May 7, 2025, Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes

applicant says they’ll have limit residential tenants to one parking space. There still has to be a place for guests to park and the difficult day is Saturday. That's when the medical offices are going to be open and that's the day when a lot of people don't work. So it's not clear, in Mr. Steck’s opinion, that the applicant has met its burden in terms of the supply of parking. Part of Mr. Steck’s analysis was to look at the surrounding area. This is a fully developed area. This building is unique, and it's the reverse of what is normally required. If you look at the design standards, you're supposed to have a building that's up toward the street to have pedestrian traffic. If that was the case, there'd be parking in the rear, and in Mr. Steck’s opinion, that's the appropriate scenario because that parking would be depressed in elevation, and it could be buffered, but the building can't be buffered. There are historic characteristics of the area that ought to be taken into account. In 2019, the re-examination report recommended that the zone be changed from OB1 to B1, and the rationale was consistent with existing land uses and desired future use. To be consistent with land uses, it would be a dwelling or a multiple dwelling up toward the front. Mr. Steck took a look at the downtown alliance designs guidelines that are in the ordinance, and it says that roof shapes should be like the surrounding structures. The new building, any new building, in this case, is the third floor, would have the same relative placement as other structures in the area. It says that new construction ought to respect the established rhythms of the streetscape, and you should use materials that are common in the area. So for someone to say that this is consistent with the area, in Mr. Steck’s opinion, is not correct. Mr. Steck went over 2 definitions from the ordinance. One is what a mixed-use development is, and it says a building or buildings that include one or more dwelling units above one or more non-residential uses on the ground floor. So Mr. McDonough says the master plan encourages a mixed use, and the zoning ordinance has it as a conditional use, and a mixed use doesn't say you need seven dwelling units. A mixed use says as long as you have a dwelling unit on the second floor, that's a mixed use. If the applicant didn't construct a third story, and had three or four

say you need seven dwelling units. A mixed use says as long as you have a dwelling unit on the second floor, that's a mixed use. If the applicant didn't construct a third story, and had three or four dwelling units on the second story, that's a mixed use, and that's one that is encouraged by the zoning ordinance. There's also a definition of a mixed use, it shall mean the dual use of a single parcel of land, all parking, yard, buffer, and other requirements applicable to each individual use shall be applied to the combined use. Mr. Steck thinks that relates to the issue of whether a density variance is needed. The burden is on the applicant to provide testimony, and so Mr. Steck reviewed briefly Mr. McDonough's testimony, and said why he respectfully disagree with what he says. Mr. McDonough first says that because the third story meets the linear height limit, that the only variance they need is for the number of stories. Mr. Steck believes that’s wrong. The back 30 feet of the property is supposed to have a building height of zero feet. There’s not supposed to be a building there. In addition to needing a variance for the third story, the applicant needs a linear height variance for the back 30 feet of the property. Mr. Steck said Mr. McDonough was silent on that part. He only had the statement that the only variance in terms of height was the third story instead of two and a half stories, and Mr. Steck said that's incorrect because there's not supposed to be any height in the back 30 feet. Mr. McDonough said that the downslope of the property mitigates the variance here. On the lower left-hand side of Page 6, visually, and again, the land slopes downward, but visually from the pavement in front of the building and at the bottom of that retaining