Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 8/24/2022
EAST LONGMEADOW – The East Longmeadow Planning Board reviewed changes to plans for a potential mixed-use overlay district. Planning Board Chair Jonathan Torcia emphasized that the town is in the preliminary phases of envisioning the potential district.
Community Development and Planning Director Bailey Mitchell reminded the board and the public of how the overlay district would impact issues in the town center – easing traffic congestion, improving the walkability of the area, revitalizing blighted or vacant properties, preserving green spaces and adding housing options with two-, three- and four-family buildings, as well at town houses.
Boundaries
Mitchell showed the board a map with overlay district boundaries that had been modified from the four options he presented at the July 19 Planning Board meeting. One change from the previous versions was the exclusion of Center Field, as well as the residential zones, from the overlay district and instead, “focusing more on Shaker [Road] and Maple [Street].” The new version of the district would roughly stretch from Center Square to Shaker Bowl and from the west side of the rotary to just past the Historical Commission. The highlighted area is comprised of about 60 percent industrial zoning with 40 percent zoned for business use.
Mitchell said the planned mixed-use developments would have minimum lot size of 6 acres, or 261,360 square feet, and up to 45 feet, or about three and a half stories tall. The center-of-town mixed use developments would be at least 25,000 square feet and limited to 35 feet tall.
Planning Board member Peter Punderson said he was “warming” to the idea of the overlay district but felt that 45-foot-tall structures was “too much.” Mitchell explained that the current industrial zoning allows for 50-foot buildings, while the business zones allowed 40-foot buildings.
Still, Punderson said the Center Square Plaza could “raise that whole thing up,” while Shaker Road could become a “wall of 40-foot buildings. It just wouldn’t look right.” He went on to state that when properties “build up instead of out, property values generally go down.”
Mitchell pushed back on that assertion. “I’m not just coming here and presenting things. I’ve done research and I don’t think that’s true,” he told Punderson. He also said the required setbacks and side yards would keep the district from having what Punderson called a “tunnel effect.”
Planning Board member George Kingston opined that West Hartford has mixed-use districts in place and is “upscale.” Punderson continued to express concern, saying, “It’s just such a change after 71 years of looking at one- to two-and-a-half-story buildings.” Kingston noted that the special permit requirements could be added to help alleviate concerns.
Considering three story buildings would be “beneficial,” Torcia said. “I think you’d want to have some incentive for developers to seriously consider something like this.
Punderson said “conceptually” he thought a walkable district could work. “Your choice of boundaries is much more palatable,” he said to Mitchell, adding, “You’re on the right path.”
Uses
Mitchell laid out what properties in the overlay district could and could not be used for in this preliminary proposal, as well as those uses that would require special permits.
Many of the permitted uses are already allowed under the mixed-use village bylaw, including multi-use dwellings, playgrounds and parks, childcare, professional offices, financial institutions, retail and neighborhood pools. Special permits would be required for utility uses like substations, telecommunications towers and solar arrays. Business such as pet grooming/daycares, restaurants, massage therapists, convenience stores and hospitals, among others, would also have to go through the special permitting process, as would non-conforming structures.
Several uses would be completely prohibited in the district. Among them are in-home daycare centers, used car lots, gaming establishments, cannabis dispensaries and animal stables or kennels. Single-dwelling, detached housing and mobile homes would also be eliminated from eligibility. Mitchell said these uses would not be conducive to the walkable atmosphere for which such a district is intended.
Agriculture, tree nurseries and other plant-growing businesses were also listed as prohibited, but Kingston questioned whether those industries could legally be subject to blanket prohibition. He suggested Mitchell check with the state laws regarding agriculture. Kingston also disagreed with a prohibition on home offices in the district. He said many small business owners, especially those with online businesses, do not want to have to rent an office if all that is needed is the use of a computer. The board had approved three such home offices earlier during the meeting.
Kingston suggested reaching out to the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (PVPC) to learn how other towns have implemented such districts. Mitchell said he had been in touch with the organization and used their information as well as his own research when creating the proposal. He emphasized that the recommendations weren’t “off the top of my head.”
Mitchell told the board that he would like to host a public workshop for input on the project and said it could be combined with a public forum on the Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness (MVP) program, which would make the town eligible for certain state grant funding. A date for the workshop had not yet been set.