CHICOPEE – After months of contested debate between Burnett Road residents and Pilot Travel Center representatives, the City Council unanimously voted against licenses for the proposed truck stop at 357 Burnett Rd. during their Sept. 8 meeting. The decision was met with a wave of cheers from residents who advocated against the proposed center over the course of multiple meetings.
Background
Originally, the site received approval from the council in 2018 for a mixed-use hotel, gas station and sit-down restaurant space. While the project gathered the necessary permits, John Furman, director of Land Development for Vanasse Hangen Brustlin Inc. (VHB), explained that the advent of the coronavirus pandemic halted its development.
Pilot first proposed the travel center during a preliminary Planning Board meeting on May 5. Pilot Vice President Patrick Deptula presented the project alongside his design and legal team. He explained that the site would have included 16 fueling areas and a fueling depot for trucks. The travel center would have also featured a Wendy’s restaurant without a drive-thru, a convenience store and amenities for truckers to refresh after lengthy drives. There was no overnight stay option for trucks, meaning they would have had to relocate to the Pride Travel Center on 367 Burnett Rd. that offers accommodations.
Residents issued a variety of critiques about the proposed Pilot project, including concerns about increased activity in a traffic-dense area, changes to the site’s original mixed-use concept, quality of life issues regarding air pollution and the project’s proximity to a similar Pride Travel Center. The outpour of reactions inspired a robo-call sent throughout Chicopee advocating against the project and a Facebook page titled “Chicopee Against the Stop: The Truck Stop Stops Here.” Burnett Road residents also hired legal counsel Seth Wilson to support their claims.
Throughout the process, Ward 6 City Councilor Derek Dobosz backed the opinions of his Burnett Road constituents. Dobosz argued similar claims and also took to task the travel center’s proposed above-ground gas station, which would be only the second in the state used in a commercial space.
The site received preliminary approval from the Planning Board on May 5 before earning final approval from the board during their July 14 meeting. After an informational July 25 Utilities Committee meeting on the center’s above-ground gas storage tank, the License Committee met on Aug. 8 and ultimately recommend against the approval of two licenses for the travel center’s fuel storage and service stations.
Public speakout
Wilson presented an overview of his 300 clients’ grievances during the beginning of the council’s public input session. The attorney revealed that the council received a binder from Pilot representatives a day prior to the meeting alluding to legal action if the licenses are denied.
“If for some reason they don’t go along with Pilot proposal, they are going to sue you in Superior Court … From my perspective, that’s clearly a demonstration of desperation. They have to threaten sue you in order to try to prevent you from considering the best interest of the individuals,” said Wilson.
Wilson argued that Pilot’s special permit request means that an approval “may be granted, not shall be” by the discretion of the City Council. The attorney also said the licenses earned by the site should not be transferable from the original mixed-use plan that received approval in 2018.
“The rules specifically provide that those licenses are not transferable … it was very clear that was premised on there being no trucks and no tractor trailers allowed at that prior proposal,” said Wilson.
Attorney Louis Ciavarra spoke on behalf of the Pilot applicants. Savara acknowledged residents’ “passionate” feelings toward the project, but said denying the license request is a legal issue. The attorney referenced the Planning Board’s approval as a reason Pilot can use the site as proposed.
Ciavarra believed that the licenses were not inherently discretionary.
“My clients have established and its been accepted that they can use the property as proposed … You can’t grant a use then take away the ability to use it by rejecting a properly submitted license application. It’s not discretionary,” said Ciavarra.
Ciavarra said the Pilot team “wants to be members of the community” and they are “convinced it’s a positive development for the community.” The attorney also stressed that Pilot possesses a “legal right” to operate on the site.
“The fact of the matter is, it’s a legal issue, not a political one,” said Ciavarra.
The public input session included an array of complaints from residents who have spoken against the proposed travel center since it was first proposed.
David Amo reiterated his concerns about the proposed travel center’s impact on safety – both in terms of road safety and air quality. He also shared that Pilot was fined over $100,000 by the Environmental Protection Agency for illegal water discharge and for acts of fraud committed against trucker clientele in 2013 that resulted in a $85 million settlement with trucking companies.
“You call that a good neighbor? I don’t think so … I am here to fight for our kids and our families. I want you to do the right thing. I will tell Pilot right now, ‘We don’t want you, we don’t need you and go back from where you’re from,’” said Amo.
Susan LaPlante, a resident of the Burnett Road area for over 55 years, claimed that Chicopee will not be “bullied” by the threat of legal action.
“I’m guessing that’s Pilot’s business as usual policy … It’s not acceptable to bully to get what you want,” said LaPlante.
Former Police Chief William Jebb, who reviewed the approval of the previous site plan as the department’s leader at that time, argued that the old traffic data does not account for the new development.
“I’m here for public safety issues … This is a problem. This is a public safety problem,” said Jebb.
Council response
Before the council placed their votes, attorney Dan Garvey announced that Ward 1 City Councilor Joel McAuliffe would be abstaining from the vote. On June 23, Dobosz accused McAuliffe of accepting a $500 donation from the site’s landowner Dinesh Patel for his state representative campaign.
Garvey explained that while McAuliffe received documentation stating that his vote would not be a violation of ethics policies, McAuliffe decided to abstain due to wanting the focus to be on “the application itself, rather than him.”
Dobosz applauded McAuliffe for his decision.
“I think it’s the right thing to do ethically and morally, and it speaks a lot of his character … I want to thank him for doing that and gaining a lot of trust from Ward 6 residents,” said Dobosz.
Dobosz reaired many of the sentiments he argued over the last four months on the proposed Pilot Travel Center, including concerns about increased pollution omissions, Pilot’s ethics and the development’s proximity to another truck stop. Dobosz said traffic impacts remain the most pressing concern, claiming that the Pilot study does not account for increased truck traffic.
“There’s increasing evidence that they used studies for the hotel, the same studies, the same traffic studies and they just applied them to this truck stop … That’s not a political issue, it’s a legal issue,” said Dobosz.
The councilors backed Dobosz’s stance. Ward 9 City Councilor Mary-Elizabeth Pniak-Costello said the project presents an impediment to road safety. Ward 3 City Councilor Delmarina Lopez took issue with Pilot’s threat of legal action.
“My job is not to protect the interest of the corporation, it is to protect the interests of the city,” said Lopez.
Ward 8 City Councilor Gary Labrie compared the topic to a proposed Cumberland Farms in Aldenville last year that received similarly dismissive reactions from the public before being denied. He stressed that the council must listen to the public response.
City Councilor At-Large Gerald Roy offered a straightforward denouncement of the proposal.
“If I lived up in that area, I wouldn’t want another truck stop either,” said Roy.
Ultimately, the council denied both proposed permits in 10-0 votes.
