HOLYOKE – During their Sept. 13 meeting the Planning Board met with representatives of an applicant for a potential Dunkin Donuts and Delaney’s Market at 500 Easthampton Rd. for a site plan review of the proposed project.

Quickly the conversations became limited as Planning Board members felt they were not given enough information with time to review before their scheduled public hearing. Planning Board Chair Mimi Panitch opened the discussion saying while they did want to hear from the applicants, they were in a situation where they have to consider this as “session zero” of the hearing.

According to Panitch, the Planning Board was hearing this application pursuant to a remand order from the Land Court, the terms of which the parties agreed to before asking the court to approve the order. Under the order applicants, Salmar Realty LLC (the Dunkin franchise owner) and the Log Cabin And Banquet House, LLC (owners of the property and Delaney’s Market), agreed with the board that unless there was good cause shown, the public hearing would continue for no more than three sessions.

The issue from the meeting was whether the Sept. 13 session should count as one of the three. The question was left essentially unresolved and to be revisited in the future if necessary.

Panitch and other members of the board felt that due to sections in Holyoke’s Zoning Ordinance which states what would normally be included in a set of project plans for site review as well as narratives and traffic information, it would be difficult for them to ask the proper and necessary questions of the project as this information had yet to be provided in full.

Panitch read some of the relevant language of the remand order that stated the plaintiffs agreed to prepare and submit, “a supplemental traffic report addressing site circulation and site entry/exit, and traffic flow impacted by the left turn lane and deceleration lane; an overlay showing the difference between the revised plan and the initial plan; and an updated stormwater report.”

Working on behalf of the applicants is engineer Robert Levesque, who requested that even with some missing information, he still wished to give an update of where things stand on the project. Levesque felt they could still have a productive discussion on the project and were looking for feedback on what they have so they know what to focus on in between the next time the parties meet.

Panitch was open to hearing from the applicants but still cautioned the applicants they may not receive the best questions from the board with information missing. Leveque respectfully suggested they at least look at the updated circulation plans for the proposal if they are not to have the typical public hearing. Peter Rosskothen, owner of the Log Cabin, apologized for the situation and said they did not want to frustrate the process.

Owner of Salmar Realty Peter Martins added he felt it may not be the right thing to continue the hearing and have the board deliberate on something they felt unprepared for due to the missing materials.

“I think we came here tonight looking to make some progress in general. Since we missed the mark, it doesn’t feel right to ask you to deliberate on this in the moment,” Martins said. “In an attempt to move this peacefully and continue this process we can ask questions outside the hearing and provide everything needed.”

Martins added he would hate to waste or confuse information without the proper time for the Planning Board to review all the information required.

“What we really need is we get the complete submission package in order, all materials with time to review, four weeks of time needed to circulate for comments, then we can come back and give attention and the type of review you are looking for,” Panitch said. “I just don’t think we are going to give you the kind of feedback you are looking for.”

Planning Board member Rosanna Lopez agreed with Panitch’s comments and felt it would not be fair to the applicants. Member Kate Kruckemeyer said she was still interested in hearing what the applicants had to present and felt the board could still provide some questions to that information that would be useful in this process.

Representing the applicants was Harry Miles and Michael Pill of Green Miles Lipton, LLP. Miles said while he appreciated the difficulty of the board reviewing changes, he felt there weren’t substantial changes made and most of the information was compiled information from previous discussions. Miles added he was in favor of allowing Levesque to present and receive feedback on the information they have.

Representing the Planning Board was John Bagley of Morrison Mahoney LLP, who said he felt Panitch had made a valid point based on the agreement made. But he also felt it would be fine to have a discussion on where things were at even with the missing information.

“We are all here to get as much info as possible to the Planning Board so they can make a fair decision on this application so if folks have some time to hear from them, I think that’s terrific. But emphasizing the point made, we want to be able to give you a road map toward what to expect and that can’t happen tonight.”

Levesque was able to present some information and receive feedback from the board on the circulation portion of the proposal. The question of if the meeting counts as session one of the agreed public hearing limits will be revisited in the future, if necessary, which will be determined by the lawyers and parties involved. The parties will meet again later in the year for a public hearing.