Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 7/29/2022
EAST LONGMEADOW – Director of Community Development and Planning Bailey Mitchell presented the Planning Board with four options for a mixed-use overlay district in downtown East Longmeadow.
Mitchell explained that a mixed-use district would address several issues cited in the Master Plan, including walkability, expansion of the rail trail, improvements of the rotary and affordable housing in the form of duplexes, triplexes and townhomes. There would be options for buildings up to six floors in planned developments but limited to current height requirements for redesigned current buildings.
Three of the four options limited the overlay district to land on the west side of the rotary, extending south along Shaker Road and ending short of Chestnut Street. Mitchell said this design would allow for a future redesign of the rotary without buying back land that had recently been developed. As an overlay district, all the existing zoning would remain in place.
Option A limited the district to mainly commercial and industrial zones, while
Option B included some undeveloped residential-zoned land. Planning Board member George Kingston told Mitchell that the parcels had a steep slope and pockets of wetlands throughout.
“There’s a reason it’s undeveloped,” said Planning Board Clerk Russell Denver.
Option C includes a combination of the areas in Options A and B, as well as a small portion of land on the East side of the rotary.
Option D has the smallest footprint, and mainly focuses on Baldwin Court and the area within a quarter-mile radius of the rotary. Mitchell said the district can be expanded later if it is warranted.
“I’m happy to hear you say, ‘starting point,’ instead of ‘This is what we want to do,’” Planning Board member Peter Punderson said. He added that he was more inclined to explore the idea of a smaller district.
Kingston agreed, “If people see a huge district, they’re going to get a little scared and worry about density. He also pointed out parking as a “critical issue.”
Punderson said he was “scared” that Center Field is included in the potential district. Kingston reminded his colleague that it doesn’t mean the land must be redeveloped, just that it could be.
Mitchell interjected, “It’s not necessarily a great downtown use to have ball fields that are underutilized.” He said there are other locations for ball fields to be placed on town land. Instead, he suggested expanded recreational use, such as a public garden with small playgrounds.
Planning Board Chair Jonathan Torcia shared his doubts that the rotary will ever be redesigned but agreed with limiting the district to the western side. The goal should be to address the housing needs of current residents who would like to stay in town and others who would like to move to East Longmeadow, he said.
Mitchell suggested a town-wide review of the zoning map, explaining that remnants of East Longmeadow’s industrial and railroad past are left over in the zoning, and it could be changed to better suit the contemporary needs of residents.
Benton Drive Projects
Two public hearings were conducted regarding businesses in the East Longmeadow Industrial Park. The first was for a new office building at 265 Benton Dr. John Sieruta of Sieruta Engineering reviewed notes from the Department of Public Works (DPW) and the Conservation Commission.
Although the DPW had suggested the sewer service lines be made larger, Sieruta said that it was “not feasible” because it has to meet up with smaller existing infrastructure and the building would need to be raised by at least two feet to accommodate the tapering sewer lines needed.
“So, you’re not going to do what the town is recommending,” Planning Board Clerk Russell Denver asked. Sieruta again explained that it was not feasible, and Denver pushed back, “Yes, or no?”
Sieruta said no, that it wasn’t required under law and “it would be a drastic increase to the cost of the project.”
After going through the changes being made to satisfy other town requests, Denver suggested the board approval with the contingency that DPW Deputy Director Tom Christensen sign off that he is satisfied. This was approved by the board.
The second public hearing concerned a request to expand the parking lot at 41 Benton Rd. Tina Malley, the owner of Springfield Springs on Shaker Road, wants to expand her business to the larger Benton Road location. To do so, the lot needs to expand by 32 spaces. Additionally, a second access point will also be added to allow for egress if a delivery truck breaks down in the driveway.
Like the previous petitioner’s project, the DPW had issued notes and suggestions. Tom Wilson, the person Malley worked with on the lot design, had addressed each of them in updated plans. Prior to the meeting, an abutter had expressed concern about stormwater runoff to the board. Wilson said a review of the plans showed that the runoff would not be affected, even in a once-in-100-years storm.
The lot expansion was approved.
Public Way
A design firm working on behalf of Custom Homes Development Group sought approval to divide a property at 26 Smith Ave. into three lots under M.G.L. Chapter 41, Section 81p, known as ANR. The lots would all have frontage on Smith Avenue.
“Smith Avenue is not a public way and the requirement for an ANR is that there is frontage on a public way,” said Kingston. The designer said he understood it to be “a way that had status,” because a home is located there, and it is used to access homes at the other end of the street.
Kingston explained that 26 Smith Ave., which was subdivided from a neighboring property in the 1980s, has frontage on Westwood Avenue.
Punderson noted the division could be completed as a subdivision, but that the street would need to be improved.
The designer withdrew his request without prejudice, which means it can be resubmitted at another time.
Open Meeting Law Violation
A member of the public filed an Open Meeting Law complaint with the Attorney General’s Office regarding an open hearing at the May 17 meeting, which was continued to June 6. The complainant had two points of contention.
First, he was unable to be brought into the Zoom meeting due to technical difficulties and therefore could not offer a comment. However, Mitchell reminded the Planning Board that he had submitted written comments before the meeting, which had been entered into the record.
The other issue cited by the complainant was that the hearing was continued to “the next meeting,” rather than a specific date. Mitchell pointed out that the next meeting was scheduled at the end of the May 17 proceedings and Denver mentioned at that time that they would hear the complainant’s comments then. East Longmeadow’s Town Counsel will prepare an official response to the complaint.