Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 5/10/2023
EAST LONGMEADOW — After months of gathering data and testimony, the East Longmeadow Planning Board approved the site plan for a warehouse at 330 Chestnut St., but not without some last-minute allegations of corruption.
Before beginning the discussion of the warehouse at the meeting on May 2, Planning Board member Russell Denver addressed an email from Margaret Gourlay, a resident of the Fields at Chestnut, to the Planning Board. He quoted Gourlay as writing that she was “disturbed” by the “biased favoritism” of the Planning Board toward the developers, East Longmeadow Redevelopers LLC. They wrote that there were “backroom” dealings and specifically cited the “repeated cutting off and shouting at” Attorney Michael Pill, who represents the Fields at Chestnut residents. Gourlay asked that the Planning Board members sign conflict of interest forms detailing the conflicts, monetary or otherwise, that they have in regard to this case. They also said there the developers had only presented “thin data” that would not substantiate a vote of approval for the project.
Denver denied the accusations and called the letter “utterly ridiculous,” “childish” and “self-centered.” When appointed to the Planning Board, he said, members must take an oath of office requiring them to follow ethics laws and undergo ethics training before being seated and “every few years” after that. He suggested Gourlay take that course to understand what is required of Planning Board members. Denver said the letter was “offensive” and asked for a public apology. He also suggested that Gourlay may have given the developers standing to file a defamation lawsuit.
Planning Board Chair Jonathan Torcia said of his fellow board members that they were “four of the most professional people I have ever had the opportunity to work with.” He commented that the board had done a thorough job and allowed both the petitioners and the residents of the Fields of Chestnut to speak at multiple meetings. He added, “We are making decisions on behalf of the town. Full stop.” Later, referring to a comment he had previously made regarding a not-in-my-back-yard attitude among residents, Torcia said opposition to a project in one’s neighborhood is one thing, but opposition to “any project in one’s backyard” is out of the scope of what can be entertained by the Planning Board.
Planning Board member Peter Punderson said that he “takes it personally” that such accusations would be leveled at the board. “I’m here for the town,” he said.
Planning Board member Cassandra Cerasuolo noted that Gourlay has the opportunity to apply for the board when member George Kingston vacates his position, as he plans to when his term ends this year.
Moving on, Torcia read the standards that are used by the Planning Board when making decisions on site plan reviews.
Director of Planning and Community Development Bailey Mitchell had drafted 15 conditions for the project, including 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. It was also stated that 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.
The property owners are also required to monitor the condition of Chestnut Street, including 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.
The Planning Board members added additional conditions. Cerasuolo said that residents had expressed concern over a “potential rodent issue” that may result from the demolition of the long-vacant existing warehouse. Denver suggested a rodent control plan be drawn up and forwarded to the Health Department. Cerasuolo also requested that a time frame be attached to a condition requiring the developers to monitor traffic and road conditions. She asked that a report on the matter be delivered to town officials one year after the warehouse is fully operational.
Denver said Punderson and resident Mary Hurley had both suggested trucks only be allowed to turn right out of the site and onto Chestnut St. He asked that the western driveway be cut to preclude people from turning left when exiting the property.
Kingston weighed in saying that “control of traffic on streets is not within our mandate,” and was instead under the purview of the Town Council. He also noted that forcing traffic to the right would impact other businesses on Chestnut Street. Mitchell commented that town staff have stated it is not advisable to force traffic to the right. Denver, however, stated he was “not impressed” with the traffic study mitigations. “I felt it was lacking.” This condition was approved 3-2.
Denver also asked for a mechanism built into the exit driveway that would temporarily prevent trucks from leaving the site and could be timed to coincide with the traffic light at the intersection of Shaker Road and Chestnut Street, this would keep the trucks from stacking up on Shaker Road, he said.
Denver then asked to include a condition requiring the developers to pay for a motion-activated pedestrian signal at the Redstone Rail Trail, alerting trucks to the presence of people using the trail.
Kingston asked for the developers who pay for air quality and noise studies and to require idling trucks to use air filters.
Ultimately, all conditions were approved.
When it came time to vote on whether to approve the project, Denver stated that he believed the data and information presented by Seth Stratton of Fitzgerald Law and Rob Levesque of landscape architectural firm R Levesque Associates because they often have business before the Planning Board and if they were to lie “their reputation before this board would be mud.”
Denver recalled that both Pill’s traffic expert, Robert Michaud of MDM Transportation Consultants, and VHB, who was hired by the town as a peer reviewer, said that the traffic study prepared by McMahon Associates on behalf of the developers was “professional.” Denver also pointed out that Michaud said it would be “not usual” to have an Amazon warehouse as far from an “interchange” as is 330 Chestnut St. He also noted that Pill’s environmental consultant, Marc Wallace of Tech Environmental, estimated that 1,500 trucks would visit the site daily, but when asked for data supporting that fact, he admitted he had received it second hand, rather than from an expert source.
Denver then remarked on a comment from resident John Cooper, who called the project a “big, fat, wet turd” at a previous public hearing. He gave a hypothetical in which 25% of the warehouse employees are from East Longmeadow and rhetorically asked if they would think of it that way. “No, I don’t think they would,” Denver said.
Kingston said that while he was “not happy” with the size of the project, it is an appropriate use in the industrial garden district.
Punderson said commented that the developers’ plan was to use all 100 loading docks and by his own estimation four trucks can cycle in and out of each dock, leading to 800 trucks going to and from the warehouse each day. “Nobody has a right” to subject the town to a project with an “onerous” impact on the town.
His was the only vote against the project.