Filed Complaint with Exhibit

21. The Board Planner, Gerard Haizel, testified that the proposed project would be the largest building in the area with only the Senior Building located a block away being larger. 22. Mr. Haizel further testified that parking was driving the design of the building because to achieve the necessary depth for parking the building had to cover most of the lot, but a smaller building would be more fitting. 23. Mr. Haizel expressed concern about the limited on-site parking, especially m comparison to the limited residential parking in the immediate vicinity. 24. Mr. Haizel also noted that the other buildings on Main Street in the area were significantly smaller than the proposed building and the length of the proposed building reinforces that size factor. 25. The majority of the Board members opined that the proposed building with 12 apartment units was too large for the site as they were concerned about the lack of parking provided on site and that there was no available on-site parking for the commercial space. 26. A majority of the Board members opined that the scale of the building and the close setback to Main Street was not in keeping with the other buildings in the area. 27. Most Board members were concerned about the safety of the tenants crossing Main Street to access parking, even with a crosswalk added to the area. 28. Board members did not find that the option of parking at the municipal lot a block away was a realistic option for the residents as they believed that rather than walk late at night or in inclement weather the most likely action taken by residents that did not have on-site parking was to park on the already over-crowded North and South Park Drive. {410 Main Street Draft Resolution}13ESX-L-001637-25 02/28/2025 2:34:16 PM Pg 13 of 16 Trans ID: LCV2025492774