June 24, 2026, Planning Board Special Meeting Minutes

He explained that the gazebo has been relocated to a location within the 50-foot residential setback. Mr. Petry stated that the relocation was intentional because of the walkway leading directly toward the rear of the property. o The walkway had previously been offset in order to accommodate the gazebo. Mr. Petry argued that, given the existing berm and evergreen trees along the berm, there is more than a sufficient buffer and the gazebo will never be visible from the properties on the rear of Deerfield. Mr. Petry stated that if the board disagrees, the applicant will relocate the gazebo Mr. Petry also discussed the request for an increase in occupancy He stated that if the board is uncomfortable with the requested occupancy or wants additional landscape islands in the parking lot, the applicant will find a way to work with the conditions imposed. Mr. Petry clarified that the occupancy would apply to both the banquet facility and the restaurant. Mr. Petry addressed the EV spaces and explained that the applicant expects that the EV spaces will likely all be installed at the same time, although Phase 1 and Phase 2 may be separated if permitted by code. Mr. Petry then addressed lighting and the variance identified for light spillage into the right-of-way. He stated that the' lighting was designed that way intentionally and that the lighting configuration was part of Phase 1. If the board determines that the light spillage should be treated as a variance, Mr. Petry argued that good intersection design calls for intersections to be well lit. He stated that the entry and exit driveways are appropriately lit and that the two entry driveways are the only locations where there is spillage into the right-of-way. Mr. Petry argued that having a “splash of light” at these locations is good design because it improves visibility at the intersections. He acknowledged that there is also some light overlap onto the neighboring hotel property, but explained that the parking in that area is part of the facility. o He therefore believes that this condition should also be appropriately granted if the board determines that a variance is required. Mr. Petry addressed signage. He explained that the intention is for the existing signs to remain and be reused at the same size and in the same locations. If the existing signs are considered variances despite being

ssed signage. He explained that the intention is for the existing signs to remain and be reused at the same size and in the same locations. If the existing signs are considered variances despite being existing conditions, the applicant will request those variances Mr. Petry emphasized that the applicant is not requesting an increase in signage or a general relocation of the signage. He noted that the exit driveway sign stating “exit only” may be relocated into the new island of the exit driveway because the driveway itself is moving slightly. Mr. Petry concluded that, globally, the project can be considered under a C2 standard and that there are substantial benefits to the proposal. He identified the relocation of the driveways as a benefit because it creates a safer transportation route. He identified the increase in parking as another benefit because it creates a more effective operation. He also emphasized the reduction in impervious coverage as a major benefit. Mr. Petry stated that the project globally improves the site while providing renovations that retain its character and history.