The PUD recommends separating projects of this size that stretch across several streets, according to resident and Conservation Commission member Mike Speltz.
“If four lanes of 1-93 don’t qualify as a road, I don’t know what does,” he said at the meeting.
Jack Falvey, an abutter, said he thought the PUD should be addressed in different segments.
Falvey said the plans themselves clearly identify the project in different sections, and should be treated as such. He added Brovitz was too vague, and did not address enough differences between applications.
The board has 65 days to review any technical issues with the application, although continuances for the review process may be made, board Chairman Arthur Rugg said.
Some board members said 65 days would not be enough time to review the development, and to address different waivers and variances involved in the project.
“We are willing to work as hard as we can to meet that deadline,” Brovitz said.
The Planning Board will meet on Nov. 14 to further discuss specific technical questions.