All right. I'm calling the um Tuesday, October 7, 2025 meeting of the Esau Meadow Planning Board to order. Those in attendance are Hunderson, Bill Fansa, Russell Denver, Robert, and Rob Wood,
director of planning. >> So, uh I'm required to ask if there's anyone in the audience who might be recording this meeting or on Zoom. If so, would you please state your name and the method you are recording? Raymond Patuno
Court reporting stenographically. >> Thank you, sir. All right. First order of business is the approval of the September 3, 2025 meeting. >> So moved. >> Uh Mr. Chair, actually um it's the um
October 21st minutes here. >> Oh, I got it here. October 21st. >> Yeah. And Dennis. Yes. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um, approval of the October 21st,
2025. Do I have a motion to approve? >> Move. Second. >> Motion made second. Any discussion? Hearing none. All in favor say I. >> I. >> U. We have an approval not required ANR. There has been a request withdraw that
at this time. Have a motion to accept the withdrawal. >> So move. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Uh, any discussion? >> So, on the motion to withdraw the request for the properties at 22 and 30
Allen Street, all in favor say I. >> I. >> Oppos? Hearing? None. So, that passes. Um, we are scheduled uh between 6 and 6:30 for a presentation by Ken Kier, Pioner Valley Planning Commission. Hi.
And if you'll recall from the last meeting, the continued public hearing for 330 Chester Street will begin at 6:30. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh good evening board and good evening um everyone. Um
so my name is Ken Kumi. I'm the director of land use environment at the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission back in East Long Meadow. I was uh here a couple of years ago in a virtual um when the town was doing the resilient
master plan in addition to supporting the town in various methods and various projects over time over the past couple of years that I've been at the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission. So, it's great to come back um and kind of see this particular project to some sort of
completion. This has been something that's been ongoing probably since 2022. So maybe two planning directors before Rob um and um uh both Rob and Rebecca Liy um at the town, you know, we're
working together to try to get the town uh town's approval of the housing production plan. Uh next slide, please. Um I I just wanted to start with the context of the uh state's definition of
affordable housing. Um, it counts towards the 10% minimum under chapter 40B. We'll talk about chapter 40B at the next slide. Affordable to households with income at or below 80% of the area median income or AMI as determined by
the Department of Housing and Urban Development and housing that is safe, suitable for the size of the household living in it, and protected by a long-term deed restriction. So as the board may know um the affordable housing
the next slide also we'll share um the state has a definition for affordable housing. East Long Meadow has a role in regards to the state's goal for 40 affordable housing. And with that said, um that is all under the the the
guidelines of chapter 40B and um as I mentioned with the particular goal of at least having 10% of the affordable of the housing stock on the subsidized housing inventory. Um so in
East Long Meadow 400 this is in accordance with the 2020 census cuz that's how the state um calculates the subsidized housing inventory. >> In the 2020 census there were 6,340 total units and of those 452 were on the
housing inventory. So the town's um percentage of in the subsidized housing inventory is 7.13 which is under 10%. Next slide. Uh, with regards to a housing production
plan, why create and adopt one? Uh, you're addressing unmet housing needs of low and moderate income residents in the community, influencing type, amount, and location of where those particular units are, assisting the communities with meeting the state mandate, requiring 10%
of total yearround housing to be affordable, and that's with a capital A. We hear about lowercase affordable. we hear about uppercase affordable and in this case uppercase affordable is the one that is uh measured by the executive office of housing livable communities
and another reason why towns typically create an adopted housing production plan possibly preventing unwanted 40b development through a certified housing production plan. What does the plan consist of? It consists of data um which we're going
to go over some slides uh the next couple of slides um an assessment of housing need and demand based on the current data and population growth and trends limitations which will say for a future meeting an analysis of geographic
and regulatory constraints locations uh which is where the town may want to see the types of housing goals housing goals including an annual numerical housing production target and strategies how you're going to get there.
Uh where we are with regards to the timeline as I mentioned I probably have uh approached the board either through Zoom or in person probably since 2021. Um this is in regards to again uh the
conversations we've been having uh or the town has been having in regards to housing um both through the resilient master plan and through this housing production plan update. So what has been done to date? We now have 2024 uh numbers for quantitative and qualitative
data on housing and demographics. We do have drafts of the introduction, housing assessment and housing development conditions chapters which the the board and the town will have the um opportunity to review as part of the community review process. Um the town
does have master plan identified strategies under housing. As you know, housing is a an element of the master plan that towns typically will address and um the town is undergoing uh zoning and regulatory review efforts at the
moment. So just a just a quick slide about total population. So this um Islong meadow as you probably are feeling um and you probably uh experience in your
day-to-day life continues to grow. Um the current population according to the American Community Survey estimates for 2022 which is the last number based on the 2024 um numbers is 16,361.
This marks a 4.14 increase in population since 2012. Like many communities in the Pioneer Valley and throughout New England, the population of East Long Meadow is aging. Um, and you can see that 21.9% of East Long Meadows
population is over the age of 65. Um, and that's in the little table on the right side. um where in comparison to Hampton County it's about 18.3% and the state at 18.0
this next slide. Um with regards to median income the ability to uh exercise housing trace bears a strong relationship to the amount of money household can afford to spend on housing. So, um, you know, I think it's intuitive when you look at
housing data for the the the median income and what what that may or may not be able to afford. And you'll see later on the slide some perceptions of that. Um, the median income household in uh, East Long Meadow is 101,570,
significantly higher than Hampton County and slightly higher than Massachusetts. At the same time, the poverty rate in East Long Meadow significantly lower. um and uh at about 3.5%. Uh next slide.
As part of this needs assessment, we also look at the housing stock in town. The size of the housing stock in East Langa has grown consistently throughout time, although since the Great Recession at a smaller rate between 2000 and 2010. When the period between 20210 saw an
addition of 743 units, a 14% increase, the number of units added between the years of 2010 and 20 was smaller at 4.3 increase or 265 units. Uh the age of a town's housing stock in areas with concentrated numbers of older housing,
which is the bottom um little table there, uh is important to note too. Um, according to the latest data from the American Community Survey, 37.7% of all housing units would build after 1970.
Okay. Another uh type of assessment that is um part of the housing production plan is measuring housing costs as a percentage of household income. Um households are considered costbururden when they spend
more than 30% of their income on rent, mortgage and other housing needs. Households which spend over 50% of the income on housing related costs are considered severely costburdened. The more income that must be spent on housing costs, the less that can be spent on other essential and
non-essential expenses. Um but this is um here in East Long Meadow uh over 30% 30% of 29.1% of the units that are owned.
>> Those particular households pay 30% of their income on housing. And um whereas in the case of rented units it's about 47%. Uh, next slide, please. So, um, you may
have seen a community survey go around. Um, we close the survey Friday, I'll say. Um, we might have some straggled uh, stragglers as far as hard copies that could still be submitted that we can include in the final number. But,
uh, in accordance with Friday, we have 240 survey responses that were filled out in full. There were 377 total, but they were incomplete. Um, however, you know, we'll send over that data to the town as necessary. The next couple of
slides are some summaries of those data points um that I think will be helpful um for some of the next conversations that we'll have or that Tom will have with regards to the housing production plan. Um just uh some other little
tidbits regarding the community survey. 55.6% 6% of the responses were from the age of respondents 35 to 54. So that's half more than half of the respondents were from that particular age range. 69% of the responses were from those who've
lived in town for more than 10 years. You don't necessarily need to see this, but we'll make sure that we share this with with the planning director with the planning board. Um, what types of housing do you think East Long Meadow need East Long Meadow needs more of? Um,
and um, just in summary, this particular table shows that um, 33.2% say accessory dwelling units is one of the top answers. Housing for seniors or
older adults at 31.5%. And then starter homes for first-time buyers, 42% of respondents say that. Again, you could apply, you could check all that apply. Um, so this again is a summary of the responses and it focuses
mostly on the the housing needs. Um, there were other questions in this particular survey that were related to uh probable strategies. The next slide, please. Which groups face the greatest difficulty finding suitable housing in
TA? Um 58.2% um was one of the top vote getters. You uh the question asked for select up to three young adults or firsttime home buyers, older adults looking to downsize and lower income residents as the top
three vocers. Next slide. As I mentioned earlier, East Long Meadow currently has 7 13% of its housing stock is deed restricted affordable units. So those are in your subsidized housing inventory. The state goal is 10%. Um
this particular question asked the town or the the suggested responses for the town should include take stronger action to meet the 10% affordable housing goal and that was 35%. Um take no further action at 30% and not
sure at 17.3%. Would you support the following strategies to increase housing opportunity in town? So this particular question had one, two, three, four, five, six, seven full responses and then you have the
opportunity to respond with other um that the the board and uh the planning director will have the responses um that were filled out for other um but I think you'll note here that with regards to strongly supporting strategies
developing senior housing near services were the ones that um reflected 35% % of the responses either strongly support or somewhat support. Um you'll see that uh converting older homes into 2.3 2.3
units of housing um was opposition. There was an opposition to that of 55%. An opposition to uh 5 50 9% opposition to expanding zoning to loss of multif family housing. And then you can see um
some of the other vote getters under that. Um establishing a townwide inclusionary zoning bylaw was neutral at 32.8% of the respondents. Where should East Long Meadow focus new housing development?
Um the top vote getter was on large parcels with underutilized land followed by on empty or under lots in existing neighborhoods. So what we call infill development. Um then followed by nowhere
the town is already built out. Um, one of the questions also asked, do you think East Long Meadow is affordable for? And um, as you'll see here, um, you know, I think the majority of the the various
uh, population groups, first-time buyers, people with disabilities, seniors on fixed incomes, the majority of the respondents said no. Um, that East Long Meadow is not affordable for those populations. and then somewhat um 51.3% for working families.
Uh do you know someone who has left or considered leaving me because of housing cost? Um you may have your own experiences here in the audience. Um but according and
according to the survey 53 53% um said yes. So that's about 126 respond. Uh next slide. So where we are with regards to sharing this particular data with the community with the board. the
board will get this um this uh PowerPoint in addition to the survey report which has all of the questions that you know and from there the board um can post that to the website and the the town can have access to all of the
questions from the survey. Um, but as I was talking with the planning director and uh and the deputy town manager, um, some of the next steps include a discussion of housing constraints. That's your land, that's zoning, regulatory. Um, obviously you're
doing some contemplations on that at the town level with uh some of your zoning work. um in addition to reviewing what um housing development strategies are already listed in your um master plan.
So revi uh revisiting those um and seeing if they still make sense with the context of this housing production plan um for the town and the board to review the plan um and then I should provide some context
here submit to the executive office of housing livable communities. Usually um while we're in a review process or while the TAN is in a review process, we suggest that it be sent to the EOHLC to review for form to review that has all
the components. Um usually they give a green light and then it comes back to the town and the town goes through its proper review process and documents that that's a review by the planning board and an approval by the planning board and the town council. Um, so those are the next steps with regards to this
particular project and I'm here for any questions. >> Question. >> How many communities in Pioneer Valley have a meted threshold? >> One, two, three, four. >> Out of how many?
>> 40 in in Hampshire and Hampton County. 43. There's 43 communities. I think there might be I think five or I think there might be five. >> Five out of 43. >> Correct. >> Okay. You showed stats that said our
poverty rate was 3 and a half%. But our affordable housing was a little over seven. >> So where does then the threat of 40b come in? I think it just comes in because um
the town to demonstrate how additional units can either be added to the subsidized housing inventory to meet the 10% because that is the threshold by which the state measures whether or not a 40B
would be legitimate in a town. sounds that are past the 10% um oftentimes can say I got 10% you can't touch me or you know we have a process that we'll go through to look at that um I think there are communities
that may have identified additional units where um landlords may want to be uh increasing or adding deed deed restricted units to the inventory But that is the measurement that the state
uses for the subsidized housing inventory. >> And in the Pineer Valley, when what was the last successful 40b project jump down some community's throat? >> The the last 40b project that I think
that has come to the valley um was town of Pelum. Um they have a 40B project there >> and the number of units in Palum. And what was the population? >> Population is a little over a thousand.
The number of units for that 40B project is about 40. >> What's the median income there? >> I I couldn't tell you off the the top of my head. >> Okay. Other questions from the board? >> Thank you very much. You're welcome. >> Greatly appreciate it.
>> Thank you. So, we have um 9 minutes until the hearing is supposed to begin at for 3:30 Justin Street. So, I advise that we take a um we can do the director's report. >> Yes, we can. Let me just
>> 40 in disguise. >> 40 in disguise. >> Yes, Mr. Chair. We could definitely do that. Let me just find the director report real quick. >> You have a mic there, too. >> Yep. >> I'll grab it in one second.
>> So, we're going out of order today and starting with the director's support before the public hearing, which is a wise move. Uh, so we have on our schedule three upcoming meeting dates. Um, at the next on November 18th, I was going to put on the board's agenda
to approve the 2026 meeting date schedule. Uh, just so we can start getting more meeting dates on this list, and you can all put that on your calendars. I don't have any potential upcoming public at the moment, but we have received some submissions. I believe one of them was for special
permits. I still have to review it. It's not yet a complete application. Um, as for upcoming events, we don't really have anything on the docket for the time being. Uh just two updates from the planning department in terms of projects. Um the mix chief bylaw has been
tabled to the December 9th, 2025 town council meeting. Um it was on the agenda for this previous meeting, but the council decided to move it to December 9th. Um and then the traffic and pedestrian survey reports. I am actually wrapping up this report as we speak and
it should be completed by next week for public view and the town council will be looking at it at their meeting next week. Um, other news, um, last week town management met with members of the planning team at VHB to discuss
candid properties for a 3D model rendering showing what typical mixeduse development would look like. Uh the goal is to create visuals to show what different levels of density can look like on a single property. So I believe they're looking at about three three to four properties. Two of them are well
over an acre. I believe one of them is potentially the Card of Money building, but I could be wrong about that. And then two of them are undersized properties. So they're giving people renderings that we can use when we do the mixed use bylaw discussions. So people can see high density, lower
density, big property, small property just just for the sake of discussion. And uh Jeff Speck has been hired to conduct a phase two of the rotary conceptual redesign for us. This time he is teaming with a traffic engineer to kind of figure out more of the technical
details and to further design his concept concepts for us. But uh that's all I have, Mr. Chair. Uh it was a very light couple weeks. >> Any questions for the for the director? >> Hearing none. So um still have six
minutes. So I'd ask that we uh vote to make a six minute recess. >> So move second. >> Any discussion? Hearing none. >> All in favor say I. >> I. I. >> We will reconvene at 6:30ing. Uh Mr. Yeah. Read it
for the last time. Uh case site-20225-03 requests for site plan review approval to construct a four manufacturing warehouse and commercial buildings. Combined total footprint 455,936 [Music]
398 and with 398 parking spaces at 330 Chestnut Street. Cessors parcel ID 18-38-0 located in the industrial garden park zoning district. applicant Vincent from GL 1260 Stelton Road Pisca, New Jersey 08854.
So this is a continuation of the public hearing. So I just ask that uh have a motion to open the hearing. >> So moved. Second. >> Motion made in second. Any discussion? Hearing none. All in favor say I. >> I. >> All right. Um I believe that at the end
of the last meeting, Mr. pill asked that um the traffic engineer representing the fields at Chestnut would have an opportunity to >> review the agreement and give some final comments. So, Mr. Pill, >> thank you. Our traffic engineer, Robert
Misho, is here and I'll just turn it over to him. Thank you. >> Thank you, Michael. Uh thank you, chair and board members. for the record, Robert Misho, uh, managing principal of MDM Transportation Consultants based in Malber, Massachusetts. Um, last I spoke
to the board I opined on the need to take a deeper dive and some of the analysis that was done particularly for the Chestnut and Shaker intersection. Um, the applicant at the last hearing actually presented
the framework of potential improvements to that intersection. Um we've had an opportunity to um look at those improvements in a bit more detail on our side and we've issued a a letter dated to last week October 30th that
highlights several remaining concerns. Uh principally that um what's been admitted by the proponent which is absolutely in the right direction is not supported by any technical analysis. there's no capacity or queuing analysis
that would demonstrate how those potential improvements might work. Uh whether or not they present a sufficient improvement in operating capacity of the intersection for instance by adding the right turn lane on Chestnut Street uh
and modifying the left turn lane on Chestnut Street. um whether or not those improvements from a safety perspective are appropriate. Uh meaning uh is the geometry that's envisioned ample and adequate to support the commercial
activity, truck activity that would be generated through that same location. Not only current uh uh industrial use uh trips, but those additional trucks that would be generated by red property.
um the there is no evidence of swept path analysis that would support those proposed improvements. So we've actually done that exercise ourselves and I'd ask through the chair that our exhibit one as it's published in our letter of
October 30th be uh shown on the screen so that I can illustrate some of concerns. Sure. >> So I'll defer to Rob to have those posted. [Music] What's shown here um is wept path analysis
of a larger tractor trailer WB67 design vehicle. Uh you'll see on the left side of the drawing that's the Chestnut Street North approach to to Shaker Road. Shaker Road is uh from bottom to top of this particular diagram. The gas station
is in the upper left corner. uh you'll see in color format in orange trucks that were modeled on the proposed improvement uh plan that was presented by the proponent the applicant uh in the darker blue the actual swept
paths of the trailer body as well as the the cab and um it it may not be entirely clear based on the scale of this but you'll see that as vehicles would be making right turns from Chestnut Street onto shake a road. Uh that particular
movement today is already constrained and there's already evidence that even smaller tractor trailers have to hop the curb to make that turn, avoid sweeping into the opposing left turn lane. Um this exercise shows clearly that you have at least the same encroachment on
that same corner, in fact more than what currently a design. And that raises concern that vetted, evaluated, analyzed, uh, and could stand to, uh, create an even greater impact, if you will, to
maneuverability. Um, that's a principal finding and we believe that it's incumbent on the developer, the proponent to advance an improvement at this location that fully addresses the maneuvering needs of these
types of vehicles as it would be generating increases of these types of vehicles through this very location. Um, we'll also point out that again, no operational analysis was submitted for this. We're we're pleased to see that
there's an attempt to add lanes which would enhance capacity and allow the signal to work more efficiently, but there's absolutely no analysis support that um and we would request that the board ask the applicant to provide that
analysis so that there's a comprehensive view of what these improvements actually do. Um third point that we've raised is one of um and this relates to the redevelopment agreement and the underpinnings of of what that agreement is about.
Improvements that have been shown at a very high level concept um are estimated based on the redevelopment uh proposal the funding proposal to be somewhere between two and two and $300,000.
There's absolutely no uh basis for that that's been submitted to this board as part of the public record that would would identify whether or not that cost range is at all appropriate. Uh my own experience with very similar projects in the Commonwealth that have been recently
built uh is that the potential costs of these improvements would ne necessarily have to account for the design and permitting which in this case would be somewhere around $100,000 potentially more just for that aspect of it. that the cost estimates would need
to account for police details, contractor mobilization as well as the actual construction of the work. And this type of project doesn't happen overnight. They typically extend over a 1 to twoyear period. Uh
that there are cost escalations that naturally occur over that time period. because this form of improvement which really entails a widening of Chestnut Street, modification of curb corners and potentially uh uh drainage impacts uh
potentially impacts to signal equipment etc. Um that this particular project is not so large that you can easily estimate it using average um unit bid prices from from projects in the in the Commonwealth. uh smaller projects like
this tend to be more expensive to build simply because of economies of scale. Uh so we would uh request that the board uh make a request to the applicant to provide a detailed accounting for how they are estimating the potential cost of implementing this improvement to not
only include design uh costs but also um reasonable escalation assumptions that would relate to a construction period over a multi-year period. Um the uh final point we raise is that um
notwithstanding the lack of uh basis for those costs, the funding amount, that the premise of the U reconstruction agreement is that the town is responsible for implementing these improvements, not the developer, not the
applicant. uh that places the ownerous of implementation squarely on the shoulders of the town with the potential for cost exposure that goes well beyond what is currently drafted as a funding cap within that agreement. Again, there's no basis for the numbers that
are presented here. Uh but assuming even assuming that they're reasonably uh cor accurate um that squarely puts the entire responsibility of any cost overrun on the town. And there's a
distinct possibility that as it's currently drafted, the project gets approved, it gets built, it becomes operational, that the improvements that are shown conceptually aren't built and will not therefore support industrial use of the property particularly by
these larger vehicles. So there are a number of complicating factors that we see in how this agreement is currently drafted. Um I do a lot of work with private sector developers, logistics facilities, warehouse developers. It is highly unusual for a developer to
propose a project of sign of significant impact and not to take the responsibility for implementing uh the improvement. uh you know they they you should not be shouldered with the responsibility of offsetting the impact of a project based on uh an
unsupported funding amount and the uncertainty that that that raises. Um so that's the extent of what we've uh commented on. Summarize we would highly recommend that the applicant submit appropriate supporting technical analysis that shows what the improvement
actually achieves. Secondly, that they revisit some of the geometry to ensure that trucks can actually effectively use this. That they provide supporting evidence of how much this improvement might actually cost inclusive inclusive of design costs. uh and that uh the
board uh consider very carefully the structure of the redevelopment agreement uh and and not necessarily uh succumb or or uh agree with the premise that the town take the responsibility for implementation. So thank you very much
>> questions from the board. So, I would ask uh a representative from the town who So, essentially at the end of last meeting, we turned the agreement over to the planning director and the town manager
to apparently meet with the developer, come up with those numbers to have a discussion. Is there someone from the town that would like to address the agreement? I suppose um is more appropriate for the
applicant to address the testimony. >> Somebody's got to do it. >> I wasn't at that meeting, but I can address the couple of comments that were made on the agreement figures that came. >> Sure. Uh thank you. Attorney Rachel Fancy here
on behalf of the applicant uh met redevelopers uh with the law offices at 4600 square meadow. I was not at the meeting in question. Uh but I am generally aware of of the topic. So I can't verbatim say what occurred uh at that meeting and I'm not necessarily
fully briefed on it. But touching on a couple points um that were just mentioned. First off, um the last time when the agreement brought up, it's labeled draft because it's not a finalized agreement. There are many steps that need to happen for it to become finalized. If additional funding were needed or something that the town
is not laid out in agreement, that would be added in. Additionally, what was mentioned last time is we were providing the first option in this draft to provide it to the town so that they could take the onus. It's their town. It's not our intersection. What we might decide for that intersection might be different than what the town and its residents would want for that
intersection. That said, and I did say, and I believe this is in the minutes, that if the town wanted, the developer would take that back on, which is why this is a draft agreement, and we are free and change it as needed. Um, this would obviously be sub for the reasonable conditions subject to this uh
site plan. Uh, the other thing that I think was should be highlighted about this agreement which was brought up is there's a lot of things that we need to do or we need to investigate that were just brought up tonight while we're here, not brought up that we need to address previously from the opponent or
their engineer that they would like us to address in this agreement when in reality it's just us putting out a base point of where we can start. Um, those are supported numbers. We do have those based on our engineer who can touch on it if needed. It's not we pulled a number out of a random hat. It's a very similar number to what we had previously
utilized in a prior agreement. Um, so these are supported numbers. If the town in their reasonable opinion feels that that number is insufficient to support uh what we've proposed, I think obviously they would be in their right to request additional funds to make that reasonable. Um, I'd like to additionally
add that, you know, this is a as freight use. It's a warehouse use in an industrial district. The purpose of site plan review is not to reconsider or deny allowable uses. It is to impose and regulate reasonable conditions such as >> the agreement.
>> We're talking about the agreement, >> but that's what that's my point is to expand the agreement as needed. Um it would be a terrible agreement if the redeveloper only comes up with every single provision that the town agrees to. >> Thank you. >> Yes. So just give context uh you referenced the meetings. The applicant
had reached out to myself and the town manager's office just to discuss uh reshaping the conditions and this draft agreement so it could be brought to the board for further discussion. So obviously these documents are not finalized. Uh you have a list of conditions um that are in your permit
application reports towards the end. I believe there's about I think 12 to 13 conditions total. Um obviously the board's going to go through them tonight one by one which is definitely in the board's best interest. Um as for that
draft agreement uh we provide guidance on the applicant on behalf of the town in terms of what the town would want to see from this agreement. But obviously those discussions were meant to be contained tonight input from the public and from the board. So that's basically
what happened. Um and here we are. Thank you. would anyone else like to be heard on this matter? Please step forward. >> Okay. >> Margie Bird from six drive. Um,
everybody keeps talking about this. >> You speak into that louder. >> Thank you. talking about this being as a right use, which I understand, but I was looking at the um East Long Meadow bylaws, chapter
450 zoning, which says in addition to restrictions appearing elsewhere in the zoning bylaws, no use of the industrial garden park district land is permitted, which is object objectionable by reason of noise, odor, vibration, smoke, hazardous
nature of the operation, or any other reason which may render the use or occupancy of the land and buildings objectionable. So even though it's as of right, there could be reasons why it might be objectionable. And I've also heard a lot of people say, well, you
know, the people who decided to live in the industrial park knew that this could become an issue, but the town of East Long Meadow also zoned our residences as residential land. So, I feel like the town of East Long Meadow also has an
obligation to protect the residents who moved into houses that were zoned by the town. Um, just thinking about that. And the other thing is, has anybody talked about the intersection of Benton and
Chestnut? I missed the last meeting, so I may have missed I might have missed all that, but just my thoughts. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Well, attorney for fields at chest just briefly um chair and members of the
board because this goes back a couple of years. I believe what the member of the public was referring to I think it's section 4.5 the additional section that sets out criteria for industrial garden park >> since it started the applicant has
completely ignored. Yes, they have focused on site plan review criteria which I believe are in article 9, but the additional criteria and I believe it is section 4.5, but I but that's what the member of the public was just reading from have completely
continuously been ignored. The other thing is it doesn't just say warehouse. It says wholesale trade and operations warehouse. Our perspective is a wholesale warehouse means that goods can
only be provided to retailers, not to retail customers. And we can argue back and forth about what that meaning means, but what they that severely limits what they're talking about. Furthermore, what
council just said about conditions but you can't deny is not accurate. The case law makes it clear that an intractable problem not only justifies but may require denial. And I respectfully submit that
so far you haven't heard sufficient detail particularly the documentation the backup documentation that was not submitted that Mr. showed asked for that I'm asking for now that the applicant
apparently is declining to provide and I hope that the board will require that all the documentation the supporting documentation that Mr. me showed as for the board will require that to be submitted. So it goes into the public
record which right now it is um it is it is not and that unless and until that happens the chestnut shaker intersection is and remains a potentially intractable problem. Thank you very much.
Anyone else? Go ahead. just would like to make one comment on the the legality piece that was just mentioned. The piece that's established in case law is in a footnote. It is never been held in any case that I have ever found, nor has Mr. Pill, I believe, found because we've gone back and forth
on this issue as to whether or not there is the such a use that is so problematic. um just like to put point that out that the contemplation is simply that a contemplation that there could be such a use that is so oppressive to exist and I do not feel that that is the case today and I feel
that the information submitted to the board supports that. >> So I we are not going to debate a potential issue that the courts would decide because we are not a courtroom. We are a planning board. I would ask this woman
would like to speak feel free. I Paris Oxner near Woodfield Fields Drive. Um, every day I drive down Chestnut Street and take a right onto Shaker Road and I don't see where there's 12 ft to
increase that lane on the right hand side other than taking down that brick building where there's electrical work and that house. Is that person that owns that house here? Do they are they aware of that?
That's what they proposed the last time they were going to take 12 feet to make another lane. How I don't know how that's even possible. Does anyone else see land there that I don't see? >> Can't see it. Can't see it.
>> Nope. There's no specific answer for you. Sorry. >> I drive it every day and I say, "Where are they going to get 12 feet?" Go ahead. >> There's not 12 feet. at it. >> So to clarify with regard to the intersection improvements, there's an
existing right of way that includes ample area and width for different turning movements to be adjusted. I was at the uh to the last point, I was at the the meeting with the town. We had a number of discussion points as Mr. Willa
had mentioned. We did talk about the conditions. We did talk about the uh proposed mitigation. The proposed mitigation was discussed as the town's intersection which it is. It is the town's intersection.
It is we are one of probably hundreds of sites that contribute to this intersection as well as the fields of chestnut which has a significant amount of traffic generated. Granted passenger cars but significant amount of traffic. So we all contribute to that
intersection. The proponent has taken upon themselves to provide half a million dollars for not only design for what Mr. Mashad is looking for but also for the mitigation for this intersection. We are a
component to the concerns. We are not the concern itself. We are part of the problem. Potentially part of a minor increase to a potential problem, but we are not the problem.
We talked also about conditions timing. The town said that they didn't have enough time potentially in the agreement. We talked about I think initially three years. We then talked about eight years because the town
doesn't know if and when and how they want to do this this mitigation project. There's a lot to it. There's a lot of study that's required. We acknowledge the comments from Mr. Mashad. We acknowledge the comments from
Mr. Pill. We understand that although they are not a peerreview engineer, they are the opponent's engineer. We understand that they have concerns. We understand that specifically. So, we've addressed that. We provide this mitigation fund for the
use by the town should they so they should they so choose. So, we have provided this information. Mr. P talked about an intract intractable problem. You can't have an intractable problem if
you're using the intersection every day with these vehicles. So, is it perfect? It may not be perfect. Can we improve it? Yes. Is there funds being provided? Absolutely. Is there an intractable problem at that intersection or with
this project? Absolutely not. Thank you. >> Anyone else like to be heard on this matter? >> Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Emily Bird, 25 Broadleaf Circle. I've lived in East Long Meadow
for 68 years and have served on several town boards. So, I truly appreciate the difficult balance this board works to maintain progress and preservation. I'm speaking not only for myself, but for many residents who deeply value the
thought, thought thoughtful, deliberate approach this board has consistently taken in guiding our town's growth. We all recognize the need for economic development and the importance of industrial space in our tax base. But
responsible growth must be compatible, informed, and transparent before approved. At this point, there is one critical piece of information missing. The applicant has not identified an enduser
or defined use of this very large warehouse. I find it difficult to believe that a developer would undertake a project of this magnitude involving major demolition and building entirely on speculation.
Unidentified known user will unknown impact. Without knowing who will occupy this building, neither the board nor residents can responsibly assess essential impacts,
truck traffic, operating hours, noise, and potential environmental and air quality concerns. As we all know, there are warehouses and there are warehouses. A small regional distributor is one
thing. A 24-hour logistics hub, hundreds of truck trips is quite another having totally different impacts. Approving a project of this scale without knowing its specific use is in effect authorizing a mystery operation
in our community. How can compatibility and impact be evaluated without this information? We're not asking you to reject growth, only to ensure it's done responsibly.
The most reasonable path forward is to either defer approval until a tenant or defined use is identified or condition any approval with clear limits, caps on truck trips, hours of operation, lighting buffering, etc.
In short, approving an unde undefined warehouse places too much uncertainty on residents and the town. Decisions made here will shape our town for decades. Once the impacts are felt,
they will be part of our community's daily life for the years to come and cannot be undone. Please protect the integrity of the planning process and the character of our community by requiring a known use before moving forward. How can you
approve use without knowing its true intensity? Thank you for your time and your continued service to East Long Medal. >> Thank you. That was uh very well said. Thank you.
Just one thing I do want to point out. There is absolutely no obligation by the developer to tell us who the tenant is going to be. It is determined by the use and as we've posted boards up here, these are the uses that are allowed. And
you kept referencing warehouse. Warehouses are allowed use in this zone. Just wanted to put that out there. Anyone else like to be heard on this matter? >> Ron Burgerer, sir. Sir, >> there was a woman walking up before you.
Sorry. >> Hi, >> Dylan Silverstein, 59 Fields Drive. I have a letter from another resident who isn't going going to be able to be here tonight, so I'd like to read it. It's addressed to Mr. Denver and the other
members of the board. My husband, Timothy Sheen, and I, Sheila Gagan, live on 26 Fields Drive in East Long Meadow. Upon retirement, after 40 years of living in Boston and Lel, we
deliberately decided to move to western Massachusetts because of its lack of serious traffic congestion. Instead, it offered easy access to woodlands and farmland that we missed by living in large cities in eastern Mass.
By luck, we found East Long Meadow. We enjoy the conveniences of a small town jumping into our car to share a cappuccino and pastry at Laafurentina's or to have dinner at Center Square Grill.
My concern tonight is the four buildings and associated traffic plan for the property on Chestnut Street. I understand the need for economic growth in East Long Meadow. Growth is good, but usually there are inevitable unintended
consequences such as noise pollution and air pollution. This specific business decision could negatively affect the future for our families, friends, businesses, and our community. Imagine how today's decisions will
impact what East Long Meadow could look like in 10, 20, or 30 years from now. What will Chestnut Street and especially Shaker Road possibly look like even a decade from now? What will be the possible consequences
to a redesigned Rotary and walkable downtown image recently discussed at the town council meeting? Will these desirable goals be achievable if East Long Meadow revolves into an urban highway rather than a community of
people, businesses, friends, and sustainable growth? Thank you for allowing me to share my opinion, ideas, and concerns about the potential impact on a town that I not now call home.
>> Thank you, Mr. Burgerer. should be the last one. >> Yeah, Ron Burgerer, 11 Broad Leaf Circle. >> I had sent a an email after the I think two meetings ago um just asking about um the developers
claimed that they had used conservative estimates that two two of the buildings would be used for distribution warehouse and two would be used for light industrial and their traffic estimates were based upon that. The way I see it, they can't have it
both ways. You can't say you don't know who the tenants are and call that a conservative estimate. To me, a conservative estimate is assuming that all four will be distribution warehouses. You you assume the worst case scenario and base your decision upon that. And I don't know if that has
changed. Have they updated traffic on traffic predictions or or is it still based on two distribution and two lightwear? >> I believe it is. >> It does for you. >> Yep. And you you're okay with that? >> I have not made a decision yet. Okay.
>> All right. Well, thank you. >> But but I will tell you, and I've said this over and over and over again, the and you know, I don't like to refer to the old project, but I'll refer to it as the old project. And I've got these numbers seared in my brain that the
estimate back then was 368 tractor trailer trips a day. They have now come in and have anticipated a number of 195 to 200 tractor trailer trips a day. To me, that is a
considerable reduction in tractor trailer. And I will refer to you, Mr. burger because the very first meeting years ago what seems when I had brown hair instead of white hair on this
>> you you walked across the audience and said it's all about truck traffic because I asked at that meeting when there was going to be a proposal for 400 units of housing. Not one individual from the fields of Chestnut or the
surrounding neighborhood came to any of those planning board meetings. You said it was all about truck traffic. So according to their proposal, they've almost reduced that in half. Almost.
So I'll leave it at that. So I if you have something new and you want to offer it, would you please step forward now? Because like we did at the last time we went through 330 Justin Street, in the
event if we vote in favor of this and said if we wish to discuss potential conditions that we want to put on the project before there is any other action. So I want to make sure we leave time for this board to discuss any
potential conditions. If we go through the conditions and if there is then a vote it would include the conditions on a vote either in favor or if it's against the conditions obviously don't apply. So if you have something new we'd love to hear from you maybe one or two
more speakers. >> Hi Larry Life 36 Fields Drive. Um I won't reiterate the letter that I sent to the board. I'm sure you shared it and went over it. >> Can you state your name again? >> Larry Life. Um,
again, the the I've seen all the discussion about traffic, you know, the Chestnut Shaker, but again, I would guess that close to 50% of the traffic would be going the other way up Chestnut to get to 91 one way or the
other. And that that intersection with Benton, Dwight, and Chestnut is really already a pretty crazy place. Uh individual trucks have trouble. If you have close to 200 trucks, maybe a 100 trucks going that way.
It I haven't seen any solutions for that. I've been to several of the meetings and I haven't seen any traffic studies that represent that intersection. Uh that just concerns me an awful lot. Thanks very much for all your work you do. >> Thank you.
>> One more before we discuss conditions. >> Good evening. Excuse me. Good evening. I'm Mark Sullivan from 12 Clover Lane. And I don't want to be redundant of what Larry just spoke to and the other resident before, but I think two meetings ago I mentioned about, you
know, we're doing all this analysis, all this evaluation on Shaker and Chestnut, but somehow we are leaving out in the equation the Benton Drive, Chestnut Street corner, and a lefthand turn coming off Benton onto Chestnut by a tractor trailer is dangerous. Okay. It
was mentioned at the last meeting by several people and I guess my question and Larry just referenced it again. My question through the board to the developer or to anyone is specifically are we going to do anything about evaluating that intersection to the
degree that you've evaluated Shaker >> and Chestnut? >> So you just saw um a presentation by the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission. So, Pioneer Valley Planning Commission is utilized by the town to do traffic counts and studies and so forth. So,
they are involved with the town looking at various intersections. And I want to take people back because the original presentation on this one as well as the previous one, there were slides that
were put up that showed anticipated movement of vehicles and specifically tractor trailers. And as they left the premises, so many went left down to Benton, so many went right up to Shaker,
so many went down Shaker toward Enfield, so many went up Chestnut Street, so many went into the Rotary. So that was discussed at length. All that material is part of the public record and that was put out there by the developer what
their proposed findings were on all of that. There was also a discussion at our last meeting on they rank the intersections by A through I believe A through E or A through F and I believe
the number that at Benton was efficient uh with respect to all national standards as operating uh efficiently. Now I don't ride that intersection every day. So, I don't go through what you're going through, but the question is, was
it studied? Yes, it was. So, just a follow-up question through the board. There's no intention of the planning board requiring the developer or somebody to do a specific analysis to the degree that you've done to Shaker
Road and Chestnut. So, as I just just discussed a few minutes ago where we will discuss potential conditions on the site plan that may come up, it may not come up. >> Great. Last comment and I'll sit down.
If you don't do anything there, you know, regardless of all the statistics that say trucks go this way, that way, whatever, you're making a monumental mistake by not addressing that intersection or truck traffic. Okay, I'm going to take it. I'm not going to close the public hearing, but
I'm going to bring it back to the board. So, um, this board in conjunction with the planning director, Mr. Willa, um, went back, we looked at, um, the
proposed conditions from two years ago. You might remember there were many. In a minute, Mr. Carella is going to have to read the proposed conditions into the record. Unfortunately, I had to do that time. Um, and I think I had done
that much reading since uh a freshman at Cathedral High School. Um, >> yeah. You remember? Yeah. Um, so we are going to and and the things that people have referenced over the last couple of
meetings, we have incorporated these suggestions into as many conditions as we can. So some of these are going to sound very familiar from what has been spoken in the past, but it is a requirement that at least we put these
into the public record. So these were developed through discussions with our planning director um discussions he's had with town departments etc. So right now I'm just going to ask our clerk Mr.
Terrell to read the proposed. >> Sure. Yeah. Yep. There you got them. Jumping ahead there. All right. Conditions. A. This decision of the planning board is to be recorded
at the Hampton County Registry of Deeds within the chain of title of the affected property and noted in the registers granters indexed under the name of the owner and the subject land upon which the proposed use is utilized. B. If applicable prior to the commen
commencement of construction and operations, all required permits must be in proper orders and provided to the talent building commissioner, fire department, police department of public works and board of health for review and acceptance. C
planning board shall have the authority to modify, amend or review its approval of the site plan or written application of the owner le or zoning enforcement officer provided. However, such action is consistent with the purpose and
intent of the town of East Long Meadow zoning bylaws and public hearing has been held. D. The site shall be constructed, altered, or used only in conformance with the approved plans of this site plan review. Any changes to
the plans approved under the site plan review approval shall require the applicant to file for an amendment to the site plan review or to inquire with the planning department in writing whether the change is substantial enough to require a new filing. E. Site plan
review of food approval granted under the section shall lapse after a period of one year has passed. Substantial use has not uh has not sooner commenced except for good cause or in the case of a permit for construction. If
construction has not begun by such date except for good cause. This period shall not include such time required to pursue or await the determination of any appeals to the position petition. F. Upon completion of construction, the developer East Law Metal Ray Developers
LLC shall reach out to the director of planning to coordinate a site visit. The purpose of of this site visit is to ensure compliance with the approved site plans for this site plan site plan review petition. This this site visit
shall occur no more than 6 months post construction and prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. G. Directional signal markers uh including but not limited to wayfinding signage, painted directional arrows and painted
lines shall be installed throughout the parking lot, loading docks and driveways. H on street parking in con uh connection to the developers eastville redevelopers LLC proposed development is prohibited at all times. I the entirety
of the Redstone Rail Trail which abuts the developers east metal redevelopers LLC property must have adequate screening. Any landscape buffering must be maintained in good condition at all times. J. All idling trucks on site are required to comply with Massachusetts
state law on stopped motor vehicles MGL chapter 90 subsection 168. Prior to dem uh demolition of existing structure, the developer Smetal redevelopers LLC will conduct an air conduct an air quality
study to establish a baseline to measure future impacts against uh I uh conduct a study of ambient noise to establish a baseline to measure future impacts against triple I submit a rodent
control plan to the east middle board of health for their approvals. L think developers East Law Meadow Redevelopers LLC must work with the town of Islam Meadow to change the existing flashing pedestrian crossing sign located on Chestnut Street from button
activated to motion activated. M a written agreement relating to public infrastructure improvements along Chestnut Street and the intersection of Shaker Road/chestnut Street is attached to the decision and incorporated herein as exhibit A included in board's meeting
packet. and the developer East Lumal Redevelopers LLC shall develop and implement a transportation demand management TDM program to help reduce the overall impacts of passenger vehicle traffic on the adjacent roadway network and direct truck traffic to regional
roadways designed to accommodate it. I the developers east metal redevelopers LLC must consult with Pioneer Valley Transit Authority PBTA to evaluate the needs of service at the site as part of the transportation demand management
program. So members of the board uh discussion on the conditions if any anything >> no >> okay and I'm going to just give for context the following so the agreement
that was discussed uh regarding between the town of Esau meadow agreement to fund local infrastructure improvement proposed. So, um they are and please correct me if I'm wrong with the numbers, but it appears
that the developer will fund an amount not to exceed $500,000 for the town to use in its discretion for the sole purpose of reconstruction of State Street or excuse me of Chestnut Street uh as required 33
essentially in front of the building. the construction of an extended yet dedicated left turn lane on northbound Shaker Road south of Chestnut and a dedicated right turn lane on eastbound Chestnut Street west of uh Shaker Road.
The construction of additional safety measures for the crosswalk located along East Long Meadow Rail Trail which crosses Chestnut Street. Um so there are funds being put together. Um it appears
that the numbers associated with that are the cost on um extend also extend a dedicated left turn on north on northbound Shaker Road. So the total cost again would not exceed
$500,000. So um Mr. Sullivan I think raised a very valid point as long as a number of others or number of other individuals have indicated. So, I would like to add a potential condition
that um that we really all we can do is ask the town of Esong Meadow to engage Pioneer Valley Planning Commission to review the status of the current status but has not done so in the last
number of years of the intersection at Chestnut and Benton with an eye toward improvements. In the event the planning board approves this proposal >> discussion.
You're adding you're adding more in. >> Just talk you're you can talk into >> you're adding more in and the $500,000 um doesn't seems to be sufficient if anything has to be done down the other end. So, how do we
>> Well, I'm not a clause in that says that they they will spend more than 500,000. >> I I'm not making a proposal that the developer be responsible for any potential improvements. I'm asking that the town engage Pioneer Valley Planning
Commission to give a current assessment of that intersection >> right >> with an eye toward if this project is approved toward give give a recommendation on other improvements that might be necessary to
for the additional truck traffic. >> I'm not asking the developer to spend more money. >> Okay. I don't think that $500,000 will go very far. Um, my son-in-law runs a DW. I know the figures and what asphalt cost and what cutting cost and
relocating pipes cost and what you have to do at intersections be taking them apart to meet the current safety standard. So, I'm just concerned that we might be on the hook for a little bit more money. That's my concern. >> So, u Mr. Sure. I have a question for you regarding the condition you just
proposed. So just to understand the gist of it, you're asking the town to consult with Miner Valley so we can decide what mitigations would need to take place at the Benton Drive Chest Street intersection. Am I
correct on that? I am asking them to provide the town with recommendations that might be needed >> in the event that this project is approved and fully you know implemented
fully rented out. That's all I'm asking. >> So the condition usually you would word it to put the burden on the applicant but in this case it seems like you're asking the town to do that. So, I'm asking the town. >> Yeah,
>> that's all we can do is ask the town. >> The town council say, >> "No, I don't want to do that." >> And that's up to them. >> So, I think, >> you know, we have asked the town in the past >> such things as, you know, as example, we
had to approve the sighting of the new high school. >> Yep. >> And we felt there were issues across the street on Melwood. We asked the town to consider put no parking signs along Melwood during school hours. So that's essentially what I'm trying to get
through. >> Okay. Yeah. And you know we could definitely it's definitely a good idea to include that as a condition but I think uh just for the sake of guiding future policy for that area and to look at that intersection the condition would more be so as a reminder to the town to
do that because as soon if this were to get approved I would probably reach out to Piner Valley tomorrow to start those discussions. So that's something that the town would definitely take the initiative on. Um but yeah, if you were that as a condition, I would say it would be more as a recommendation than a
>> But I I think it's a very reasonable request. >> Yeah. No, it's understandable. >> Do you want to add something? I just >> just to follow up. I think all we're doing is looking for recommendations. We're not saying that we're looking for mitigation funds from anybody, >> but we need to know what's if they see
any potential issues down the road. I think that's what that's why I think it's important to put this condition in there. Yeah. >> To address some concerns that we heard about. >> Understandable. And I think um you know typically with conditions you put them so the applicant can comply further with
the approval. But in this situation the condition is just for the town to have that process in place for the sake of this petition. Is that correct? >> Okay. >> Yeah. Makes sense. >> Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. So we can definitely order that as condition if the board wants to add that. >> So you know I'll reopen to the public if you have any discussions any comments on some of the proposed conditions. Margie Berg again 16 Fields Drive you
read through really quickly. There was a lot, but there was something about a benchmark for air quality. And so if that's a condition, I'm just trying to understand how that works. If that's a condition and there's a benchmark study,
we're not going to see how the we're not going to see a resulting change until or unless this project is built. So at that point, what happens if it's a negative if it's a really negative change? >> So they have to comply.
>> They have to comply. >> They have to comply with state standards and better standards. >> Period. >> Period. That's not something this board can get involved in. So and you know I I
want to bring people back a minute. No, >> you have XL Dryer. You have the old I don't know what they call it now, American Saw. You have Carter Monday. Very interesting article in the Wall Street Journal last week that Hasbro has ramped up uh their
manufacturing games again at Carter Monday due to the tariffs. So, there's a whole lot more truck traffic running through Carter Monday than there was two months ago. Um, so there is truck
traffic there and it is running and some of it's running 24/7. >> Sir, Paul Gagladuchi 35 Fields Drive. Just a clarification, Mr. Chairman. um
asked or you put in a a recommendation or uh for a look at the Benton Drive, Chestnut Street area. I'm confused. Let's assume that you vote
yes on this project. Are are or are you going to wait until you get a response to that question before vote? That's I I'm a little confused as to what happens. So I am asking the town and
when I say the town um it's I imagine the town manager in conjunction with the town council our recommendation to them that in if we if we vote favor of this project that they seek out Pioneer Valley Planning
Commission to make potential recommendations for improvements to that intersection based upon you know what we've seen here with the anticipated numbers and traffic. >> So in doing so, you should then vote the project.
Then the town would then ask Lower Pioneer Valley to look at things. Lower Pioneer Valley, let's assume, come back and say yes. Uh it is a very dangerous situation and it will cost $1.5 million to fix that.
>> The project and the town said we don't have $1.5 million to fix it. What happens then? >> That's a decision of the town council to either spend the money or not. They could bond it. They could pay it out of free cash stabilization fund. There are
methods should the town believe that it's necessary to implement those those or those improvements. >> So we could have a project nothing done to either one of those intersections. >> Mr. Gaggy, do you know municipal government is better than I do? >> Okay. Go.
>> So I if I might just share with you um if you're familiar with the intersection on Wilberham of Stony Brook Stony Brook um road and Springfield Street. The town of Wilberham is considering uh it's on
their plans to do something with that intersection and they're estimating the cost uh at $1 million. Thank you. skis 19. Um what is this? What if the scenario is it gets approved and then the uh tenant
does not or the company does not comply with the if the estimates are incorrect. say the intersections of Shaker and Chestnut there sometimes are wrong or there is major the volume is more than they anticipated or the they find out
that the intersection is not as big even though they make it bigger that's not big enough as was pointed out in the uh the study that was shown what is that what happens in that scenario >> so in the event if the numbers are just off by a mile let's just use that
scenario Okay. It's then incumbent upon the town to take steps if they believe it's necessary to make improvements to that intersection and they would have to seek funding p probably through the
state um infrastructure projects, a bond, etc., etc. >> That could take quite a lot of time. just, you know, identifying it and then hearing it and then planning it and and estimating the cost. That could take years. It sounds like
>> it could. >> Thanks. >> That's it. >> So, we're going to I think we're going to be the last speaker here. If we uphold 375 chestnut this board accepts
developer goes through. >> Hold on. We are not accepting a developer. We're approving a site plan. >> There's a there's a huge difference. Then
correct me if I'm wrong, but there is the potential for truck traffic to be 24 hours, 7 days a week. Is that potential correct?
>> Yes. And that's the And that is an ongoing potential for all the other manufacturing facilities that are in the industrial garden park district. Yeah. >> All right. Do I have a motion to close
the public hearing? >> So moved. >> Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Do I have any discussion on closing the public? >> Hearing none. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> So we're to the point. Um, I think the
we did not take a vote and I'd like to take a vote first on the proposed conditions as amended. So, can at least someone get it started by giving me a motion to approve the conditions as amended?
>> So, move. >> Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Motion made and second. Any discussion on the um the conditions? Hearing none. All those all those in favor of
the proposed conditions as amended say I. I. >> Anyone opposed say nay. Hearing none. So to the main to the main motion to get discussion started. Do I have a motion to approve the site
plan with conditions? >> So moved. >> Mr. interruption, but you have two other approvals first do before you get to that one. And what is that? >> So the first approval is to accept and deny the findings made for site plan review understanders for review which is included in this packet as well as
approving or denying a requested waiver from section 450.6F1 which I can explain to you very quickly if you'd like me to please do. Right. So the requested waiver is from the section pertaining to additional parking
specification for businesses, commercial and industrial uses in regards to landscaping. So the applicant is not in compliance with section 4556F1 in which they need 12% of the total parking and circulation areas to be devoted to landscaping. The applicant
was only able to provide 11. So they were off by one percentage point. They do have to approve that as a request that we approve. >> And what is your recommendation of the director? >> The applicants originally submitted a plan to me that didn't have any
landscaping in that area and I requested heavily with them that they put landscaping there especially in the load dock areas which I think the applicant has done a fantastic job of doing. um within reason they're able to get uh trees in there about just looking at the plans down there that's about 10 trees
in total and the landscape I think the fact that they can get up to 11 is pretty good so I think the board uh would be favorable in making that recommendation >> Rob how far how much is 1% >> for this site
I'm going to let you guesstimate that one you're the landscape architect here how how much do you think 1% of landscaping in the parking area could be in square footage. >> I don't know. >> Minimal >> 1%. >> I got to hang up.
>> So 1% is probably >> two trees. Three trees, you know, >> probably a tree or two if that >> I don't huge. >> You still have to approve the waiver requests for zoning by. >> Do I have a motion to approve the um the
waiver request? So move. >> Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Any discussion? >> Hearing none. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Oppos? Hearing? None. That passes. So, um, go ahead, Rob. So, the next approval
that you have is to accept the site plan review standards for review. Uh, the section that's pulled off of I will give you that in one second. So that comes from section 459.7 site plan review standards for review.
The board has to accept them. >> Do I have a motion to accept? >> So move second. >> Motion made and second. Any discussion? None. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Okay. So
uh the main motion uh with all conditions um and the agreement. Yeah, including the agreement which is includes the agreement. >> So, um I know that very early on I said I
wanted a very clean transcript in the event that this is appealed to the courts. So my request is to have each board member prior to the official vote indicate the reasoning on why you will
vote one way or the other. You don't have to disclose how you're going to vote until vote is taken, but I would like you to discuss your thoughts on um the reasoning you're going to make a decision one way or the other.
>> Can we give our decision or not? You can. Okay. If you'd like to, you can start. Mr. Punderson. >> Good evening. I'm Pete Punderson, plane board member. I want to thank everybody for all the input and all the time you spent as residents of East Lawn Meadow.
It shows how much you care for our great town. I've lived here 74 years. Most of the place was dirt roads when I was a kid. I also want to thank the people from East Redevelopment Corporation for listening to concerns of the town and concerns of the planning board. You did
a great job and I appreciate you coming back with a somewhat altered pro plan, a plan that definitely reduces the truck traffic. During all our discussions, we have laboriously got uh put together all these conditions. Having these
conditions gives us some control over what what really goes on at the site. Without them, we have no control whatsoever. If we were to vote this down tonight, there's a great possibility that East Long Meadow Redevelopment LLC go to land
court and seek relief from a negative vote. At that time, a judge in land court could say it is an as of right use, which it is. Everybody has to understand that they are allowed to do what they want to do. and they've been gracious enough to listen to us and let
let us have these conditions put on the property. If he says forget about it, you there's no conditions. We have no control whatsoever what goes on over there. They have to comply still with the to pass laws as far as pollution in North Dakota
and things like that, but it would be detrimental to the town to not have some sort of control over what goes on over there. and um the degree of it, but the impact can be
in the town. I still believe that this project is too big for the town and I believe that there's a potential for too much truck traffic and I think there's a potential for some safety conditions for the public and for people on the roadway.
For those of you that have come to these meetings, you know that I voted down voted this down twice. I now have changed my mind because I firmly believe that we need to vote in the in the affirmative here in order to
keep a possibility of keeping control of the area. So I will tell you right now my vote is yes. I want to reiterate what my fellow board member Mr. Pundison just said thanking everybody for doing due diligence on this project. I was not a member of the
planning board when the previous project came before the planning board, but I sat through the meetings and I took notes and I listened intently to the pros and cons. I fully understand why it was voted down because it was a massive, massive project.
I will tell you tonight that I am voting in favor of it for two reasons. In my mind, they have they have cut down almost in half and has been noted tonight the amount of truck traffic potentially entering and leaving the site on a daily basis.
They've also addressed traffic concerns at the corner of Shaker and Chestnut. And also speaking to the conditions, we have put in the condition to take a look at the other end of Benton and Chestnut or Benton and Dwight, excuse me, Benton
and Chestnut and Dwight for possible recommendations with no commitment. I understand that. But I think we're moving in the right direction. And to reiterate what my fellow board member just said, with these conditions, we do mainta maintain control of what
goes on in this warehouse. It's not like they can do whatever they want. They still need to come back before us in the future. Thank you. >> Yep. Um, so believe it or not, the youngest member on this board, uh, and I have young kids myself, so I'm I'm vested in
this community. I've not been here nearly as long as everybody else on the board, but I'd like to think we'll be here for a long time. Uh I know progress sometimes is difficult and I think that they have done a good job of coming back with some revisions. Uh some of the concessions that they've made to help us with the intersections, uh though I
would have to agree probably won't cover the total costs are certainly a help. That is not something they're required to do. That is a a gesture towards us and I do appreciate that from their side. Um I I have made it clear that I'm I'm not pleased with the traffic situation. I realize that is going to be
a hot point and that really seems to be the issue. Uh not necessarily with the site that is away from the site itself and again they have done great uh work in trying to mitigate that and work with us the engineers and such. So again for
their site that they are currently working to develop I think they have made some good concessions from the first round. again I was not part of that so this is my first go around with it as well um so there's been a lot of best efforts I would say though nothing is perfect in this world and this board sees a lot of things that are not
perfect but we have to make some decisions uh what we look at today the site is a mess right there's a lot of hazards there for many different ways you can look at it so we'll now have a clean site opportunity for more jobs and of course more tax revenue which this town could use as we continue to make
improvements to our infrastructure uh so with that being said, "I also will be a yes." >> So, um, so I was on the board with Mr. Punderson, uh, the last time and I did vote no, but I want to point out a
couple of things. So, um, I went back just to check this so I can go back to LCAT and review this. So at the very last minute I um asked attorney fancy could the developer make this project smaller and she was not and it was
really an unfortunate question for her because she wasn't prepared for that and she had not spoken to the developer and the answer was no. Another woman, I think two meetings ago, said, "We should use our gut." And I pointed to the things that are up here on the boards
that we need to go by. And that last time, in my gut, I just did think that the project was too big. And contrary to what some people have put in writing, this is a different project.
The square footage has been reduced by almost 100,000 square feet. So almost 17 and a half%. It is not one giant warehouse. It's broken into four different buildings.
The anticipated, and we mentioned this last time, no one really knows if we're going to have 500 trucks or 100 trucks. So, we need to kind of get off of that uh number. But the anticipated according
to the the projections is you've reduced the uh truck traffic from 368 to between 195 and 200. That is a substantial proposed reduction in the amount of
tractor uh tractor trailer um traffic on that on that roadway. the proposed mitigation. Mr. Mishout has said yes, that goes a long way. That's very favorable. And I agree. To me,
that's kind of the icing on the cake. Um, putting up $500,000 is a nice gesture. I am not naive to believe that that's going to cover the entire cost, but it certainly will go a
long way to kind of help this uh project. So, I will say that I have changed my mind and I too will be voting in favor of this project. So, do I have a >> whoever it is should be quiet.
So, enough. So, not that it's >> so ma'am. >> I do not >> the public closed. >> Yeah, the public hearing closed. So, do
I have a motion to approve? >> I'd like to say just one other thing in case I didn't include uh the proponents council. Thank you. >> I have a motion to make sure I get this right. the site plan with conditions
>> and the agreement. >> You okay with that motion? Um, if you all reference the permit number, it's uh site 2025-03 on street. >> I could say the motion for you if you
have a motion to um approve the site plan for the construction of four manufacturing, warehouse, and commercial buildings. uh combined total footprint of 455,936 square feet with 395
parking spaces at 330 Chestnut Street. Assessor parcel ID 1838-0 located in the industrial garden park zoning district. Applicant Vincent Pacino 1260 Stelton Road, Stasco, New Jersey
0854. conditions and the >> with the conditions and the agreement >> the agreement >> as amended. So, do I have a motion to approve? >> So, move. >> Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor say I.
>> I. >> Anyone oppose say nay. This matter passes. Do I have a motion to adjourn the meeting? >> So move. >> Do I have a second? >> Second. >> All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Motion. Yeah.