Laserfiche WebLink
agreed to re-radius the island_ There was discussion about the display area and confirmation that <br /> foot aisle would be maintained for fire access. A note should be added that vehicles would <br /> be located closest to the building. The vice Chair confirmed that items -10 will be adjusted for <br /> the plans_ <br /> Nor. l al arini inquired whether the display ears would be relocated to the interior ofthe building <br /> and Mr. 0jala responded that the more valuable cars would be moved at night. Mr. Balzarini <br /> inquired about repairs and it was confirmed that painting would not occur at the site. The vice <br /> Chair requested that the condition regarding non-use of pennants and flags be added to the <br /> Special.Permit Decision. The Vice Chair inquired about the number of vehicles that would he <br /> displayed out front and inquired about adding it to the Decision_ Mr. Carter suggested possibly <br /> -10 oars and Mr. 0 0 la responded that 8 and then 6 could be placed on display and <br /> recommended that wording such as"display would be no more denser than a normal bay of <br /> parking" be utilized in the decision. Where was consensus from the Board about utilizing that <br /> wording. W. Fudala inquired about lighting and Mr. 0jala confirmed that the lighting would be <br /> shielded as downward LEDs with zero cutoff at the property line. Mr. wall requested the <br /> specific language regarding display parting. It was thought that there would be no more than 1 <br /> cars located at the front of the building but Mr. Ojala indicated that 26 could potentially fit in the <br /> space. Mr. of la stated that there were 40 oars parked at the site across the street. Design <br /> Review suggested that the number of cars may detract from the metal building. The Vice Chair <br /> struck the condition, particularly as the fire lame would create restrictions of the space. Mr. <br /> Rowley inquired about parking for cars awaiting service and Mr. Ojala stated that spaces on the <br /> side of the building would be sufficient. <br /> Mr. Fudala read through the drafted Decision. There was discussion regarding the reason why <br /> the Planning Board was hearing the issue. Mr. Fudala pointed out the relocation of handicap <br /> parking to the front of the building, at Mr. Carter's request, which would require authorization <br /> from the Board. <br /> MOTION: Mr.Balzarini made a motion to allow the handicap parking space in front of <br /> the building because it improves public safety. Mr. Iooharian seconded the motion. All <br /> voted unanimously. <br /> 11r. Fudala continued with the review of the decision. Mr. Ojala inquired whether the permit <br /> could be approved contingent upon revisions and the vice Chair responded that the Planning <br /> Board typically did not vote to conditionally approve a permit. Mr. Fudala suggested the <br /> addition of three additional conditions to include, subject to the issuance of an auto sales license <br /> from the Board of Selectmen, confirmation that all lighting should be do relighting and the <br /> applicant vll conform with the representations made by Attorney wall in his February 27h letter <br /> regarding balloons, banners and pennants. There were no additional comments, including from <br /> the public. The vice Chair recommended that the changes be made to the plans and submitted to <br /> Mr. Rowley for his review, prior to the next meeting. Kevin Peppe of Commercial Realty <br /> Advisors, broker of record, inquired about the approval, noting that the Purchase and Sales <br /> required time to receive permits and requested that the request be conditionally approved. The <br /> Vice Chair responded that there were too many revisions so the changes needed to be made and <br /> presented at the next meeting. There was consensus from the board, though there was <br /> agreement that the Board would end up voting to approve the permit. <br /> 4 <br />