Minutes of June 27, 2006

Present were: Louis Calabrese, Chairman; Marilyn Richards, Vice Chair; Donald Anderson; Clerk, Thomas Morrissette and Michael Przybylowicz.

Special Permit Public Hearing – Dylan Bond 335 Prospect Street

The Chair, Louis Calabrese, opened the hearing and the Clerk, Donald Anderson, read the legal notice into the record. Mr. Calabrese then introduced the members of the Board. There being no correspondence, the Chair welcomed the petitioner, Dylan Bond and asked that he make his presentation. At that time, Mr. Bond explained to the Board that he owned the property at 335 Prospect Street and that his house is a pre-existing, non-conforming structure to which he would like to add an addition. Mr. Bond continued by stating that the house itself is angled away from the property line, sits in a AA residential zone and requires a 35 feet sideyard setback. He stated that he could accomplish that except for one foot of the new addition. The house was built in 1940 and comes within 17 feet of the side yard already and that he is not asking for any more side yard. He added that many of the houses in the area are on the property lines and he would like to add to his home in the rear, which will not encroach at all on any of the neighbors, and will not increase the Zoning violation that already exists.

Mr. Calabrese stated that there is a pre-existing, non-conforming structure and the addition will bring the petitioner one foot short of the required setback. Ms. Macdonald advised the Board that although the non-conformity is being increased, there will be no new Zoning violation. Mr. Morrissette stated it was only making the non-conformity bigger. Mr. Przybylowicz stated that it would not have any negative affect on the surrounding properties. Ms. Richards stated that it would not impact on the water tower. Mr. Calabrese asked the Board for questions, there being none, he turned the questions to the public. At this time, Sean Kelley, from DPW (in charge of the water tower) stated that they had no problem with the addition. Mr. Calabrese then turned the hearing back to the Board who, upon motion duly made and seconded, voted unanimously to close the public hearing. Thereafter, upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the Special Permit Section 6 finding that the addition would not be detrimental to the neighborhood. Mr. Bond asked when he could pick up the decision and Mr. Calabrese and Mr. Morrissette informed him that there was a 20-day appeal period after the decision was filed with the Clerk. Mr. Morrissette stated that any work done prior to the expiration of the appeal period would be done at the petitioner’s own risk. Mr. Bond asked how that would affect his building permit? Ms. Macdonald explained that the Building Inspector could not issue a building permit until he received notice of the expiration of the appeal period. She also explained that any necessary clearing could be done, however, any construction would have to wait for the building permit.

ANR – Chester Czupryna – Brae-Burn Road

Mr. Czupryna presented the Board with a request for an ANR on his property located at Brae-Burn Road. He explained that he was looking to create a new lot having frontage on Brae-Burn Road. He explained that the frontage was at the cul-de-sac with the lot measuring 15,000 square feet. He then showed the Board the location of his home and swimming pool stating that his house was over 100 years old and he has lived there for 40 years. Mr. Czupryna then stated that he has 40 feet in residence C with 50 feet at the end of Boulder Street. He then stated that he extended the street so he could accommodate the snow plows when they push the snow in the winter so he has 90 feet of frontage, plus he stated that he extended the street 18 feet so his neighbor would not have a problem with his driveway and Mr. Czupryna was willing to give this land to the town. He then stated that the town called him up requesting a 15-foot easement for a water line to get to Pecousic so that they could make the loop. Mr. Morrissette asked where the water line was going to go? Mr. Czupryna stated from Pecousic to Brae-Burn - that he agreed to give it to the town. He continued to state that when he bought the property it was Residence C which required 75 feet of frontage. Ms. Richards explained that the lot was in Residence B needing 100 feet of frontage. Mr. Czupryna stated that all the houses on the side of the street (Boulder) had 75 feet of frontage, four lots are non-conforming lots.

Mr. Morrissette stated that the Board changed Mr. Czupryna’s address to Boulder a year ago – Mr. Czupryna agreed. He stated that he changed the address because his wife had slipped on their driveway during the winter (for the address at Brae-Burn). Mr. Morrissette stated that now, his address is Boulder Street. Mr. Przybylowicz reiterated to Mr. Czupryna that he was looking to create a new lot, Residence B – with 100 feet of frontage. Mr. Przybylowicz asked where the zone line stopped, and if it touched that piece of property? Mr. Morrissette stated that the zone line did not touch this piece of property. Ms. Richards stated, that all parcels would need 100 feet of frontage.

Mr. Anderson asked where that would leave the existing house? He added that the “extension” was proposed and it would fall under subdivision control – it was not allowed – had not been approved. He added that you would be creating a new way - the Board is looking to do an ANR to approve frontage – not to approve a new way – that is what subdivision control is for. Mr. Czupryna stated that he could take that off – no problem – he figured he would give that to the town. Mr. Anderson asked if he would have a Brae-Burn address - Mr. Czupryna stated, no – Boulder Street. Mr. Morrissette stated he was not looking to change his address he is looking to create a new lot. Mr. Calabrese stated he wanted to talk about the new lot. He was shown the new lot area. Mr. Morrissette stated that the new lot would not have any frontage. Ms. Richards stated there was no frontage – he needed 100 feet.

Mr. Przybylowicz asked if that right now he has frontage on Brae-Burn? Ms. Richards stated yes, that is the frontage for his house lot. Mr. Anderson stated, frontage on Brae-Burn, with a Bolder Street address, and if the lot gets chopped it would leave only 90 feet of frontage. Mr. Czupryna stated that he has 90 feet of frontage – that is where his mailbox is - and every lot on Boulder Street has 75 feet of frontage. Ms. Macdonald explained that was because those houses were in Residential C zone which required 75 feet of frontage. Mr. Czupryna stated that the short piece he owns is residential C – Ms. Richards stated that according to the Town Zoning Map his parcel is Residential B district single family – Mr. Czupryna stated that the town changed that.

Ms. Richards stated that as the parcel sits now, the frontage on his property is on Brae-Burn. She asked Mr. Czupryna when he created the curb cut for the driveway on Brae-Burn as it was her understanding that he was allowed to do that because his frontage was on Brae-Burn. Mr. Czupryna stated that he put Brae-Burn Road in 1980. Mr. Morrissette stated that Boulder was an old street that had been improved. Mr. Morrissette asked Mr. Czupryna what the address was when he purchased the house? Mr. Czupryna stated it was a Boulder Street address – however, he had to use a Dwight Road address to get his mail.

Mr. Calabrese asked if the parcel was included in the original purchase? Mr. Czupryna stated yes. Ms. Richards stated that an ANR was just approved to split part of the property at Pecousic. Mr. Calabrese asked when the frontage on Brae-Burn occurred? Mr. Czupryna stated when he constructed the road, in 1980. Mr. Calabrese then said would not the frontage still be on Boulder – when was it given up? Ms. Richards stated that it is all one parcel and Brae-Burn created frontage for the parcel even though it may not be the front of his house – that is the frontage. Mr. Czupryna had an address on Brae-Burn until he requested the change a year ago. Ms. Macdonald advised the Board that at the time the change of address request, Mr. Czupryna stated he wanted to have a shorter driveway – that he had frontage on Brae-Burn but wanted to change the address to make it easier to get his mail.

Mr. Czupryna stated that the reason he was using Brae-Burn Road was because he was having trouble getting his mail at Dwight Road – it was all dirt. Mr. Calabrese said, as he understood it, originally, this large parcel existed with the old house, with a Boulder Street address. Mr. Morrissette stated that was because Brae-Burn was not there. Mr. Calabrese stated that the lot was created prior to 1962 with existing frontage on Boulder. He then asked when the frontage was changed? He added that you change frontage with a subdivision and he was questioning whether or not the original Boulder address was ever given up – that he does not see that it was. Ms. Richards stated that the last sale date was 1966 – that the by-laws were in effect since 1962 – Mr. Calabrese stated that was when it was purchased – this was his legal address.

Ms. Macdonald asked why the address ever changed to Brae-Burn? Mr. Czupryna stated that he changed to Brae-Burn because of the trouble with the mail. Mr. Calabrese stated the way he was looking at is that the parcel existed with a Boulder Street address and after the fact, Brae-Burn came into existence. He adopted to use this as a mail-box – they were having trouble getting their mail. Ms. Richards stated as frontage - Mr. Calabrese stated that you do not create frontage with a mail box. Ms. Richards stated that he created an access driveway – got a curb cut – DPW does not allow you to put a curb-cut anywhere – Mr. Calabrese stated that this was in existence and what would change the lot because of a cul-de-sac? He said when the cul-de-sac was constructed the lot existed – they did not create it. So, he did not feel the frontage was ever given up.

Ms. Richards stated that if you subdivide the property now, you are creating a non-conforming lot – Mr. Calabrese stated that if the lot was subdivided now – this lot is not a non-conforming lot – if the lot was subdivided would this now be a non-conforming lot? Ms. Richards stated yes. Mr. Morrissette stated that in 1966 when he purchased the property it had the 90 feet of frontage on Boulder.

Mr. Anderson stated that if the Board would remember a site for Roulier that the Board discussed – Mr. Calabrese stated that he was trying to determine when this new frontage was created as his new frontage? He stated that if you take the cul-de-sac out of the picture, the parcel requiring Residence B – does the Board think that he is giving up his frontage? Ms. Richards stated yes. Mr. Morrissette stated yes. Mr. Anderson referred to Mr. Roulier’s project – Mr. Calabrese stated he was looking at this parcel – not at Roulier’s project – he did know anything about Roulier’s project – Mr. Anderson stated that if he carved out a sliver piece – the driveway would be his new frontage – not acceptable. Mr. Calabrese stated that they had to go back to when the lot was created – it was created with frontage on Boulder Street – it was not re-created when the frontage on Brae-Burn was put in. Ms. Richards explained that happened when the cul-de-sac was constructed, it put the parcel into conformity – that happens to a lot of parcels in town – parcels that are joined together meet conformity and then the owners want to subdivide them again – they cannot re-create a non-conforming parcel. Mr. Morrissette stated that by putting a cul-de-sac at the end of Boulder Street he gained the proper frontage. Mr. Czupryna stated that the people in the area do not want a cul-de-sac there. He added that if he put a cul-de-sac in he could get another lot there and he did not want another lot. Mr. Przybylowicz said he did not think he could create a third lot there – Mr. Czupryna stated yes he could – he did not want it.

Mr. Calabrese said the only question he has is when the Brae-Burn cul-de-sac was put in – he did not think it created frontage for this lot – he believes this lot was already created and after the fact Brae-Burn was created – Ms. Richards stated – brought it into conformity – Mr. Calabrese did not see it that way – was it a non-conforming lot by nature of frontage? Ms. Richards stated yes, and he added the frontage on Brae-Burn. Mr. Calabrese stated that he only knew that this lot was already created and he does not know that a cul-de-sac would . . . .

Ms. Richards reiterated what they needed to do with an ANR. She explained that they need to approve the subdivision of land – the criteria is that it have adequate frontage for the Zoning requirements and she had learned from Mr. Calabrese that they cannot create a non-conformity by granting an ANR – that is what this would do.

Mr. Calabrese stated that you can create another lot as long as it has frontage on a public way – this is a public way. Mr. Calabrese stated that the question is does this negate the other frontage on Boulder? He does not have the answer to that . . . . Ms. Macdonald explained that once it is changed, it cannot go back – all of the parcel being one - the cul-de-sac created frontage which meets the zoning requirements – thus making the lot conforming.

Mr. Czupryna stated that he had extended the street – Ms. Macdonald explained that the DPW had not and could not accept the proposed street extension – it would fall under the subdivision rules and regulations, and the plan shows a “proposed extension”. Mr. Czupryna stated that he could pull the blacktop off and make everybody miserable, but he did not want to do that –

Mr. Calabrese stated that what the plan shows is that the street has been extended – not a public way – not taken by the town – the question is whether the Boulder Street frontage is relinquished because of the cul-de-sac – he does not know if he is satisfied with that. Mr. Czupryna stated that his house sets 160 feet above Brae-Burn Road. Mr. Calabrese stated that they could assume that it was one big 10 acre parcel and originally started with a Boulder Street address and later on – at some time – the back part was sold off and someone puts the cul-de-sac in – is it because they put the cul-de-sac in that he gave up his right to frontage on Boulder? Mr. Morrissette stated that the parcel does have dual frontage, however, he does not know what you are going to do with only 90 feet – it is short for Zoning – Mr. Anderson stated that he agreed with Mr. Morrissette – that if Mr. Czupryna gets 100 feet on Boulder – Mr. Calabrese stated that he already has the frontage from when the lot was created. Mr. Anderson stated that it did not matter – he ended up creating a conformity with the subdivision - it would create a non-conformity with the lot – you cannot go back to a non-conformity once it has been brought into conformity. Mr. Calabrese stated that he agreed with that.

Ms. Richards stated that there had been a family in town – with a large accessory building built on their property – originally they had a non-conforming lot in residential A – with insufficient square footage and insufficient frontage – they added a large additional parcel to their property so they could add the accessory structure. Then there was a desire to separate that accessory structure – at that time, the town and the building inspector stated that they could not go back to a parcel which was less than required by the Zoning by-laws – even though they had less to begin with – they had to meet the standards of the by-law. Mr. Calabrese stated that was a case where they did not have the adequate frontage or adequate square footage – so if you wanted to take the back piece off – as long as they had the proper frontage of today would be required. Ms. Macdonald explained that the only requirement for approval of an ANR is the proper frontage on a public way – adequate access.

Mr. Calabrese stated that the Board never did an ANR on this property – Ms. Richards explained that was what he was asking for now. Mr. Calabrese again stated that they need to look at the parcel as if the cul-de-sac did not exist – Ms. Richards stated no - - Mr. Calabrese stated that this existed previously, with frontage there (on Boulder Street) and then the cul-de-sac was put in – did this create frontage for this parcel? Ms. Richards stated yes – they put a curb cut there for access – Mr. Czupryna said that was for the sewer and water easement.

Mr. Morrissette stated that in the plans for Brae-Burn Road which was approved - you will see that this lot was listed as lot a, b or c . . . . which was an approved lot. Mr. Calabrese stated that the cul-de-sac does not exist it is just on paper. Ms. Macdonald explained that the cul-de-sac does exist. Mr. Calabrese said he thought they were trying to create this tonight. Mr. Anderson said no – they are carving up a piece out of the larger one – Mr. Calabrese said he thought it was all one parcel. Mr. Morrissette showed Mr. Calabrese how the division was being proposed.

Mr. Calabrese stated that this lot was a non-conforming lot by nature of not having the proper frontage before, and it is still all the same parcel and frontage was added at a later date, whether that becomes his frontage – that is the question and Mr. Calabrese stated he did not have the answer to that.

Mr. Morrissette stated that the lot was made conforming when Brae-Burn Road was constructed – the Board will not know until they see the subdivision plan that was approved. He said the Board would need to see those plans to see if that lot was included in the plan for the extension of Brae-Burn Road – if it was included as a separate lot in the approval, it is a done deal – he is done – that is his frontage.

Mr. Calabrese stated that on that plan it should show the lots that were being created – that would be a good key – what did that plan show? Mr. Morrissette agreed and stated that would wipe out the frontage on the other street.

Mr. Morrissette stated that the key is to look at the plan for Brae-Burn Road extension and see if the lot is listed as one of the lots being approved. Mr. Morrissette added that if it is, he is done and the only way he can get frontage on Boulder Road would be to put in frontage by way of a cul-de-sac, under subdivision control. Mr. Czupryna asked if he could go to the Zoning Board of Appeals – Mr. Morrissette said he could try. Ms. Macdonald explained that he would not meet the criteria necessary for a variance as he would have created his own hardship by subdividing the parcel – causing a shortage in the frontage.

Ms. Macdonald stated she would pull that subdivision plan, however, she needed a written extension for the decision of the ANR. – Mr. Calabrese stated that he was anxious to see the subdivision creating Brae-Burn Road – he would be interested to see if that lot was part of the plan – if it was not, it would not have created frontage.

Ms. Richards asked how that would make a difference when the frontage was clearly created? Mr. Calabrese stated that moving a mail-box does not create frontage. Ms. Richards stated the intention was that Brae-Burn Road brought proper frontage to the non-conforming lot, regardless that it was the back of the lot.

Mr. Morrissette asked if someone comes to the Board with ownership of their property with an empty piece next to them and some developer is putting in a street – they have 90 feet of frontage on Prospect Street, and the road is put in giving them 150 feet of frontage on a new street – does that now make the lot conforming – without even being part of the subdivision plan? Mr. Morrissette asked that even though they had nothing to do with the roadway being constructed? Ms. Richards stated yes, it has happened on many different occasions. The lot would now be conforming, albeit on a different street – same as a corner lot.

Mr. Calabrese stated that he wanted Mr. Czupryna to give the Board an extension and he wanted to look at the subdivision plan. Ms. Richards stated that if the subdivision plan does not show the lot, yet there is an approved street with frontage - - Mr. Morrissette stated that if what she had just said was true – it will not matter – Mr. Anderson agreed – it will not matter as frontage was created, bringing the lot into conformity as it shows on the plan before them.

Does the cul-de-sac negate the original frontage? Mr. Calabrese stated that is his question. Mr. Czupryna stated that Boulder used to be only a dirt road – Mr. Morrissette stated yes, that was true as was Tufts Street, Corning and other streets in the area. Mr. Anderson stated that Mr. Czupryna would need to give an extension for a month or so . . . and Mr. Calabrese told Mr. Czupryna that would give him time to have someone look at it for him. Mr. Morrissette stated that if the Board did not get the extension – the ANR would be considered denied – Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted to deny the plan unless a written extension for thirty days was received by Friday, June 30^th, 2006 at 4:00 p.m.

Ms. Macdonald asked the Board – if the plan came to the Board as it was – how would the Board look at it – without any history – looking at the frontage on the lot at the cul-de-sac? Mr. Calabrese stated that he would look at two things – to see if there was adequate square footage on the lot along with the setbacks – he would not even look at the frontage. Mr. Calabrese stated that he still does not understand what creates that as the new frontage – he was not sure of that.

Mr. Calabrese asked why does he lose his original frontage? Ms. Macdonald explained that once the plan has been changed – it cannot go back. Mr. Przybylowicz stated that if you have a building that violates setbacks and you tear it down to build another building – meeting the setback requirements – what would give you the right to demolish it again and build to meet the old setbacks – being in violation of today’s requirements? Mr. Calabrese stated that would be a pre-existing structure – setbacks are different – we are talking about a non-conforming lot that did not have adequate frontage today – if you were tearing down the house – you would be able to build it at several locations to meet the setbacks.

Mr. Morrissette said his question – this lot – everything you see, before Brae-Burn was built – this was a lot on a way with 75 feet of frontage in Residence C – he had 75 feet on Boulder – when the town changed the zone from 75 feet to 100 feet of frontage – his frontage is on C correct? Ms. Macdonald said no, when Mr. Czupryna asked this Board to change his address – he said he had frontage on Brae-Burn, however, he wanted his address on Boulder so he could make his driveway shorter and this Board said because the frontage was adequate on Brae-Burn – they would allow the address to be on Boulder to accommodate a shorter driveway.

Mr. Calabrese asked why would he come to the Board for that? He could go to DPW – Ms. Macdonald stated that the DPW would not grant this without approval from the Planning Board. Mr. Calabrese did not see it that way, he said he had another address in the past - - Ms. Richards mentioned that their approval for the other ANR for Pecousic was decided because the Board recognized that the parcel had proper frontage on Brae-Burn which allowed the ANR for Pecousic to be granted. If they had not recognized the frontage on Brae-Burn, they would have looked at the ANR for Pecousic the same way they were looking at this one. She asked Mr. Czupryna why he did not deal with both ANR’s at the same time?

Mr. Calabrese stated that he had one question – whether or not he gives up his frontage on Boulder – not a big fiasco – and he (Mr. Czupryna) should have the right to do some research – If he is deserving, Mr. Calabrese stated he was not there to deny anyone the right to use their property. He added that the chances were if it were to be voted on tonight it would not be approved but he would rather give him (Mr. Czupryna) the opportunity to at least look into it – Mr. Przybylowicz asked if addresses were tied into GIS? Ms. Macdonald stated no and Mr. Kelley stated that the entire 911 system would have to be revamped.

Mr. Czupryna stated he would write the letter granting an extension and Ms. Macdonald stated she would pull the subdivision plan for Brae-Burn and provide copies to the Board.

Request for Waiver of Site Plan – Water Tower at Prospect Street

Mr. Calabrese welcomed Sean Kelley to the meeting and asked him to tell the Board about the project and what he was requesting. Mr. Kelley explained that the town is in the process of putting out to bid for a new water tank. He explained that the DPW had removed the old 75,000 gallon tank that deteriorated during the winter – they are looking to put up a two million gallon tank in addition to the 1.5 million gallon tank that is existing. Mr. Morrissette asked if they were going to leave the 1.5 million gallon tank there? Mr. Kelley said yes, they were. He continued by stating that DEP has monitors and they enforce all the drinking laws in the state and the federal government requires that the towns have adequate drinking water storage. On an average day the tank will service about 1.2 million gallons of water per day and the town is required to maintain at least that much plus fire storage – enough water for fire storage is based on gallons per minute – minimum of three hours – 630,000 gallons of water – needing storage of over 2 million gallons – however the town needs to have enough storage for “worst case scenario” emergencies.

He then showed the Board the site plan – advised that he had met with the neighbors and formed a “color” committee comprised of the neighbors who can pick out the color for the tank. He showed the Board the brochure showing what the tank will look like. Mr. Morrissette asked if East Longmeadow was going to be painted at the top of the tank? Mr. Kelley stated that could be done. Mr. Kelley added that the tank would be placed at the rear of the existing tank, on town property, with a required six-foot chain link fence around the property. Mr. Kelley also stated that the driveway will be extended, with a turn-around for vehicles that may need to maintain the facility. He added that there will be fiber-optic cameras for security and as a deterrent. Mr. Kelley stated that the parcel has a great many trees which will have to be cleared, however, the site will be secluded with minimal lighting and entrance/access to the tower will be from the inside only – no outside accessibility at all. Mr. Kelley gave additional information relating to the interior of the station itself – assuring the Board that the facility will be locked at all times. Mr. Anderson asked if the structure would be an available space for telecommunication antennas? Mr. Kelley said yes and no – currently Verizon Wireless has antenna’s on the existing tank – the new tank may cause interference as it is higher – Verizon is doing studies now to see – if it is – a modification for the permit may be requested. He added that the town has a lease with Verizon and they must put the tank up – so the town is in a catch-22 situation – they are trying to work the problem out and will be back to the Board to amend the Special Permit for Verizon -

The Board thanked Mr. Kelley for the presentation and upon motion duly made and seconded, voted unanimously to grant the request for Waiver of Site Plan Review to install the new water tower at Prospect Street.

Public Hearing – Site Plan Approval – Benton Professional Partners, LLC

The Chair introduced the Board members and asked Mr. Anderson to read the legal notice into the record. Mr. Anderson read the notice as well as correspondence from the different departments. The Police Department made the following recommendations:

1. Lighting to be installed in the parking areas to improve the safety for pedestrian and vehicular traffic.

2. lighting shall be installed at all exterior entrances/exits to reduce the potential for criminal activity and to assist officers patrolling the site during nighttime hours and to improve emergency response.

3. Any signage installed at the site will be set back from the roadway so as not to interfere with the visibility of vehicle operators entering or exiting the site.

4. Two handicapped parking spaces on the South side of the site are to be moved to the same side of the parking lot as the building entrance.

5. Sidewalks are to be installed along the South side of the parking lot of the Phase I building, improving the safety for pedestrian traffic accessing the marked crosswalk.

6. Any planting at the site shall not restrict visibility for pedestrian or vehicular traffic.

Mr. Anderson summarized the traffic trip generation data as follows: The proposed development is consistent with the intent of the East Longmeadow Industrial Park Industrial Center Master Plan. Table 1 read the average vehicle trips for Phase I during the weekday would be a total of 526, with 71 at a.m. peak hour; 133 p.m. peak hour; 83 on Saturday; Saturday peak hour 14; Sunday 26; and Sunday peak hour at 6.

The information for the entire project at its completion was: weekday, 1,224; a.m. peak hour 171; p.m. peak hour 180; Saturday, 211; Saturday peak hour 35; Sunday 66; and Sunday peak hour at 12.

Mr. Anderson then read the Fire Department recommendations:

1. Fire hydrants shall be located and installed as directed by the Fire Department.

2. Hydrants must be located as shown on plans submitted for review.

3. The Fire Department is concerned about the number of cars that will enter and exit through one point. The Fire Department would like to see another point for entrance and exit. The developer will construct an emergency exit which will be available only to emergency vehicles to exit to Denslow Road if the Benton Drive entrance/exit was blocked.

Mr. Anderson then read a letter from Geoff F. Elia, Manager of Benton Professional Partners in which Mr. Elia confirmed the gift-in-trust from Benton Professional Partners in the amount of $5,000.00 to the Town of East Longmeadow. This gift-in-trust will be used for mitigating the traffic concerns and to improve the level of service in the area. The gift-in-trust is in lieu of a full traffic study for Phase I.

Mr. Anderson read a letter from DPW in which Franklin Miorandi, Assistant Town Engineer stated that the DPW had reviewed the plan and approved it for access, egress and drainage.

Ms. Macdonald advised the Board that the group was looking for approval of Phase I only at this time and the gift-in-trust was in lieu for a waiver of traffic study for Phase I. She added that she had requested the applicant, although they were only looking at Phase I, to provide the Board with a full construction prospective of the entire project so the Board would have an idea as to what else would be planned on this site. Ms. Macdonald also informed the Board that the gift-in-trust would be used in conjunction with monies from Chapter 90, DPW and the Town of Longmeadow.

Mr. Calabrese asked the applicant to make their presentation. Jeff Warren from Westmass Development Corporation explained the overview of the parcel – representing the final parcel to be sold in the Industrial Garden Park. He then introduced Doug Mattoon, Architect for Associated Builders. Mr. Mattoon explained that the parcel is the last in the park, and the plan represents the regulatory restrictions placed on the 13 acre parcel. Mr. Mattoon then showed the setback at 75 feet, the sideyard setback of 50 feet, rear yard setback of 50 with wetland buffer setbacks of 50 and 100 feet. He then explained that they had been approved by the Conservation Commission and were awaiting the signing of the Orders of Conditions.

Mr. Mattoon then addressed the recommendations from the town boards and explained that Phase I is a part of the master plan which will encompass the entire 13 acres. It will consist of 5 individual buildings. Mr. Mattoon then explained that the present hearing was to approve Phase I which consists of a 30,000 square foot building. He then showed the entrance drive off of Benton Drive. Mr. Mattoon then explained that the buildings would be used for professional offices and that the comments and recommendations from the other boards have been incorporated in this plan.

Mr. Mattoon advised the Board that the overall complex will have 450 parking spaces, with Phase I consisting of 150 of those spaces. Regarding utilities, Mr. Mattoon explained that there is an easement that brings the utilities up between Maybury and Glaz Realty properties. Mr. Mattoon added that the entire infrastructure as well as the stormwater management for the full project will be installed at this point in time

Mr. Mattoon explained that the second (emergency) exit will be constructed at the end of the entire project. An emergency exit will be by the Maybury property line, kept maintained at all times, and allow the Fire Department to enter at Denslow Road. He then stated that the building would be a steel structure, and two stories high. He then detailed the materials to be used, which are the same as most of the other buildings in the park. Mr. Mattoon added that the building would be split into individual office spaces.

At this time, Mr. Calabrese asked the Board members if they had any questions. Mr. Przybylowicz asked if the emergency road would be installed at this time? Mr. Mattoon explained that no, it would be constructed at the conclusion of construction at this site. He explained that was the concern of the Fire Department due to the number of parking spaces. Mr. Anderson then reiterated the importance of the emergency access and asked that the developer make sure that adequate access be provided at all times and at all stages of construction.

Mr. Anderson then reminded the applicant that each and every business looking to lease space in the main building must appear before the Planning Board for a waiver of Site Plan Review as well as signage approval prior to occupying the space. Mr. Przybylowicz asked the anticipated number of dumpsters? Mr. Mattoon explained that each building will have an individual dumpster – all will be enclosed. Ms. Richards asked if the all the proposed uses would be professional? Mr. Mattoon stated that the buildings are set up for professional offices – Mr. Elia added that only professional offices will be allowed in the building. Mr. Mattoon added that there is a main corridor to access the interior offices and there are no loading docks in the project – Mr. Morrissette added – that the plan could be changed at some point in time. Mr. Mattoon agreed but stated it was not in the plan.

Mr. Calabrese then explained the rules of the hearing and turned the questions to the audience. Sean Kelley, DPW reiterated the facts of the gift-in-trust from the applicant. He explained that the egress/access especially at Benton and Chestnut, is very congested. He stated that a traffic study would only be data, showing the number of trips – of not much use to the town – by accepting this gift-in-trust, modifications can be done to improve the situation. He added that synchronizing the lights was planned with the hope to create a system that works appropriately for all traffic concerns. Mr. Morrissette asked if more studies were required, could we expect more cooperation? Mr. Kelley stated yes, that Robyn Macdonald had arranged this gift-in-trust and the concept was well accepted by the applicant.

There being no further questions, Mr. Calabrese turned the hearing back to the Board. There being no further questions from the Board, upon motion duly made and seconded, they voted to close the public hearing.

Mr. Anderson asked about whether or not the Fire Department should be contacted regarding the emergency driveway not being constructed prior to the end of the project? Mr. Morrissette stated that Maybury has a long driveway with no emergency access – Mr. Mattoon explained that the building will have a full sprinkler system, and that there are only 150 parking spaces planned for Phase I. Mr. Anderson added that he had been mistaken and was thinking that there entire 450 spaces would be available, so he was satisfied realizing that the number would be less.

Mr. Mattoon advised Mr. Calabrese that the emergency roadway will be identified by landscaping so the Fire Department will be able to access it, no vehicles will be parked at the entrance, and it will be maintained at all times. Mr. Przybylowicz pointed out the two parking spaces at the entrance, to which Mr. Mattoon explained those were excess and would be removed at the time the roadway was constructed. Mr. Morrissette asked if Maybury had been approached regarding the emergency access and Mr. Mattoon explained that yes, he had agreed. Mr. Calabrese asked if the land not be constructed could be used as an emergency if necessary? Mr. Mattoon explained yes, that would be available and the ground was stable enough for this use if necessary. Being satisfied, and without further discussion and upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously to approve the Site Plan.

Public Hearing – Subdivision – Phillips Court – 559 Prospect Street

Mr. Calabrese again introduced the Board members and asked the Clerk to read the legal notice. Mr. Anderson read the legal notice as well as correspondence from the Police Department who recommended streetlights be installed to reduce the potential for criminal activity. Further, Mr. Anderson read the report from the Department of Public Works who recommend the catch basin frame along the southerly radius should have throat access for larger debris, a fifty-foot tangent is required between curves and the town’s typical section needs to be added to the detail sheet. At this time, Mr. Anderson read the report from the Board of Selectmen which read that the proposed cul-de-sac allow for sufficient turning radius of emergency vehicles, school buses, trash collection trucks and any other like equipment.

Mr. Anderson then read a letter from Tyde Richards, an abutter who wrote the following:

“Regretfully I am unable to attend tonight's Planning Board Meeting due to a conflict with another reasonability that I have. I wish to respond to the Application for Site Plan Review of the proposed subdivision for Phillips Court.

I had the opportunity to review the plans submitted by the applicant, Allan Phillips and Jean Nelson for Phillips Court. I am not responding to the plans from a legal nature, but for a concern in the integrity of the Zoning Law that requires a minimum amount of "frontage" in order for a lot to be conforming. Over a year ago the applicant went before the Zoning Board for the purpose of obtaining a Variance to the Zoning Law to be able to create a non conforming lot due to a shortfall the Applicant had in the required frontage. That Variance was turned down because the Zoning Board did not feel such a chance would be consistent with the Zoning that has been established. The Applicant's new proposal is the same as the one that was denied with the exception of a cul-de-sac being constructed by the applicant for the benefit of one lot to be created. The purpose of constructing the cul-de-sac is to create a "sham" in order to demonstrate that the applicant has enough "frontage" to create this new lot. I would assume that this newly created cul-de-sac would have to be turned over to the Town, which would require the Town to have to plow and maintain this area at the tax payer's expense (for the benefit of one home). If it were not turned over to the Town it would be a driveway, which would have no impact on the required frontage requirement.

I am against the approval of this application for the following reasons:

· The applicant has already been turned down because the existing area owned by the applicant does not have the required frontage for 2 lots.

· Creating a cul-de-sac and turning it over to the Town to insure. and maintain is asking the tax payers to take on additional reasonability to create an area to benefit only one homeowner.

· By allowing the applicant to bypass the Zoning Laws by constructing a "cul-de-sac" for the purpose of avoiding the minimum frontage requirements grossly violates the integrity of the Zoning Law that requires a minimum frontage requirement. For these reasons I am against the approval of this Application. “ (sic)

At this time, Mr. Calabrese asked the petitioner to make their presentation. Gary Weiner, an Engineer of Ecotec Environmental Associates, Inc. stated that the letter from Mr. Richards explained what procedures Mr. Phillips (the owner of the property) has gone through in an attempt to construct one additional house at this location. He explained that the parcel is a wooded residential lot in residence AA district and that the plan being presented meets all the requirements of subdivision control. He added that the lot with the existing house on it would be broken into approximately 1.2 acres in size with the new lot being 1.3 acres in size. Mr. Weiner stated that the roadway would be approximately 150 feet in length, coming off of Prospect Street. With regard to the requirements stated by the DPW, Mr. Weiner responded that the basin could be changed without issue. However, he added, with regard to the requirement for the 50 foot straight section in-between two curves - he would ask that the Board grant a waiver of that requirement stating that that is set up for the purpose of setting up site distance – with this street being so short, the visibility is very apparent and the 50 foot tangent is not required.

Mr. Weiner then explained that the site would be serviced by a sanitary sewer and town water coming from Prospect Street. He added that there is very little stormwater drainage which will be addressed per DPW’s requirements. At this time, Mr. Weiner asked that the Board waive the requirement of construction – to allow the applicant not to construct the roadway. He explained that the Board has the authority, when in the interest of the town, to waive construction. He added that the letter from Mr. Richards also supported not constructing the street. Without construction of the roadway, the town will not inherit the maintenance of the sewer or the roadway in the future, and would benefit by lack of construction. In addition, Mr. Weiner stated that the applicant would be limited to building one home at this location.

Mr. Anderson stated that he could not agree to waiving construction – it is not good practice. He added that the new congregate care project applicants are working toward an agreement to keep their roadway public, so that the town will not be responsible for any maintenance of the street – never be accepted as a town road. Mr. Anderson added that he would be in favor of keeping the street private. Mr. Weiner stated that without construction, the town would not have to worry about a roadway – the advantage of that – single owner would not want the responsibility of maintaining the street. Mr. Weiner provided the Board with a letter requesting the waiver.

Mr. Calabrese stated that he wanted to continue with the discussion as it pertains to a subdivision – that the Board can discuss that subject later. Mr. Weiner explained that he had touched on all the pertinent issues other than the fact that meeting the DPW’s requirement of a 50 foot straight way addition would only add length to the street without adding any benefit.

Mr. Calabrese asked the Board for questions – there being none, Mr. Calabrese explained the rules and turned the meeting over to the public. There being none, Mr. Calabrese turned the hearing back to the Board.

Mr. Przybylowicz asked the zone for this property. Mr. Weiner told him it was Residential AA and that the applicant needs 350 feet of frontage for both lots. Mr. Morrissette stated that the applicant needed 50 feet for frontage and asked if that was what the Zoning Board of Appeals based their rejection on? Mr. Weiner stated yes. Mr. Morrissette added that this is a very unique situation. Mr. Weiner agreed and stated that without construction, the town would be protected – any change would have to go back to the Board – Mr. Morrissette stated that he was not in favor of waiving the construction – Ms. Richards stated that they were also looking for a wavier of a performance guarantee. Mr. Morrissette stated that without construction – they would not need a guarantee – which he is not in favor of.

Ms. Richards agreed with Mr. Morrissette’s comments – she added that this is a unique way to get around the Zoning requirements – however, on paper – it meets the requirements for subdivision. Mr. Morrissette stated that if the Board allows people not to construct the roadways – there will be many more all over town – he looks at this plan as a way to circumvent the rules.

Mr. Weiner mentioned that was not his intention – that although financially the applicant would be in a better position if he did not have to build the roadway – he would build it. Mr. Morrissette stated that even if the applicant asks the town to take the roadway at town meeting – the town does not have to accept it – it could stay private forever depending upon whether or not the DPW and Planning Board recommend it.

Ms. Richards asked Mr. Weiner to explain the 50 foot straight way again. Mr. Weiner explained that the regulations call for a 50 foot stretch of straight run between two curves to improve the site distances. In this particular case, Mr. Weiner added, it is not needed. By doing this it would create more roadway and the parcel smaller. It would increase the cost of the road also.

Mr. Calabrese then stated that the Board was going to approach the request as if the road was going to be built. Mr. Morrissette stated that the approval could be worded so that the waiver was not granted. Mr. Morrissette stated that the approval should be on the roadway being built, based on the roadway meeting all the requirements under subdivision control.

With no further discussion and upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously to close the public hearing. With further discussion regarding the waivers, Mr. Anderson read a letter from Mr. Weiner requesting a waiver of Section V – Subsection 5.4 Performance Guarantee and Section VII – Construction Standards – that the waivers would negate the need for the Phillips to construct Phillips Court. The Town’s interests would be served by eliminating the Town’s long-term maintenance responsibilities for a 150 foot cul-de-sac “driveway”. Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board denied the waivers as stated above. Mr. Morrissette stated that the request for the waiver of the 50 foot tangent needed to be dealt with under the approval process for the subdivision. Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (5) to approve the subdivision, conditioned upon the applicant needing to meet all the requirements set forth by the other boards, including sidewalks, and the need for the 50 foot tangent with the exception of the need for the streetlights.

Continuation of Discussion on Preliminary Plan re: Pecousic Park Subdivision

Mr. Calabrese asked Mr. Anderson to read new correspondence into the record. He read an e-mail from the Fire Department which stated that they needed much more information in order to make any recommendation. Further, Mr. Anderson read an e-mail from Nat Arai which was received that afternoon which read:

“We are still assuming that we are on the agenda for tonight’s Planning Board meeting at 7:45 PM.  Attached are a few documents to be considered as supplemental information in response to the Board’s concerns expressed at the June 13, 2006 meeting to review the Preliminary Subdivision Plan for Heritage Park (E&A), LLC.  The following documents are attached:

• Conceptual Parking Plan by Edens & Avant addressing reconfiguration of parking and landscaping on the existing Heritage Park Plaza
• Working Drawing of Intersection Modifications by MDM Transportation Consultants, Inc. addressing improvements to the intersection of North Main Street, Harkness Avenue, and the proposed subdivision road
• Letter from MDM Transportation Consultants, Inc. summarizing the initial evaluation and mitigation of probable traffic impacts based on conceptual uses of the subdivision development

Hopefully, this message and attachments can be forwarded to members of the Board and they will have a moment to review these items before we meet, however, we understand that this is being sent last minute.  We will provide paper copies of all of these items when we meet tonight and, of course, will be ready to explain our findings in more detail.”

Mr. Anderson then read the letter to Keith Hague from Robert J. Michaud, P.E.

Managing Principal of MDM Transportation Consultants, Inc. relating to the proposed traffic evaluation as follows:

“MDM Transportation Consultants, Inc. (MDM) has evaluated conceptual roadway improvements at the North Main Street/Harkness Avenue intersection in connection with the proposed Pecousic Park preliminary subdivision plan. The evaluation is based on initial comments provided by the East Longmeadow Police Department, existing and projected traffic conditions at the intersection, and preliminary capacity and queue analysis. The attached conceptual roadway improvement plan (noted as a working drawing) presents improvements that will support the preliminary subdivision plan assuming development of a 150,000 sf office use and a 4,000 sf retail use with access off North Main Street.

This initial evaluation of proposed improvements is intended to provide an initial basis for identifying the potential requirement for off-site improvements. More comprehensive documentation of analysis results and findings will be undertaken as the definitive subdivision plan advances.

Overview of Conceptual Roadway Improvements

Key elements of the conceptual roadway improvement plan for North Main Street/Harkness Avenue are as follows:

Eastbound Right-Turn Lane. A new right-turn lane will be added to eastbound North Main Street. In addition, the existing exclusive left-turn lane will be lengthened to improve capacity for vehicle queuing. The proposed widening will be within public right-of-way and land included in the subdivision plan.

Westbound Left-Turn Lane. The existing westbound lanes will be modified to provide two general-purpose lanes and an exclusive left-turn lane. This additional left-turn lane will be possible by converting a portion of the existing lane serving Big Y plaza, which preliminary analysis indicates provides excessive storage capacity for existing and projected future traffic volumes.

Heritage Park Plaza Driveway Closure. The existing entry-only driveway along North Main Street is closed under the conceptual improvement plan. This existing driveway currently serves over 200 vehicles per hour that can be more efficiently served through the proposed subdivision roadway. This improvement would also reduce potential vehicle conflicts on North Main Street as well as improving on-site circulation for the plaza.

Harkness Avenue Lane Re-Assignment. Taken in conjunction with driveway closure noted above, traffic operations are improved along Harkness A venue by providing an exclusive left-turn lane and an adjacent through/right-turn lane. In addition, a minor widening of North Main Street along the Heritage Park Plaza is proposed to better accommodate left-turns from Harkness Avenue. Preliminary analysis indicates that existing vehicle queues and delays may be improved relative to existing conditions under this scenario.

Pedestrian Crossing and Sidewalks. Sidewalks along North Main Street will be relocated within public right-of-way as necessary to accommodate proposed (conceptual) roadway improvements. In addition, a new sidewalk will be provided along the north side of the proposed subdivision roadway that integrates with the Heritage Park Plaza.

Pedestrian crosswalks, access ramps and signal controls will be provided at the subdivision driveway and existing facilities will be modified as necessary to accommodate proposed roadway improvements.

Traffic Signal Controls. Existing traffic control equipment at North Main Street/Harkness Avenue will be modified as necessary to accommodate the proposed subdivision roadway, roadway widening, additional lanes and additional pedestrian crossing. Signal operations will continue under coordinated control with adjacent signals along North Main Street.

Operational Considerations

Preliminary analysis conditions considered in this evaluation included existing traffic volumes (collected in March 2006 and June 2006), projected traffic volumes that include historical area traffic growth over a 5-year horizon, specific (approved) background projects, plus traffic associated with 150,000 sf office use and a 4,000 sf retail use at the Pecousic Park subdivision.

A more detailed accounting of existing and future projected traffic volumes will be provided as part of the definitive subdivision plan submittal.

Preliminary analysis results based on future traffic conditions and proposed (conceptual) roadway improvements described above indicate the following:

The proposed roadway improvements adequately accommodate preliminary subdivision land uses and will offset project impacts relative to "no-build" conditions.

Future projected traffic operations are at overall level-of-service (LOS) C or better during peak traffic hours with the proposed roadway improvements in place. No degradation in overall operations are projected for "build" conditions compared to "nobuild" operating conditions, which are also at LOS C or better at the intersection.

Proposed lane arrangements accommodate maximum vehicle queues within available lane storage lengths.

Closure of the entry-only driveway to Heritage Park Plaza will reduce impacts to North Main Street by providing an alternative and more efficient means of access/egress for the Plaza for more than 200 vehicles during peak hours.

Conclusions

Conceptual roadway improvements at North Main Street & Harkness Avenue will be designed to integrate with the proposed subdivision layout for the Pecousic Park development, and are projected to offset traffic impacts for the proposed 150,000 sf office and 4,000 sf retail uses.

MDM envisions a more detailed accounting/documentation of existing and future traffic conditions and analysis to support the conceptual roadway improvements described above as the definitive subdivision plan advances. MDM also advises that a complete traffic impact and access study (TIAS) will be submitted as part of the Site Plan approval process, which is separate from and subsequent to obtaining approval of the Definitive Subdivision Plan for this site.”

At this time, Mr. Calabrese welcomed the petitioners to the discussion. Nat Arai, from Baystate Environmental Consultants who introduced Keith Hague, Edens & Avant and Ellen Freyman, Esquire with Bob Michaud of MDM traffic consultants. Mr. Arai explained that the applicants had added some information to the plan. He further stated that they have shown the existing plaza with re-configured parking and landscaping proving that the site will stay in compliance with the Zoning by-laws. In addition, he referred to the plan prepared by Bob Michaud showing some of the proposed roadway changes as discussed in his letter.

Mr. Arai showed the Board that with the roadway coming into the site, they reconfigured the parking area, consolidated the spaces at the area where the play area and turn-around at the end of the site existed. By doing this, the parking will meet the requirements of Zoning. This will keep parking out of the commercial district as suggested before. Mr. Arai also addressed the issues of truck travel at the proposed roadway. He showed that the tractor trailer activity (WB67 – size of truck) will have plenty of area to maneuver in the site without any problem. He further added that when exiting the subdivision roadway the applicant needs to adjust the radius so the back wheels will stay on the roadway. He added that the geometry needs to be adjusted at the entrance to the subdivision roadway. Mr. Przybylowicz asked what the loading docks were for? Mr. Arai stated they were for Stop & Shop and they were designated for unloading produce and for frozen and dairy products.

Mr. Arai stated that the applicant has put considerable thought into trying to provide the Board with as much information as they can. He then stated that improvements to the roadway will address many concerns. Ms. Freyman stated that the design was provided by creating the building envelope for allowed uses – maximum design envelope to show a 150,000 square foot office building with 4,000 square feet of retail in that building. She added that if the applicant exceeded the building size, they would have to come back to the Board. Ms. Richards asked if the definitive plan was going to come back and switch the business & retail space. Ms. Freyman stated no. Mr. Arai explained that the building footprints also showed roughly 10,000 square foot office buildings on the other parcels and they have indicated the 12 foot emergency access road that would be grade stabilized and maintained throughout the year for passage.

Mr. Arai also showed the Board where the proposed parking would be (approximately 750 spaces). Mr. Morrissette asked him to show the members where the 4,000 square feet of retail was planned. Mr. Arai explained that the retail would be within the office building consolidated at one ground floor area. Ms. Richards asked the rationale for placing the building at the back of the lot. Mr. Arai explained that there are wetland considerations which will dominate the placement of the building. He continued by informing the Board that they could pull the building out front, however, the entrance would have to be done very carefully with regard to the parking.

Mr. Anderson referred to the town meeting and the legal representative for Lowe’s - asked if this building would be planned for Lowes. Keith Hague stated that was him, however, he is not an attorney, it was at the public hearing – not town meeting and he explained that they were in front of the Board today to see what can be done at this property to recoup their losses – trying to see what can be done with this land.

Ms. Richards stated that the Attorney General has yet to be heard from – that if the by-law was rejected, they could go forward. Ms. Freyman explained that they were there on behalf of Edens & Avant and they were not sure what Lowe’s would or would not do.

At this time Bob Michaud explained what he wrote in his letter and explained that they were looking to make the infrastructure better and more efficient. He stated that there was in excess of 20,000 vehicles a day – that they had incorporated the police recommendations relating to right hand turn lanes, lengthening of lanes, improving the left lane at Harkness and changing the left turn into Big Y.

Ms. Richards asked about the treescape along North Main Street and Nat Arai explained they would attempt to keep the treescape by replanting. She asked if the existing site plan would be impacted and Mr. Arai stated no, the landscaping would be the same and meet the requirements. Mr. Przybylowicz asked if there was any indication of traffic counts for this site – Mr. Michaud stated that the estimates approximately 1,000 cars a day from the office use – generated at commuter hours with minimal traffic during the daytime hours. He added that by adding exclusive right turn and left turn lanes, it would alleviate many of the conflicts. Mr. Przybylowicz stated that he had concerns for Harkness Avenue – that creating a left hand turn only would the cars stack up? Mr. Michaud stated that there would be stacking, however, with the new through movement lane, the stacking would only be a matter of a few seconds, much less time than there exists now. Mr. Przybylowicz asked if creating a third left turn lane would help? Mr. Michaud stated no, it would cause more problems for the bank. Mr. Michaud also stated that if the use is an office building, the daytime vehicle traffic would be marginal and not have any significant effect on the North Main Street corridor.

Mr. Anderson stated that a 150,000 square foot office building sounds very large and asked if the petitioner has any idea of another building he could look at to make the comparison. He then asked why the petitioner would want such a size? Mr. Morrissette stated that he believed they would be looking at a building the size of the Massachusetts Mutual Insurance Company building. Mr. Anderson stated that was a very large building and wondered why they would look at building such a large one? Mr. Arai stated they had come up with a reasonable scheme to provide the Board with a traffic report – Mr. Anderson reiterated his surprise at such a large building. Attorney Freyman stated that there are 14 acres at this site and the final plan could be two buildings – they were not sure what would be constructed.

Keith Hague stated they were simply looking for traffic purposes – they could have shown smaller ones, they simply put a building the size of which would be allowed. Mr. Przybylowicz asked why they would put the building at the back of the lot when they could bring it forward more. Mr. Hague stated that he felt everyone was getting confused as to what was required for the actual subdivision. Attorney Freyman agreed and stated that the final design was not completed as of yet. Mr. Przybylowicz stated it created many more questions – Attorney Freyman stated that was good input from the Board and it will help them in creating the infrastructure in the future.

Mr. Arai stated that when they market the property, they may come across someone who wants a different layout. Attorney Freyman stated they were trying to get the roadway and infrastructure approved – to a size that would be an allowed use at this site – for a 150,000 square foot office building at that site.

Mr. Anderson explained that tentative proposals were to be shown on the preliminary plan, with a sufficient degree of accuracy to make the proposal clear. He then asked if, in good faith, this plan reflected their intentions? He then asked why parcel 3 was maximized? Mr. Arai stated they were – those lots are smaller and have wetland restraints – the other parcel is 14 acres and can accommodate a larger building. Mr. Anderson asked where the determination of applicability stood – Mr. Arai stated that had been filed. Ms. Macdonald stated that an area of resources had been determined by the Conservation Commission.

Attorney Freyman provided the Board with conditions they were willing to put on the approval for the preliminary plan as follows:

1. The proposed roadway and utility improvements to be shown on the definitive subdivision plan (providing access and utilities from North Main Street to the proposed subdivision lots) will be designed to serve a maximum of 150,000 square feet of office building and a maximum of 4,000 square feet of retail building (the "Maximum Building Program"). Any development of the lots shown on the definitive subdivision plan for greater than the Maximum Building Program shall require review and approval by the Planning Board to assure the continued adequacy of the subdivision roadways and utilities constructed pursuant to the definitive subdivision plan approval.
2. Before any roadways or utilities shown on the definitive subdivision plan are constructed on the Heritage Plaza lot, site plan approval from the Planning Board for a revised parking plan for Heritage Plaza must be obtained demonstrating that the Heritage Plaza lot remains in compliance with the requirements of the zoning bylaw.
3. The definitive subdivision plan shall show an alternative means of emergency access to the lots shown on the definitive subdivision plan to provide for the contingency that access from North Main Street may be blocked by an accident.
4. Where roadway changes affect the existing landscaping along North Main Street, new plantings, including trees, shrubs, and grass, will be planted within the required landscape buffer area to the extent necessary, to substantially replicate the existing condition.

Mr. Calabrese asked what the Board wanted to do. Mr. Morrissette made a motion to approve the Preliminary Subdivision Plan – The motion did not move forward as it was not seconded. Mr. Anderson stated he wanted to continue the discussion – he stated that he was concerned at the lateness of the filing of the new plan. He added that one of the issues is that if the Board feels they have not had the time to review the plan – not one of the plans he had received had shown the building – also if the Board feels they need a consultant to review this plan –we should have adequate time to sift through the materials. He emphasized that the Board asked two weeks ago to have the material to review – to receive it so late – he was struggling whether or not to have Tighe & Bond review it and provide their comments – he was disappointed at the lateness of the submission.

Mr. Arai apologized and stated that it took a great amount of time to get the information to the Board – Mr. Morrissette stated that the applicant has done a great deal of work to address the Board’s concerns and he proposed the motion because no one was offering any additional comments. Mr. Morrissette then stated that if the Board was not ready to respond then they need to take the time. Ms. Richards stated that they have just received additional information – there is a report from the Fire Department that they need more information – that she believes it is necessary for all the department heads need to review the revised plan and report back to the Board.

Attorney Freyman asked for a moment to confer with her clients.

The Board took the opportunity to welcome Bill Collins from Spoletto’s to entertain his request for temporary signage. Mr. Collins explained that they were getting ready to do the buildout and were hoping to be open by October 1^st. He showed the Board a sample of “coming soon” signage that he would ask that he put behind his windows – not to excee