request from David Hall for copies of the Williamsburg Estates definitive subdivision application and plans. He paid for the copying costs under the Town policy for information requests.
2. Attended the Valley Development Council (VDC) on April 10 and presented the proposed design study site located on Congamond Road. There were six sites submitted for consideration and a site in the Town of Palmer was selected. Also, Department of Housing and Community Development staff gave a presentation on Chapter 40B, Low and Moderate Income Housing regulations.
3. Drafted a Decision for Z&Z Tool Manufacturing to be located at 65 Hudson Drive and emailed to Planning Board members for review and comment.
4. Received a written response and revised plan from D.L. Bean (Marc Shute) based on the peer review of the proposed Williamsburg Estates subdivision. Forwarded the information to Baystate Environmental Consultants for their comments.
5. Spoke by phone with Leo Smith of the International Dark-Sky Association who deals with light pollution. He inquired about bylaws controlling outdoor lighting and how he might work with the Town to reduce excess illumination especially in the Congamond Lakes area.
6. Provided a copy of a newspaper article to Planning Board members on the zoning reform forum that was held in West Springfield on April 3.
7. Received an inquiry from Chris Haddad, 151 South Loomis St., about purchasing an adjoining lot at 149 South Loomis St. and doing earth excavation. The property is 2.6 acres and is zoned R-40. He will need a Special Permit under 185-33 and was advised of the process.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: 7:10 p.m.
There were no public comments.
APPOINTMENTS:
7:15 p.m. Lexington Circle Public Hearing Subdivision Modification
Attorney Brad Moir, representing Mr. Doug Williams presented an application of Lexington Circle Development, Inc. for an amendment to the Lexington Circle Subdivision Plan approval. He proposed to eliminate the requirement that he construct roof drain infiltration trenches on lots 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31, and 32. Mr. Moir said that if the Board is going to require the roof drain that the Board not require it of Mr. Williams because he is the developer. This should not be applied to him because the original developer, under Massachusetts law, is only responsible for the construction of the ways in the installation of municipal services. The developer is responsible for the roads and the infrastructure. These infiltration trenches are self contained on each lot. He had nothing to do with those. After the covenant he posted a cash bond. The law
lists what has to be done. The bond has no listing for roof drains. In M.G.L. Chapter 41, Section 81u it also says that the Board can only require security for construction of the ways and the installation of the municipal services. In M.G.L. Chapter 41,Section 81y has provisions that require the Building Inspector to enforce conditions on these plans you impose and also impose a one year statue of limitations for any enforcement or violation. We are well beyond one year with this subdivision. The Building Inspector should have required these with each building permit. Mr. Moir went through each lot and attached to his application the name of the original owner and each building permit. He said that the Board will see that Mr. Williams did not build any of these houses. Mr. Moir says that it is probably illegal to try and force this against him. He said he has a list of all of the contractors and the current owners if the Board wants to enforce this they are the ones the Board
should force this against. These types of underground discharges are not considered injection wells by EP. They would require separate permits if they allowed to be done and they would require annual monitoring. These wells are over your aquifer or recharge area. Mr. Williams gave the Board a copy of a letter from John Horky of 7 Lexington Circle who built a house in Lexington Estates. He said that he was approached by Southwick Town officials on two occasions and were informed that the builder was responsible for installing the sump drains on the property to empty the roof gutter down spouts. The builder was apprised of this. When the builder applied to the Town of Southwick for a Certificate of Occupancy he was initially denied. The explanation was that these drains had not been installed. It goes on to say that the drains were installed and he received his Certificate of Occupancy. The manner of enforcement was the Building Permit and the Occupancy Permit if Mr. Williams had
built the house. He did not own these lots when they were built. Mr. Moir does not believe he has any obligation to build the roof drains. He is only responsible for the ways and Municipal Services. If someone made a mistake then it was someone within the Town.
Mr. Moglin said that Mr. Williams came back to that Board for relief form roof drains. The Board felt after looking at the plan that there were several areas of relief that were sought under the last modification. The Board acknowledged Mr. Williams as the Developer of Record and reduced him of some responsibility. The Board eliminated the roof drains with the exception of those indicated. The subdivision was designed with these roof drains in mind. The selected units need to have roof drains and were selected because of the down gradient that could potentially cause flooding problems for adjacent and nearby down gradient properties. The way the water flows now is away from the drainage system that is in the public way. Because the drainage was to be accommodated by these roof drains. The board looked at the plans and looked at the
topo and determined that all the lots were draining acceptably except the selected lots. The selected lots were not draining to the drainage system. The Board asked Mr. Williams to install these roof drains. The Board felt that the Developer of Record was obligated to do so under the Definitive Subdivision granted by this Board. If they had known at the time that the Developer had no interest in doing what was in the Definitive Plan Approval they would have had him redesign the topo to make the grades work without the infiltration basin.
Mr. Moir said that the problem is that the people who built on those lots graded them incorrectly for the current home owner. That is where the problem lies. Mr. Moglin replied that is where there is a big difference. The Board believes that under this application we should look at this. The Board will also have Town Counsel look into your interpretation. The Board will have to review our previous agreement. We looked at the plan and thought this compromise was adequate. The discussion we had was that the roof drains were not done and a lot of the other work was also not done. The Board is trying to get all the subdivisions brought to Town meeting and get this road accepted. There are a lot of outstanding items that need to be completed. The Planning Board, after hearing testimony from residents, and from the Developer made a
modification to the Lexington Circle Subdivision. Now the Developer is coming back and requesting a modification from those modifications. Therefore, The Board thinks it is fair that we should revisit those modifications and see how that all works together.
Mrs. Terry asked when Mr. Williams came in for a modification that we acted upon what was that? Williams replied that it was limited. It did not say anything about a guard rail. It just said a reduction of the roof drains. It did not say to modify a fence. Mrs.Terry said that Mr. Williams applied to get relief from something that your attorney feels you do not need to get relief for.
Linda Bathel of 44 Lexington Circle asked who was responsible before the lots were sold to pass on the information to the builder. She said she assumed that responsibility was the Developers. Mr. Williams replied that the permits are all recorded at the Registry of Deeds. The plans are all there and the plans are all here at Town Hall. Any lot we sold was subject to this subdivision plan approval and conditions. Mrs. Terry replied that it is not really the Town's responsibility. It is a concern of the Board to find a way for the Town to ensure when the lot is sold that research is done. We do not have control over the communication between builder and developer. Mr. Moir said that it is his opinion that the Building Inspector's is the chief enforcer. He has to give the building permit and he has to give an Occupancy Permit certifying that
everything has been completed. Mrs. Terry said that it is not the Building Inspector's responsibility to educate the buyer as to the building requirement.
Cal Chunglo said that people want a house with a walk out basement put on a flat lot. It cannot be done. But builders do it anyway and then there are going to be problems.
The Public Hearing was closed at 7:50 p.m. The Board will take the application to Legal Counsel. A decision has to be made within 90 days.
7:50 p.m. Z & Z Tool
The Board reviewed some terms and conditions on Z & Z Tool.
8:00 p.m. 5 Whalley Way Public Hearing Special Permit
Marc Shute representing Rotin Realty, LLC presented an application for a Special Permit and Site Plan approval for 5 Whalley Way. The property consists of 2.998 acres and is located in the Industrial Restricted (IR) Zone and the Wellhead Protection District. The applicant proposes to erect a 4,650 square foot building to run a business for laser marking and engraving. Plans include 16 parking spaces and 1 van accessible parking space.
Mr. Richard Utzinger, Associate, was designated to sit and hear the application and will be eligible to vote on the application.
Mr. Shute said that the site is level with no vegetation. Town water is available. The building will be set back 76 feet from the street and is a little less that 4, 500 square feet. He said that he anticipated 30% impervious per lot to be handled within the storm system of the road. The impervious on the plan covers about 12% of the lot. We are still going to put in a small detention area, a water quality swale and three small stone check dams which are miniature fore bays. They are tying into a catch basin in Whalley Way. The dumpster will be screened with a fence. There will be landscaping in the front of the building. There will be recessed light below the canopy to illuminate the parking area and a small loading dock.
Mr. Steven Phillips said that they do not get many shipments.
Mr. Utzinger asked if he had a map of the area showing surrounding houses other properties. The Board reviewed the map.
Mr. Moglin read into the minutes the following:
ATTACHEMENT A - DPW Can be viewed at the Town Clerk's office.
ATTACHEMENT B - Fire Chief Can be viewed at the Town Clerk's office.
The Conservation Commission has no issues with this project.
Mr. Moglin advised Mr. Shute to work things out with Mr. Neece of DPW. He asked Mr. Shute if he could move a sidewalk back to accommodate a fire truck in the rear of the building. Mrs.Terry said that it is up to the Planning Board whether to require you to change it or put it in as a condition. Mr. Moglin said the Town owns the road. If you want to connect into the drainage they will need the permission of DPW.
Mr. Steven Phillips showed the Board some of his products. They take other people's product and serialize them. There are no chemicals involved and no cutting oils. The engraving is done with a beam of light.
Mr. Fred Hanks of the Economic Development Committee said that Committee is totally in favor of this project. He was instrumental in encouraging Z & Z Tool to move to Southwick. He said that it is a family owned business that has outgrown their space in Agawam. They were born and brought up in Southwick and want to come home to their roots.
The Public Hearing was continued to Tuesday April 22, 2008 at 7:30 p.m.
ROUTINE BUSINESS:
9:00 p.m. Southwick Inn
Mr. Moglin recused himself from the meeting and Mrs.Terry conducted the meeting.
Attorney Buckley representing the entities of the Southwick Inn projects said he wanted to get a sense of the position of the Board. He said a Special Permit was requested for the Business Restricted (BR) Zone because it is in a BR zone property and also asked for a Flood Plain Special Permit because the property is in a Flood Zone overlay district. There was no decision rendered with regard to two of the properties, Walt's Garage property and the JAYDUB property concerning Flood Plain. Mrs. Terry said that she thought they were not in the flood plain. Attorney Buckley said replied that on the FEMA maps they are. They are extending the back of Walt's Garage to the back line so one could argue that they are not in the Flood Hazard overlay, but it is so close it is hard to tell. If the Board is amenable to grant the Permit then it does not
hurt anything. If the Board does not grant the Permit and it is later determined by someone that we are in the overlay then the whole project come tumbling down. Mrs. Terry replied that she though only one of the applications specifically mentioned that. Attorney Buckley replied that all the application do include the request for a Flood Plain Special Permit. If the Board was amenable they would have to file an amended decision.
Mr. Buckley said that the other issues where there are problems are conditions three (3) and four (4) on the Permit for JAYDUB and eight (8) and nine (9) on KKQB. These issues deal with parking area, curb cuts, defined entrances and exits. We suggest that the language be modified to remove the word signage. We are concerned that we will have to put signage everywhere in the street. We have no problem with marking the pavement to show the entrances and exits. Mrs. Terry said that every BR site along College Highway that the Board has approved the Board has asked for signs. The Board is trying to be consistent, especially knowing that the side walks are to be installed. There will be curb cuts that the State will be putting in starting in the fall. Mr. Buckley said that Walt's Garage is 40 feet from the actual road and requiring signage,
a barrier plus landscaping is a space problem. He said with a sidewalk, a buffer and landscaping he does not see where there will be enough room. Mr. Chunglo said that the Board had envisioned whiskey barrels or wooden planters. The Board understands that the area is tight. Mr. Buckley said that for that property there is no change of existing conditions. He also added that the used car license covered the entire property. Mrs. Terry asked if used cars were going to be parked at the Inn. Mr. Buckley said that it allows it any where on the property. There was more discussion about the parking layout. Mrs. Terry said that the site plan should indicate parking spaces for patrons, handicap parking and used car parking.
Mr. Buckley asked what the Board would like to see modified to the plan without taking away from the Inn and the business and used car license. One of the requirements the Town Council wanted was cross easement for parking, lighting, etc. Those have all been recorded with the registry of Deeds. Mr. Buckley asked why the bridge connecting the back parking lot on was one way. Mr. Chunglo said that the bridge was only 10 feet wide and not suitable for two way traffic. Mr. Buckley said that there should be free flowing parking between the parking lots. The Board was told at the initial hearing that the bridge to the parking lot would be one way. Mrs. Terry said that it was a safety concern and the Board was clarifying what was brought up at the hearing.
Mr. Buckley said that the next issue is reference to the fence surrounding the patio is to be approved by the Board. The plan is to put a six foot high white plastic fence with no gaps and no holes between panels. Mr. Chunglo said that the problem the Board had with the fence was the there was no reference where the fence began, whether it was at grade at the side walk or grade at the patio. If it was grade at the side walk the fence would only be three feet high at the patio level. The Board wants the fence six feet high from the patio grade. Mrs. Terry said that the Board wanted the fence referenced on the plan. Mr. Chunglo said that the Board did not want a wood stockade fence since they do not withstand time and can be unsightly.
Mrs. Terry said that the plans had indicated plantings on the Granville section of the parking lot. She said that for public safety they did not want anything to hinder their ability of the police to see into the parking lot. They did not want tall plantings in that area of the parking lot. It is a safety issue. Mr. Buckley asked what height would be needed. Mrs. Terry replied that about three feet high to block the head lights of vehicles.
There was a discussion concerning the wording of the condition written by the Planning Board in regards to licensing. Mr. Buckley suggested a revision of the wording. Mr. Phelps asked if the rewritten statement was acceptable. Mr. Buckley replied yes.
Mr. Buckley said that they have to submit a new site plan with the modification. The only way we can preserve out appeal rights is to file suit because it is a jurisdictional question with the courts. The twenty day period is jurisdictional. We are forced to do this. We will file suit merely to protect our rights while we are sorting this out. It is not a threat and the Town will not have to answer it. I will extend any answer date, no defaults so we can wind our way through the process. We do not have a choice. Our appeal period is up on the April 22nd. There is no way we are going to get before a public hearing on the modification with notice before that period of time. The court will not extend the appeal period.
A MOTION was made by Mrs. Terry and seconded by Mr. Chunglo to approve the minutes for January 29, 2008 as amended. The vote was unanimous.
A MOTION was made by Mrs. Terry and seconded by Mr. Chunglo to approve the minutes for March 4, 2008. The vote was unanimous.
A MOTION was made by Mrs. Terry and seconded by Mr. Chunglo to approve the minutes for March 11, 2008 as amended. The vote was unanimous.
Being no further business to be brought before the Board, A MOTION was made by Mrs. Terry and SECONDED by Mr. Chunglo to adjourn at 9:35 p.m. Vote was unanimous.
Respectfully submitted,
Ruth Preston
Recording Secretary
| 
