Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-10-17Planning Board Meeting October 17, 2000 BK APPROVED 11/14/2000 j. r Pi3 306 Members Present: ,Alison Lescarbeau John Simons Richard Rowen Richard Nardella Alberto Angles Others Present: Heidi Griffin, Town Planner Jacki Byerley, Planning Assistant The Pla~nlng Board meeting was called to order at 7:12 p.m Discussions: Executive Quarters-Special Permit Extensioo Mesiti Development requested an extension to their approved special permit. The permit is due to expire on November 19, 2000. Mr. Rowen motioned to APPROVE the request for an extension to the Site Plan Special Permit for one year, 2~ by Mr. Angles. Voted 3-0 in favor of. Lot 5 Saile Way-Special Permit Extension Marilyn and Felcecia Elias requested an additional extension for Lot 5 Saile Way. The request is to have Lot 5; Lot 3 and Lot 6 all expire in the year 2001. Each lot is still unbuilt. Lot 5 Saile Way Watershed Special Pexmit is due to expire on October 28, 2000. Mr. Rowen motioned to APPROVE the request for an extension to the Watershed Special Permit for one year, 2"a by Mr. Angles. Voted 3-0 in favor of. 173 Coaehman's Lane-Bond Release Ms. Griffin had gone to the property for a site visit. Ms. CuSffin had stated that the owners of the property had added beyond the original approval by moving an existing woodshed to square the property off and by using earth material instead of crushed stone. The applicant had the work certified by an engineer. Mr. Rowen motioned to RELEASE all remaining funds from 173 Coachman's Lane, 2~ by Mr. Angles. Voted3-0 in favor of. Chatham Cros.qing-Bond Establishment Tim Willett of DPW sent a recommendation to establish a bond amount for $322,640.00. The applicant is now Ray Von Realty Trust and has also requested a lot release. The Planning Board agreed to sign the Form J but hold the form until the applicant had posted the $322,640.00 with the Planning Department. Mr. Rowen motioned to ESTABLISH the bond amount for Chatham Crossing Subdivision at $322,640.00, 2~ by Mr. Angles. Voted 3-0 in favor ot5 Heritage Estates-Bond Establishment Tim Willett of DPW sent a reCommendation to establish a bond amount for $416,200.00. Mr. Kindred stated that he knows that it would be better to wait for the bond establishment but he was hoping to get ahead of the weather. Mr. Kindred was planning on coming before the planning Board in a few weeks, to have a partial release of the bond after more work wasc~ompleted onthe site. Mr. Rowen questioned DPW recommendation amount for the Pavement binder and topping. Mr. Rowen felt the amount should be higher than stated. Mr. Rowen recalculated the amount to $426,200.00. Mr. Rowen motioned to ESTABLISH the bond amount for Heritage Estates at $426,200.00 and have the binder and topping adjusted to read 3200 in quantity, 2~ by Mr. Angles. Voted 3-0 in,favor of. Mr. Rowen motioned to RELEASE 11 lots from Heritage Estates after the bond had been posted, 2~ by Mr. Angles. Voted 3-0 in favor of. The Sa_netuary-Endorsement of Form I and Form M Mr. John Willis Jr. attorney for Charles Carroll of Carroll Construction requested that the Planning Board signsthe FormM and Form I. The original Forms had not been recorded at the Registry of Deeds and they could not be recorded because the owners of the property had changed. Mr. Willisalso requested that the Planning Board release one lot on the property. The Planning Board signed the Form I and Foan M. Mr. Rowen motioned to RELEASE Lot lA from The Sanctuary Subdivision after a bond had been established for $10,000.00, 2na by Mr. Angles. Voted 5-0 in favor of. 56 Main Street- Site-Plan Waiver Eva Xu was requesting a site plan waiver to open a take out and delivery Chinese Restaurant at 56 Main Street. Mike McGuire the Building Inspector had reviewed the zoning of the site. Mr. Rowen motioned to WAIVE the Site Plan Review for 56 Main Street proposed take out and delivery Chines Restaurant, 2nd by Mr. Simons. Voted 5-0 in favor of. 46 Main Street-Site Plan Waiver George Kenney Jr. was requestingasite l~atn waiver to open a Cyber Caf6 at 46 Main Street. Mike McGuire had reviewed the zoning of the site. Ms. Lescarbean questioned how the plowing would be done with the lot being gravel. The owner of the property had commented that it would be a little difficult but if he needed to he would have the snow removed to accommodate the tenants and customers Of the building. Mr. Nardella informed the owner that handicapped p~rking is required-to be-marked. Mr. Rowen motioned to WAIVE the Site p!~n Review for 46 Main Street proposed Cyber Caf6, 2~ by Mr. Angles. Voted 5-0 in favor of. Continued Public Hearings: Revision of Subdivision Rules and Regxdations Ms. Griffin stated that through the two workshops the Planning Board and the developers had between Public Hearings a lot of issues had been resolved. The road thickness had been agreed upon at being 3 inches binder and 1 ½ inches topcoat. Neighboring Town's had been polled on what they were using and having a total of 4 tA inches was around what they are now-lkqing- - Mr. Ben Kruser of VHB stated that it was determined that the curbing would now be sloped granite. Mr. Kruser informed the Planning Board that having tougher specifications w~id save the Town money. The next item for discussion was the 26-foot pavement width. Mr. Simons thought that width was too large for most subdivisions. Mr. Nardella wanted the standard to be high and ifneed be the Planning Board could always grant a waiver. Mr. Nardella stated that BK 309 it would be harder to get the developer to go higher than what was stated within the regulations. Ms. Griffin informed the Planning Board that Jim Rand of DPW requested that the width he 26 feet. Mr. Kruser commented that the State and National standards were just about the same and would be able to give clearance for the traffic. Mr. Kmser stated that the State wasnow requiring .pavememt width to be larger to make room for bicycles. Mr. Kmser stated that by having edging the cars no longer would be able to park on the grass so the Town would need a wider roadway' ~-~,o ~ ¢a,rnn~s,_o~_n LYg. xvsr. Angles commented that if they had kept granite curroM~ this ,dould stop the parking on the grass but slope curbingwas mountabie~ Mr. Rowen.s~ated that the last nine years the Planning Board had been using a 24-foot width and why that amount wasn't sufficient now. Ms. Griffin informed the Planning Board that 24 ft wasn't sufficient with steep slopes and most of the developments that would be forthcoming would be on slopes or more topographically challenged. Mr. Rowen stated that with a larger road way most cars drive faster. Mr. Rowen went on to state that narrow roadways were self regulating for speed. Ms. Lescarbean asked each Board member to state their preference; Mr. Angles- 26, Ms. Lescarbeau-26, Mr. Simons-24, Mr. Rowen-24, and Mr. Nardella-26. The Planning Board agreed to keep the roadway 26 feet with the ability to waive down if The next item for cllmussion was Section 5.8.2. The Planning Board asked that the section on the remainder ofthe bond be at least 10 % ofthe remaining bond but can be more. The final release is-to read that the.Planning Board only needs to recommend the street for acceptance. Surety Bonds are to read that they are to be two years unless otherwise stated in the decision. The Planning also agreed to have the line in Section 5.12 "If the construction and installation is not completed .... ", deleted. Ms. Griffin stated that DPW would like to have the detention basins placed on the homeowners' property. The Planning Board decided that they would like to keep detention ponds separate and get the easemems to maintain them. A possible rewording ofthe slopes.was submitted by Mr. Ben Osgood a developer. Ms. Griffin stated that the way the slope requirement was currently worded it would pertain to all lots in a subdivision. Ms. Griffin stated that another suggestion was poss~ly limiting slopes within 50' on either side of the right-of-way but that may create an aesthetics issue as-moa subdivisions would have retainingwalla on either side to roalntain such a slope. The Planning Board read the memo and discussed the various options. The Planning Board decided that the option presented by Mr. Osgood seemed reasonable but required editing. The Board stated that the paragraph stating percentage of slopes should be place onthe plan~ and this should be the only option presented. The Board also revised this so that the in the cut and fill areas it would read that the Planning Board would make the decision not the design engineer. Mr. Simons wanted slopes to state that there would be none in the fight of way and to create the slopes no more cutting should be required.- The Planning Board also requested that it be stated within the regulations that as built plans be submitted electronically also. Planning Board Meeting October 17, 2000 APPROVED 1111412000 Members Present: Alison Lescarbeau John Simons Richard Rowen Richard Nardella Alberto Angles Others Present: Heidi Griffin, Town Planner Jacki Byerley, Planning Assistant The Planning Board meeting was called to order at 7:12 p.m. Discussions: Ex~utive Quarters-Special Permit Extension Mesiti Development requested an extension to their approved special permit. The permit is due to expire on November 19, 2000. Mr. Rowen motioned to APPROVE the request for an extension to the Site Plan Special Pesttfit for one year, 2~ by Mr. Angles. Voted 3-0 in favor of. Lot 5 Saile Way-Special Permit Extension Marilyn and Felcecia Elias requested an additional extension for Lot 5 Saile Way. The request is to have Lot 5; Lot 3 and Lot 6 all expire in the year 2001. Each lot is still unbuilt. Lot 5 Saile Way Watershed Special Permit is due to expire on October 28, 2000. Mr. Rowen motioned to APPROVE the request for an extension to the Watershed Special Permit for one year, 2naby Mr. Angles. Voted 3-0 in favor of. 173 Coachman's Lane-Bond Release Ms. Griffin had gone to the property for a site visit. Ms. Griffin had stated that the owners of the property had added beyond the original approval by moving an existin~ woodshed to square the property off and by using earth material instead of crushed stone. The applicant had the work certified by an engineer. it would be harder to get the developer to go higher than what was stated within the regulations. Ms. Griffin informed the Planning Board that Jim Rand of DPW requested that the width be 26 feet. Mr. Kruser commented that the State and National standards were just about the same and would be able to give clearance for the traffic. Mr. Kruser stated that the State was now requiring .pavement-width to be larger to make room for bicycles. Mr. Kruser stated that by having edging the cars no longer would be able to park on the grass so the Town would need a wider roadway to accommodate parking. Angles commented that if they had kept granite cur~r~g tins woaid stop the parking on the grass but slope curbingwas mountable. Mr. Rowen st_ated that the last nine years the Planning Board had been using a 24-foot width and why that amount wasn't sufficient now. Ms. Griffin informed the Planning Board that 24 ft wasn't sufficient with steep slopes and most of the developments that would be forthcoming would be on slopes or more topographically challenged. Mr. Rowen stated that with a larger road way most cars drive faster. Mr. Rowen went on to state that narrow roadways were self regulating for speed. Ms. Lescarheau asked each Board member to state their preference; Mr. Angles- 26, Ms. Lescarbeau-26, Mr. Simons-24, Mr. Rowen-24, and Mr. Nardella-26. The Planning Board agreed to keep the roadway 26 feet with the ability to waive down if necessary. The next item for discussion was Section 5.8.2. The planning Board asked that the section on the remainder ofthe bond he at least 10 % ofthe remaining bond but can he more. The final release is .to-read that the .planning Board only needs to recommend the street for acceptance. Surety Bonds are to read that they are to be two years unless otherwise stated inthe decision. The Planning nlm agreed to have the line in Section 5.12 "If the construction and installation is not completed .... ", deleted. MS. Griffin stated that DPW would like to have the detention basins placed on the homeowners' property. The Planning Board decided that they would like to keep detention ponds separate and get the easements to maintain them A possible rewording of the .qlopes-was submitted by Mr. Ben Osgood a developer. Ms. Griffin stated that the way the slope requirement was currently worded it would pertain to all lots in a subdivision. Ms. Griffin stated that another suggestion was possibly limiting slopes within 50' on either side oftbe right-of-way but that may create an aesthetics issue as.most subdivisions would have retaining walls on either side to maintain such a slope. The Planning Board read the memo and discussed the various options. The Plarmi~ Board decided that the option presented by Mr. Osgood seemed reasonable but required editing. The Board stated that the paragraph stating percentage of slopes should beplace ontheplans and this should be lhe only opfionpresented. The Board also revised this so that the in the cut and fill areas it would read that the Plarming Board would make the decision not the design engineer. Mr. Simons wanted slopes to state that there would be none in the right of way and to create the slopes no more cutting should be required. The Planning Board also requested that it be stated within the regulations that as built plans be submitted electronically also. 4 Mr. Kruser was going to meet with Jim Rand of DPW to finalize some of the road cross- sections, specifically noted in Jim Rand, s memorandum dated 9/26/00. Mr. Nardella motioned to APPROVE the revised Subdivision Rules & Regulations as amended this evening, 2aa by Mr. Simons. Voted 5-0 in favor of. Endicott Plaza-Site Plan Speeial-Permit~ Mr. Jeffrey Dirk ofVanesse & Associates, Inc presented the traffic study of the site. Mr. Dirk had done a trip generation study. Mr. Dirk had watched the site at certain hours of the day and calculated.the nnmher of tifips during weekday morning peak hour, weekday evening peak hour, and Saturday midday peak hour. After totaling these trips an additional 25% pass-by trip rate was added in. With these totals a comparison was made over the next 5 years by adding an additional 2% per year. The State requires that at each intersection a grade-from A thro-gh F be given, with aD as passing~ The levels of service are showing existing in the year 2005 with no build and the year 2005 build/with improvements. At the intersection of Holt Road and Osgood St the levels are E,E,F. The rating is based on time waiting not volume. To warrant a traffic light one or more of the 11 warrants set by-the State must fail; at .the intersection of Barkex Street and one ofthe propose entrance a failing is showhag during peak hour volume. With the addition of the traffic light the rate goes t~om an E to a C. All these figures are made with the idea of a proposed pharmacy, if the outbuilding were to be changed the applicant would have to re- file with the Stat~ andPianning Board. Mr. Nardella wanted to know what the wait would he at the traffic light when cars are traveling bom the South. Mr. Dirk informed the Planning Board that sensors would be placed in the pavement to,accommodate different times oftraffic to prevent queuing at the lights. Mr. Dirk also stated that the pocket t~om the South could be lengthened to provide more room for cars to tm into the plaza. Mr. Dirk then went on to say that Route 125 would be widened with a 4-foot shoulder and if necessary could widen more to alleviate traffic concerns. A pedestrian and bike sensor are going to he placed at Barker Street with sidewalks: a crosswalk and a sidewalk providing acce.q.q to the plaza. Ms. Griffin wanted to know if there would he signage for cars traveling North to know when the right turn in and out only entrance would he approaching. Mr. Dirk informed her that the sign would be placed about 200 feet bom the opening, before the crest of the hill. Ms. Griffin wanted to know whether an opticon light would be placed on the traffic light for emergency vehicles. Mr. Dirk informed her yes. Mr. Dirk stated that the presentation boards he used showing the traffic rate and study would be reduced and distributed to the planning Board members. BK 5927 P8 311 Mr. Rowen motioned to CONTINUE the Public Hearing for Endicott Plaza Site Plan Special Permit until November 14, 2000, 2~ by Mr. Angles. Voted 5-0 in favor of. Hawk Ridge-Definitixte Subdivision Mark Gross, design engineer for Hawk Ridge responded t_o VHB's commems on the entry way to the subdivision. Mr. Gross showed'~[t the roadway could be widened to 100 feet fxom end to.end. Thelocation would stay the same. The Planning Board stated that the entryway should he improved to less than 5% and less than a 100 foot opening. The Planning Board is amenable to granting a waiver to use bituminous curbing with a regulation sidewalk on one side ending at the second lot shown on the plan. The streetlights are now going to be placed on the same side as the sidewalk. The road width was ~greed upon to be22 feet.wide.- Mr. Nardella wanted to know who was going to be in charge of mowing the open space land. Mr. Zahoruiko is going to have John Smolak write up an agreemem to have a designee mowing theopen space~ Mr. Rowen motioned to CLOSE the Public Hearing for Hawk Ridge Watershed Special Permit, PRD, Definitive Subdivision, 2ad by Mr. Simons. Voted 5-0 in favor of. The Planning Board instructed Heidi Griffin to draft a decision for the November 14, 2000. Mr. Simons motioned to ADJOURN the Planning Board meeting. Respectfully S(t~r~itted, Alberto Angles, Clerk Planning Board Meeting October 17, 2000 APPROVED 11/14/2000 Members Present: Alison Lescarbeau John Simons Richard Rowen Richard Nardella Alberto Angles Others Present: Heidi Griffin, Town Planner Jacki Byerley, Planning Assistant The Planning Board meeting was called to order at 7:12 p.m. Discussions: Executive Quarters-Special Permit Extension Mesiti Development requested an extension to their approved special perufit. The permit is due to expire on November 19, 2000. Mr. Rowen motioned to APPROVE the request for an extension to the Site Plan Special Permit for one year, 2"~ by Mr. Angles. Voted 3-0 in favor of. Lot 5 Saile Way-Special Permit Extension Marilyn and Feleecia Elias requested an additional extension for Lot 5 Saile Way. The request is to have Lot 5; Lot 3 and Lot 6 all expire in the year 2001. Each lot is still unbuilt. Lot 5 Saile Way Watershed Special Permit is due to expire on October 28, 2000. Mr. Rowen motioned to APPROVE the request for an extension to the Watershed Special Permit for one year, 2"a by Mr. Angles. Voted 3-0 in favor of. 173 Coachman's Lane-Bond Release Ms. Griffin had gone to the property for a site visit. Ms. Griffin had stated that the owners of the property had added beyond the original approval by moving an existing woodshed to square the property off and by using earth material instead of crushed stone. The applicant had the work certified by an engineer. Mr. Rowen motioned to RELEASE all remaining funds from 173 Coachman's Lane, 2ad by Mr. Angles. Voted 3-0 in favor of. Chatham Crossing-Bond Establishment Tim Willett of DPW sent a recommendation to establish a bond mount for $322,640.00. The applicant is now Ray Von Realty Trust and has also requested a lot release. The Planning Board agreed to sign the Form J but hold the form until the applicant had posted the $322,640.00 with the Planning Department. Mr. Rowen motioned to ESTABLISH the boad amount for Chatham Crossing Subdivision at $322,640.00, 2~ by Mr. Angles. Voted 3-0 in favor of. Heritage Estates-Bond Establishment Tim grfllett of DPW sent a recommendation to establish a bond amount for $416,200.00. Mr. Kindred stated that he knows that it would be better to wait for the bond establishment but he was hoping to get ahead of the weather. Mr. Kindred was planning on coming before the Planning Board in a few weeks to have a partial release of the bond aRer more work was completed on the site. Mr. Rowen questioned DPW recommendation amount for the Pavement binder and topping. Mr. Rowen felt the amount should be higher than stated. Mr. Rowen recalculated the amount to $426,200.00. Mr. Rowen motioned to ESTABLISH the bond amount for Heritage Estates at $426,200.00 and have the binder and topping adjusted to read 3200 in quantity, 2aa by Mr. Angles. Voted 3-0 in favor of. Mr. Rowen motioned to RELEASE 11 lots from Heritage Estates after the bond had been posted, 2~ by Mr. Angles. Voted 3-0 in favor of. The Sanctuary_ -F. ndorsement of Form I and Form M Mr. John Willis Jr. attorney for Charles Carroll of Carroll Construction requested that the planning Board signs the Form M and Form I. The original Forms had not been recorded at the Registry of Deeds and they could not be recorded because the owners of the property had changed. Mr. Willis also requested that the Planning Board release one lot on the property. The Planning Board signed the Form I and Fomi M. Mr. Rowen motioned to RELEASE Lot lA from The Sanctuary Subdivision ~ffter a bond had been established for $10,000.00, 2aa by Mr. Angles. Voted 5-0 in favor of. 56 Main Street- Site Plan Waiver Eva Xu was requesting a site plan waiver to open a take out and delivery Chinese Restaurant at 56 Main Street. Mike McGuire the Building Inspector had reviewed the zoning of the site. Mr. Rowen motioned to WAIVE the Site Plan Review for 56 Main Street proposed take out and delivery Chines Restaurant, 2"d by Mr. Simons. Voted 5-0 in favor of. 46 Main Street-Site Plan Waiver George Kenney Jr. was requesting a site plan waiver to open a Cyber Caf6 at 46 Main Street. Mike McGuire had reviewed the zoning of the site. Ms. Lescarbeau questioned how the plowing would be done with the lot being gravel. The owner of the property had commented that it would bo a little difficult but if he needed to he would have the snow removed to accommodate the tenants and customers oftbe building. Mr. Nardella informed the owner that handicapped parking is required to be marked. Mr. Rowen motioned to WAIVE the Site Plan Review for 46 Main Street proposed Cyber Caf6, 2~a by Mr. Angles. Voted 5-0 in favor of. Continued Public Hearings: Revision of Subdivision Rules and Regulations Ms. Griffin stated that through the two workshops the Planning Board and the developers had between Public Hearings a lot of issues had been resolved. The road thickness had been agreed upon at being 3 inches binder and 1 ~A inches topcoat. Neighboring Town's had been polled on what they were using and having a total of 4 ~ inches was around what they are now using. Mr. Ben ICmser of VHB stated that it was determined that the curbing would now be sloped granite. Mr. Krnser informed the Planning Board that having tougher specifications would save the Town money. The next item for discussion was the 26-foot pavement widtl~ Mr. Simons thought that width was too large for most subdivisions. Mr. Nardella wanted the standard to be high and if need be the Planning Board could always grant a waiver. Mr. Nardella stated that it wood be harder to get the developer to go higher than what was stated within the regulations. Ms. Griffin informed the Planning Board that Jim Rand of DPW requested that the width be 26 feet. Mr. Kruser commented that the State and National standards were just about the same and would be able to give clearance for the traffic. Mr. Kruser stated that the State was now requiring pavement width to be larger to make room for bicycles. Mr. Kmser stated that by having edging the cars no longer wood be able to park on the grass so the Town would need a wider roadway to accommodate parking. Mr. Angles commented that if they had kept granite curbing this wood stop the parking on the grass but slope curbing was mountable. Mr. Rowen stated that the last nine years the Planning Board had been using a 24-foot width and why that amount wasn't sufficient now. Ms. Griffin informed the Planning Board that 24 f~ wasn't sa~fficient with steep slopes and most of the developments that would be forthcoming wood be on slopes or more topographically challenged. Mr. Rowen stated that with a larger road way most cars drive faster. Mr. Rowen went on to state that narrow roadways were self regulating for speed. Ms. Lescarbean asked each Board member to state their preference; Mr. Angles- 26, Ms. Lescarbean-26, Mr. Simons-24, Mr. Rowen-24, and Mr. Nardella-26. The Planning Board agreed to keep the roadway 26 feet with the ability to waive down if necessary. The next item for discussion was Section 5.8.2. The Planning Board asked that thc section on the remainder of the bond be at least 10 % of the remaining bond but can be more. The final release is to read that the Planning Board only needs to recommend the street for acceptance. Surety Bonds are to read that they are to be two years unless otherwise stated in the decision. The Planning also agreed to have the line in Section 5.12 "If the construction and in~qtallation is not completed....", deleted. Ms. Griffin stated that DPW would like to have the detention basins placed on the homeowners' property. The Pla~nlng Board decided that they would like to keep detention ponds separate and get the easements to maintain them. A poss~le rewording of the slopes was submitted by Mr. Ben Osgood a developer. Ms. Griffin stated that the way the slope requirement was currently worded it would pertain to all lots in a subdivision. Ms. Griffin stated that another suggestion was possibly limiting slopes within 50' on either side of the right-of-way but that may create an aesthetics issue as most subdivisions wood have retaining walls on either side to maintain such a slope. The Planning Board read the memo and discussed the various options. The Planning Board decided that the option presented by Mr. Osgood seemed reasonable but required editing. The Board stated that the paragraph stating percentage of slopes should be place on the plans and this should be the only option presented. The Board also revised this so that the in the cut and fill areas it wood read that the Planning Board wood make the decision not the design engineer. Mr. Simons wanted slopes to state that there wood be none in the right ofway and to create the slopes no more cutting should be required. The Planning Board also requested that it be stated within the regulations that as built plans be submitted electronically also. 4 Mr. Kruser was going to meet with Jim Rand of DPW to finalize some of the road cross- sections, specifically noted in Jim Rand's memorandum dated 9/26/00. Mr. Nardella motioned to APPROVE the revised Subdivision Rules & Regulations as amended this evening, 2~ by Mr. Simons. Voted 5-0 in favor of. g~ndieott Plaza-Site Plan Special Permit Mr. Jeffxey Dirk of Vanesse 8: Associates, Inc presented the traffic study of the site. Mr. Dirk had done a trip generation study. Mr. Dirk had watched the site at certain hours of the day and calculated the number of trips during weekday morning peak hour, weekday evening peak hour, and Saturday midday peak hour. After totaling these trips an additional 25% pass-by trip rate was added in. With these totals a comparison was made over the next 5 years by adding an additional 2% per year. The State requires that at each intersection a grade from A through F be given with a D as passing. The levels of service are showin4 existing in the year 2005 with no build and the year 2005 build/with improvements. At the intersection of Holt Road and Osgood St the levels are E,E,F. The rating is based on time waiting not volume. To warrant a trafl~ light one or more of the 11 warrants set by the State must fail, at the intersection of Barker Street and one of the propose entrance a failing is showin4g during peak hour voknne. With the addition of the traff~ fight the rate goes from an E to a C. All these figures are made with the idea of a proposed pharmacy, if the outbuilding were to be changed the applicant would have to re- file with the State and Planning Board. Mr. Nardelia wanted to know what the wait would be at the traffic light when cars are traveling from the South. Mr. Dirk informed the Planning Board that sensors would be placed in the pavement to accommodate different times of traffic to prevent queuing at the lights. Mr. Dirk also stated that the pocket from the South could be lengthened to provide more room for cars to turn into the plaza. Mr. Dirk then went on to say that Route 125 would be widened with a 4-foot shoulder and if necessary could widen more to alleviate traffic concerns. A pedestrian and bike sensor are going to be placed at Barker Street with sidewalks, a crosswalk and a sidewalk providing access to the plaza. Ms. Griffin wanted to know if tbere would be sJgnage for cars traveling North to know when the right mm in and out only entrance would be approaching. Mr. Dirk infmmed her that the sign would be placed about 200 feet from the opening, before the crest of the Ms. Griffin wanted to know whether an opticon light would be placed on the traffic light for emergency vehicles. Mr. Dirk informed her yes. Mr. Dirk stated that the presentation hoards he used showing the traffic rate and study would be reduced and distributed to the Planning Board members. Mr. Rowen motioned to CONTINUE the Public Hearing for EndiCott Plaza Site Plan Special Permit until November 14, 2000, 2~ by Mr. Angles. Voted 5-0 in favor of. Hawk Ridge-Definitive Subdivision Mark Gross, design engineer for Hawk Ridge responded to VHB's comments on the entry way to the subdivision. Mr. Gross showed that the roadway could be widened to 100 feet fxom end to end. The location would stay the same. The Planning Board stated that the entryway should be improved to less than 5% and less than a 100 foot opening. The Planning Board is amenable to granting a waiver to use bituminous curbing with a regulation sidewalk on one side ending at the second lot shown on the plan. The streetlights are now going to he placed on the same side as the sidewalk. The mad width was agreed upon to be 22 feet wide. Mr. Nardella wanted to know who was going to be in charge ofmowing the open space land. Mr. Zahoruiko is going to have John Smolak write up an agreement to have a designee mowing the open space. Mr. Rowen motioned to CLOSE the Public Hearing for Hawk Ridge Watershed Special Permit, PRD, Definitive Subdivision, 2aa by Mr. Simons. Voted 5-0 in favor of. The Planning Board instructed Heidi Griffin to draft a decision for the November 14, 2000. Mr. Simons motioned to ADJOURN the Planning Board meeting. Respectfully Sul~tmitted, Alberto Angles, Clerk