Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 3/23/2023
EAST LONGMEADOW — The East Longmeadow Planning Board set conditions on a proposed warehouse at 330 Chestnut St., proposed by East Longmeadow Redevelopers LLC, but also heard from experts commissioned by abutters against the project.
The board allowed Attorney Michael Pill of Green Miles Lipton LLP, who represents The Fields at Chestnut condominium complex, to present experts that had worked on a transportation review from MDM Transportation Consultants and an air quality and noise review from Tech Environmental. Both reviews were commissioned and paid for by The Fields at Chestnut. In the traffic review, it noted that “sensitive receptors” in the area include the condominiums, the Redstone Rail Trail and any neighborhoods along streets leading to the warehouse.
Rather than basing the number of traffic trips the warehouse would generate on its 562,800-square-foot size, Robert Michaud of MDM Transportation Consultants used employment levels based on the proposed 254 personal parking spaces. Estimating a workforce of 325 people and the same land use code as used by McMahon Associates in the traffic study it conducted for the applicants, MDM estimated 1,455 automobile and 289 commercial truck trips, totaling 1,641 trips each day. Using the size of the proposed structure and assuming the building would be used for one general warehouse business and another “high cube parcel” warehouse, Michaud estimated 1,546 trips daily. McMahon had estimated 928 daily trips.
The MDM’s report also stated it reviewed video of traffic patterns at the intersection of Chestnut Street and Shaker Road from March. Michaud disputed McMahon’s assertion that traffic impacts can be mitigated through changing the timing of traffix signals at the intersection. Instead, his report states a widening of the road and “signal equipment modifications” would be required.
Meanwhile, Marc Wallace of Tech Environmental performed a review of potential air quality and noise review. In the review, Tech Environmental covered the state regulations regarding air quality and noise. The report acknowledged state law that prohibits idling for more than five minutes unless the engine is required for repair, delivery or receipt of goods or operation. However, the report also stated, “Given the close proximity [500 feet from the closest northern loading dock], an air quality assessment is required to address potential impacts on the abutting residence.”
Wallace also recommended an ambient sound test be completed by the developers to capture the current conditions and acoustic modeling to project the noise from a warehouse. He said noise pollution was “more of a concern” that air quality because the sound of rooftop equipment can add to the noise created by trucks backing up and compression release brakes, also known as Jake brakes. The report states the “site will likely be problematic ... without sound mitigation measures.”
Rob Levesque of the landscape architectural and civil engineering firm R Levesque Associates responded to the comments from the two reports by pointing out that the consultants did not use any site-specific data in their assessments. He said that rather than apples-to-apples comparisons, the project was compared with one warehouse that had a retail component and another that was set over 170 acres. He said this would result in a vastly different warehouse from the 330 Chestnut St, project, which would sit on fewer than 40 acres, 15 of which are wetlands.
In an interview with Reminder Publishing, Pill defended the work performed by his consultants.
“The experts who wrote these reports have done these types of facilities before, and they have been on both sides of the fence. What we’re doing here is what the applicants, should they take the high road, should be doing,” Pill said. He said the developers need to “come to terms with the impact of their project.”
Of the developers, Pill said, “They think they can just waltz on by and ignore the traffic and noise and air quality and get away with it.”
The residents at The Fields at Chestnut may accept the project if the hours of operation are limited and the size of the warehouse is scaled down, Pill said. However, if the project receives a special permit as it stands, he said, “I don’t think they have a choice,” but to challenge the decision in court.
Pill opined that “some town officials” may be more focused on bringing income into the town during a hard financial time than on upholding its bylaws. The attorney said Planning Board Chair Jonathan Torcia, “derisively [began] talking about NIMBYs,” at the Feb. 21 public hearing. He said, “There is nothing wrong with someone saying, ‘Not in my backyard,’ when there are solid reasons. It is a matter of who gets the income versus who suffers the impact.”
During the meeting, Seth Stratton, managing shareholder at Fitzgerald Law representing the applicant, noted the warehouse could be used in its current state and be a much louder operation because new buildings are quieter. Pill claimed he would sue the developers under nuisance laws if they took that course of action.
Potential lawsuit
Torcia explained that there were three options available to the board. It could reject the project because of a lack of materials, approve the project with conditions or reject a project if it is determined to be “so intrusive” on the area in town that every rejection is tenable. Torcia said his opinion was that the proposed use was allowable within the zoning, based on a memorandum from the town attorney.
Pill objected that the memo had been “kept from me” by the town attorney as privileged attorney-client material, but as it was read during the meeting, Pill said it was now a public document. He argued that he had not had time to review or respond to the memo.
Torcia went on to say that as far as being intrusive, “I understand the concerns of people,” however, he said he did not believe a rejection by the board could be successfully defended in land court. Planning Board Clerk Russell Denver and member Peter Punderson decried deciding the issue based on potentially losing a court case.
“Nobody has the right to come into our town and cause a failure of our traffic system,” Punderson said adding that rejecting the project would be “fighting for the town.”
Punderson said Torcia was afraid of spending money on a lawsuit, but Torcia pushed back and said he merely wants to take everything into account and that, in his opinion, rejecting the project by determining it not an allowed use would not work in the town’s favor.
Conditions
Director of Planning and Community Development Bailey Mitchell had compiled 15 conditions, both issues that had been identified by the board over the four previous public hearings on the matter and concessions offered by the developers. Among them were requirements that the developers create a transportation demand management program to reduce the impact of passenger vehicle and truck traffic and town agents be allowed access to the property to ensure compliance with the site plan. Also, changes to the site plan must go through the Planning Board and owner/operators of any tenant businesses must seek their own site plan approval.
Another condition was an agreement by the property owners to monitor the condition of Chestnut Street. The monitoring process would include vehicle counts and crash data for the pedestrian crossing on Chestnut Street. Damage to the road between 305 feet west of the west driveway and 305 feet east of the east driveway that occurs within the first five years of operation would be mitigated by the developers, up to $265,000 in the first year of operation, with that cap increasing by 5 percent annually. Denver insisted that was not enough money for mitigating traffic issues at the intersection of Chestnut Street and Shaker Road, but Mitchell reiterated that the sum was specifically for road conditions in front of the property that would be affected by trucks frequently braking.
Denver also questioned why the property owners would oversee monitoring the road conditions.
Punderson likened it to “the wolf guarding the sheep pack.” Mitchell explained that an annual report would be provided to the Planning Board and the DPW. “The oversight is still there from the town,” he said. Additionally, the town does not have the resources to monitor the roadway itself, Mitchell said. Punderson contended the town should “find the resources,” however Torcia noted he did not want to mandate a responsibility to town employees that the town could not fund. Planning Board member George Kingston suggested contracting a third party to complete the monitoring at the expense of the developers.
Torcia suggested filters for truck exhaust and “reasonable” hours of operation should be considered as rational conditions, while Kingston asked for baseline air quality and sound studies to be completed before the existing building is demolished.
Punderson requested that curb cuts be added to prevent left turns from the site onto Chestnut St., but Denver noted trucks would then be routed past the residential area on Benton Drive. Punderson made the case that there were fewer homes on Benton Drive.
Denver asked for an improvement that would stop traffic when pedestrians cross where the Redstone Rail Trail intersects Chestnut St. and a potential stoplight at the warehouse site to help mitigate possible traffic congestion.
Hypotheticals
Denver said he was not for or against the project, commenting that people moved to the Fields at Chestnut knowing an industrial-zoned property was “a third of a mile down the road.” Instead, he said, as he had several times throughout the meeting, the board needed more solid information before it could decide and could not deal with hypotheticals.
“How can you make conditions when you don’t know the numbers?” Denver asked, to which several members of the audience applauded. Denver continued saying that the lack of details was what bothered him. Planning Board Vice Chair Cassandra Cerasuolo agreed that there was not enough information to set conditions.
Levesque told the board that even if a tenant were attached to the project, it would still fall under a general “warehouse” land use code. He pointed out that the town’s peer reviewer had reviewed the McMahon traffic study and described it as “professional.” Both noise and air quality are regulated by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, he said, offering protection for the town. He also said the developers were “generally” willing to accept the conditions identified by the board.
“We are amenable to working with the town,” Levesque assured the board.
Stratton noted that if the board was uncomfortable with not knowing the eventual tenant, the team was “more than happy” to come back before the board once a tenant was found, but noted, “Without building a building, you can’t get tenants.” Pill stood up and said Stratton’s comment was “dead wrong” and when Torcia asked him not to interrupt, the attorney yelled, “I will not apologize.” Torcia reprimanded Pill, saying the board had “gone above and beyond” to be fair and hear all sides, and added, “Please respect the process.” Pill acquiesced.
Shortly after, when a motion was made to close the public hearing portion of the meeting, a resident stood up and yelled, “Point of order,” contending he had the right to call the action into question. Torcia told him that there was nothing out of order about closing the public hearing and Pill encouraged the person to sit.
The decision was made to continue the topic until a future meeting so Mitchell could codify the conditions discussed at the hearing. The Planning Board will take up to issue again on May 2, at 6 p.m. at Pleasant View Senior Center.