Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 3/15/2023
EAST LONGMEADOW — Director of Planning and Community Development Bailey Mitchell proposed a zoning bylaw amendment that would allow for a streamlined permitting process for projects in town by eliminating the need for some items to go before the Planning Board.
The amendment, proposed at the March 7 Planning Board meeting, would allow minor projects and site plan review waivers to be approved by Mitchell, rather than go through the full public meeting process. The amendment would also set thresholds to determine which projects would still require public hearings and Planning Board approval. Unlike site plan reviews, special permits would still need a full review and a vote by the board.
As an example, Planning Board Clerk Russell Denver asked Mitchell if a home office site plan review waiver, a common and routine matter that often consists of the board ensuring there will be no commercial vehicles visible from the street, would no longer come before the Planning Board.
“Correct. With our new online permitting system, it’s easier for the applicants to apply, it’s easier for us to review as town staff and truthfully, it’s easier to communicate back and forth with the applicant,” Mitchell explained.
Mitchell said the changes would reduce the time for applicants by removing the need to wait for a scheduled Planning Board meeting and that there would be no loss of vetting, as the questions asked by the board are asked by staff prior to the Planning Board meeting.
Denver noted that existing issues such as parking problems are often addressed by the board during site plan reviews. “Anyone can reach out to my department,” to alert the town to issues, Mitchell said, but acknowledged that under the amendment, there is no method to address issues before it becomes a matter of enforcement.
Denver said he was concerned about public notice and suggested that a list of applications for site plan review waivers be posted weekly on the town’s website. Mitchell shared that this would be arduous for town staff, but Planning Board Vice Chair Cassandra Cerasuolo agreed with Denver. “We’re learning with 330 Chestnut [St.] that people want to be more informed what’s happening,” she said referring to a pending warehouse project in the industrial garden zone.
“I don’t see where we are going to run into a minor project that doesn’t meet these thresholds that is going to cause major issues,” Mitchell contended.
Planning Board member George Kingston said residents have contacted him expressing discomfort with the proposed amendment. He said they feel that the Planning Board would be “giving up too much of its power.” Kingston went on to say the purpose of the Planning Board is to review “new stuff coming into town.” He said the board must balance “helping businesses get started faster” with “sufficient review,” and that the Planning Board is “more in touch” with the public than town employees.
Planning Board member Peter Punderson said the amendment needs to be tightened up before a vote is held.
Denver and Planning Board Chair Jonathan Torcia agreed that “pro forma” issues, such as when there is no change of use or in the case of home offices, are appropriate instances to streamline the process.
Town Council Vice President Marilyn Richards, speaking as a resident, said she was “having a little bit of a struggle” with the lack of a public hearing regarding “minor site plan” reviews. “Our zoning is back-to-back in some cases,” Richards said, adding that projects may seem minor to the board but may be major to neighbors. She suggested a public hearing be retained if a project is located next to a residential zone, whether it is considered a minor or major site plan review.
The topic was continued to the April 4 Planning Board meeting.