SPRAB Meeting Summary 2 10 26

TO: Amanda C. Wolfe, Esq., Applicant’s Attorney CC: Genice Gary-Adams, Zoning Official Jamilet Baquerizo Vite, Planning Board Secretary Ryan McNeil, Planning Board Engineer FROM: Malvika Apte, PP, AICP, Planning Board Planner Langley Oudemans, Associate Planner RE: SPRAB Meeting Summary PB Application 25-12 262-270 Main Street DATE: February 17, 2026 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ SPRAB Meeting Summary: PB 25-12 Meeting Date: February 10, 2026, at 8:30AM The SPRAB Meeting for the proposed project at 262-270 Main Street (Planning Board Application # 25-12) was conducted on February 10, 2026. Below is a summary of the items discussed, organized by topic, including concerns presented by the review board and actions which should be taken by the Applicant. 1. Fire: • EV spaces need to be located as far away as possible from the building • Location of the FDC hook-up needs to be clarified o Applicant indicates it will be on Erwin Place, but the FDC must be within 150’ of a fire hydrant. More details and clarification on this is needed before application goes to the Board. 2. Garbage: • More information needed regarding the location and collection of garbage • Testimony is needed regarding the frequency and timing of garbage pick up • Applicant indicated garbage will be located inside the building next to the loading area and pick up will occur via loading area off Erwin Place. • Health department official noted trash pick up can only happen between the hours of 6:30am to 9pm • Proximity to residential unit a concern

3. Rooftop Equipment: • Applicant noted equipment will be on the roof and screened by fencing • Point was made to ensure that the design includes soundproofing in order to meet the daytime and nighttime decibel requirements 4. Trees: • Need to add more trees to meet requirements of the tree replacement ordinance and the requirements for landscaping in the parking area 5. Parking Area: • Number of parking spaces: o Will need a variance for the number of spaces o Applicant notes that they will argue for a variance based on the second-floor storage space not being part of the calculation. Planner notes that this should then be a deed-restriction to ensure future compliance. o Suggestion was made for the applicant to create a shared parking plan with some of the nearby properties. One recommendation was to collaborate with the owner of the nearby CVS and bank in order to provide employee parking (applicant noted that maximum employee shift could include 25-30 employees) • Shopping cart corral: o Shopping carts in parking lot will be a maintenance issue and information on this should be provided in application o Applicant says they will have a full-time person collecting carts so they aren’t scattered throughout the lot o Zoning official questioned possibility of having the carts stored further away from Main Street • Loading spaces: o Major concerns with on-street loading space. Planner and zoning official all indicate this will be an issue due to daycare center close by, school buses, and other morning traffic trying to navigate down Main Street o Applicant notes that on-site loading space will be for smaller box trucks and loading space on Main Street will be for larger trucks o Applicant notes on-street loading spot will be from 7am to 12pm and trucks will do quick drop offs of pallets roughly four times per week o Noted that Prospect Place cannot house a loading space because of the grade issues

o Concerns raised regarding how often large trucks would be coming to the site, whether or not the County would actually provide their approval, and generally the likelihood of this causing major traffic issues on Main Street o It was recommended that the Applicant reconsider the design of the loading spaces and parking lot o Another recommendation was that the loading could take place at a different time of the day, rather than during the peak morning hours ▪ Applicant expressed concern regarding urban design and walkability. The utilization of the corner of the lot by the building rather than parking is important for these factors o Other major concerns which need to be addressed include providing a site triangle and turning templates for Main Street • Circulation of parking area: o Concerns about back-in only spots not being practical and customers backing onto a right-of-way o Engineer needs more information regarding the circulation of the parking areas including proofs on record for the Prospect Place parking and information on the circulation for the spaces adjacent to Main Street o Concerns brought up regarding pedestrian movement through the parking area and if it would be feasible to include a crosswalk or clearer pedestrian path through the lot. Currently the lot is showing a lot of tight interactions between pedestrians and vehicles that could be dangerous, especially around the entrance from Main Street o Concern brought up regarding the lack of buffer space between the parking area and the building ▪ Recommendation to include bollards or other safety features if the buffer requirement cannot be met o Discussions brought up regarding location of the entrance of the building being further from Main Street to increase safety due to the dangerous interactions in the parking lot ▪ Applicant notes the importance of having the entrance near Main Street for more pedestrian access and walkability • Revised parking circulation drawings are needed before this application goes before the Board 6. Lighting:

• Concerns raised regarding the illumination levels and the application not currently meeting some of the requirements of the ordinance 7. Stormwater: • Engineer noted need for stormwater management compliance • Applicants indicated they needed to figure out the site layout issues first • O & M plan and record on deed is needed for the rain gardens • A high-level review is needed for the Board • Soil testing is required before Board approval 8. Other Points: • Applicant should provide a statement of operations • A letter from the Downtown Alliance regarding this application is expected 9. Conclusion: • Applicant to review and submits revised plans based on SPARB Comments • Another Technical meeting may be conducted, if necessary