Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 9/20/2023
EAST LONGMEADOW — The East Longmeadow Zoning Board of Appeals continued a public hearing on Sept. 13 regarding a requested variance to put a car wash at 546 North Main St. Attorney Seth Stratton of Fitzgerald Law had sought to continue the original hearing in July so that the petitioner could work on concerns expressed by neighbors. Stratton conceded that not all residents had been interested in coming to a compromise.
Stratton made a case to the board that the owner of the property has had a difficult time selling the parcel for three years because of the size of the lot and the steep grade of the rear half of the property. He said several restaurants have considered the lot but decided against it. The developer is interested in purchasing the lot but will have a difficult time locating the Golden Nozzle car wash there due to the soil conditions, topography and size of the lot, constituting a hardship.
Stratton said the shape of the lot means that “no meaningful development” is possible and “economically feasible.” He said that due to the slope of the site, the only place to put a parking lot is within the setbacks.
He also asserted that the business would pose “no detriment to the public good,” and instead, the “significant curbing” and added greenery that was planned for the site would make it less of a detriment.
Zoning Board of Appeals Chair Mark Beglane said he was concerned that the back of the lot be maintained. Stratton said the existing trees would be left and additional foliage added to create a visual barrier to the homes behind the property. Engineer Jim Bernadino with CMG Environmental, which is working with the developer on the project, said the slope at the rear of the property would require a retaining wall be built within the buffer, but the greenery behind it would “provide a nice solid buffer” to neighbors.
Beglane said the issue for him hinged on whether a business could be located there that would work within the existing bylaws. For example, he said someone could buy the plant business there from the current owner. He also had concerns about the use of the site changing from three seasons to four.
Zoning Board of Appeals member Daniel Plotkin told Stratton that the size of a lot is not a standard that qualifies for a variance. Bernadino said the size of the lot is adequate and that there are car washes on smaller sites. The issue lies with the slope of the rear of the property forcing all the buildable space toward the front of the site and into the setback.
Plotkin noted that there were only four board members present, and a variance requires at least four votes to be approved.
“I don’t think you’re going to have my vote. I think your site is too small,” Plotkin told Stratton.
Stratton contended that without approval for the variance, “it deprives” the landowner of selling the property for development.
“The intent [of a variance] is not to allow people to stuff a car wash into a site too small,” Plotkin said, especially when there are neighbors against the project.
Town Council President Ralph Page, speaking as a resident, said he agreed with Plotkin. He acknowledged there were limited uses for the site but said several small businesses were located on small lots in town. He also noted how much work goes into defining buffers and setbacks, specifically so residents are not affected by nearby businesses.
Plotkin said he was not against a business being located at the site. He said he wants sellers to get as much money as they can for their properties and buyers to “do the best they can” with the lot “under the law.”
Stratton insisted that the lot is a unique “unicorn” and that is why it is a hardship to the seller.
Plotkin responded, “You protect the zoning laws when they protect the residents.”
Stratton asked if there were concerns from neighbors not broached at the previous meeting.
Resident Bernadette Bonnor, whose home abuts the property, said the 100-foot buffer at the rear of the site will not block the noise of the car wash from reaching her home. She also said her family often walks along Londergan Place, which runs along the side of the property and was worried about their safety from traffic in and out of the car wash.
Stratton said he brought a sound engineer out to discuss another neighbor’s noise concerns and they were satisfied.
Another resident said her property value would decrease with a car wash abutting it.
Stratton said he was again willing to sit down with residents to address any issues, but Bonner said she would “fight it all the way.”
The hearing was continued to Nov. 13 at 6:30 p.m. so Stratton could address issues raised by residents.