July 2, 2025 Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes

is shown in the existing conditions, but on the site plan portion, they are not shown where the proposed lift is going to be placed. Ms. McGovern asked regarding Ms. Bullock’s statement earlier that she agreed with everything in the Matrix report dated June 30th, 2025, with the exception of the parking variance, what was the other option. Ms. Bullock said the other one was the request for addressing the lighting concerns. They will make sure that the plan is revised to depict the existing poles on site and make modifications if necessary if they have more than 0.3- foot candles going beyond the property line. PUBLIC QUESTIONS Stan Shapiro at 12 Edge Hill Road asked regarding the other 6 properties that are up close to the sidewalk on Main Street, and if only the subject property is set back over 120 feet off the sidewalk, then it's not in line with the rest. Ms. Bullock said the study was to show the building heights in the area. These houses require the same building height as their building, and they're showing that the actual building heights are greater. Mr. Shapiro asked regarding the testimony of the measured heights of the residential properties, were any of the residential properties flat roofed. Ms. Bullock said no, they were not. Mr. Shapiro asked, if measurements of the lowest part of the roofs were made and what proportion is at that highest peak. Ms. Bullock said the definition for building height is the average grade to the peak of the dwelling and that's what they did. Eric Buckley at 8 Edge Hill Court asked if currently the roof peak is shown at 221.7 and another 15 to 20 feet is being added on top of that, then now the average roof peak would be roughly 15 feet higher than all the rest of the building's surrounding area. Ms. Bullock said they’re adding 9.4 feet to it, therefore the proposed elevation will be at 231.1. Mr. Buckley asked is that measured to the roof or to the parapet. Ms. Bullock said that's for the architectural plans where he has the top of the parapet, but she is not 100% certain as she does not have those plans in front of her. Mr. Buckley asked will the building be roughly 10 feet above, in terms of ground level, above the adjacent property. Ms. Bullock said that's correct. Mr. Buckley asked if you're adding a story to this building, wouldn't the extra story be | required to adhere to that setback. Mr. Zeberl

above the adjacent property. Ms. Bullock said that's correct. Mr. Buckley asked if you're adding a story to this building, wouldn't the extra story be | required to adhere to that setback. Mr. Zeberl said that's a legal requirement, and that is not how the law is interpreted. The law says that you look at the building footprint, not the addition upwards. That was addressed in Mr. McDonough's planning testimony, they are requesting a variance, but only to the existing nonconformity. Ann Hirsh at 12 Edge Hill Road asked Ms. Bullock if she sees that the closeness does make a difference to the people living around the building. Ms. Bullock said the buildings in these lots are not required to be adjacent to the front property lines. These houses could have been set back further if the developer desired. Jonatha Barton at 10 Edge Hill asked of the properties that were mentioned, which is the property where the building is the closest to the property line. Ms. Bullock said lot 3. Mr. Barton asked why the property that is closest to the subject building was not included in the height study. Ms. Bullock said it was requested that they get the adjacent building heights. Mr. Barton asked if it was suggested that the applicant in the case if it were to be approved, that they would be required to offer landscaping to the properties that were abutting it. Mr. Cox said it's not a precondition, one can't require it, but he will plant some trees in the back for Mr. Barton. PUBLIC COMMENT 12