May 7, 2025, Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes

maximum of four units. If the board grant more than four units, in Mr. Steck’s opinion, the board does not have the power to approve this application. BOARD QUESTIONS FOR OBJECTOR Chairman Bagoff asked Mr. Steck that is it his testimony that this building was in violation of a zoning ordinance when it was built. Mr. Steck said he doesn't know whether it was or not. Chairman Bagoff asked Mr. Steck if is it his understanding that pre-existing non- conforming is a violation. Mr. Steck said no, it's a non-conforming. Rather than using a violation, Mr. Steck will say there's a non-conformity and there's no evidence that the building placement was conforming at one time. Councilperson Scarpa asked how common is it that an ordinance like this for mixed use would not have a density limitation. Mr. Steck said there's not a standard way in his judgment of writing a conditional use. Mayor McCartney asked Mr. Steck to clarify the variance on height due to previous testimony that the height of the building would be 34 feet, which is a foot less than the standard 35 foot. Mr. Steck said if the applicant had a one story building and it was 6.8 feet back from the rear property line, there's no height limit. But because the applicant is outside of the building envelope, in Mr. Steck’s opinion, you need a variance from both the story height and the linear height. Mayor McCartney asked Mr. Steck to clarify about parking on a Saturday since there has never been a complaint about parking or traffic and it is by appointment only. Mr. Steck said except you look at the number of rooms there are in the site and you look at the number of seats in the waiting room. The ordinance doesn't say that it doesn't apply if there's no complaints. The applicant has attempted to show that there's enough parking, at least if you take into account shared parking. But in Mr. Steck’s opinion, the shared parking philosophy does not apply on a Saturday because most residential people will be home. Mayor McCartney asked Mr. Steck what he meant by a wrong standard that applied during technical review. Mr. Steck said both the architect's plan and the initial traffic report talked about a parking standard of one space for every 250 square feet. That applies on the right side of the building for generic offices. But during the initial review, it was not picked up that the medical offices has a

standard of one space for every 250 square feet. That applies on the right side of the building for generic offices. But during the initial review, it was not picked up that the medical offices has a higher standard, one per 150 square feet. Chairman Bagoff asked Mr. Steck is it his testimony that the building itself, if it is found to be built within a variance or at the time the zone plan allowed it. Mr. Steck said the applicant has presented no proof that this was permitted by zoning or that a variance was granted in the past. PROFESSIONAL COMMENTS FOR OBJECTOR Mr. Haizel said in terms of the density, this is something that they did look at before this application got to this point. The subsequent is correct, the ordinance is, in Mr. Haizel’s opinion, silent on that. They do provide the density standard for the dwelling units, but in terms of the density standard for a mixed use building in most of the other ordinances that Mr. Haizel’s familiar with, that there is a separate where there is a density measure listed. It is different and it is articulated for the mixed use as opposed to the individual. This ordinance does not do that. And one can take the position that Mr. Steck is taking that the density of a residential use by itself should be applied and it's not a residential use 11