12 11 2024 WO PB Draft Minutes

• The applicant wanted to provide a use that is the best possible use of this site when you compare it to alternatives such as a 7/11 convenience store, a funeral home, things of that nature. • Several comments and concerns from the board have been addressed such as design, adding a green roof, garage warning signals, pedestrian safety concerns, • Despite traffic testimony stating that parking overflow is unlikely to occur, they still provided offsite parking in case of overflow. • They have agreed to work with the county to install pedestrian safety crosswalk with a lighted beacon across Main Street. • The bulk standards are what really did not change from the B2. A 30% building coverage, for example, is great for a 7/11 but that doesn’t work for a mixed-use building as stated in previous testimonies. BOARD QUESTIONS • Mr. Guarino asked did you or the developers go out and meet your potential new neighbors and asked them their opinion about how they feel about a project like this. Mr. Wine said his client did attempt to knock on a couple of doors at different times of the day and reported back that nobody answered the doors. Ms. Kapferer asked if there is an affordable housing component. Mr. Wine said they would comply with the ordinance requirements. The requirements of the affordable units are built at the exact same specification as the market rate unit. BOARD COMMENTS • Mr. Haizel said there are several conditions that the applicant needs to meet to be permitted as a conditional use including: permitted ground floor use, one of the dwelling units shall be permitted in the upper floors, the upper floor needs a separate entry, and a minimum lot area for this use would 5,000 square feet. In this instance, the applicant meets all of these conditions. The lot size is actually more than double the minimum required. That, in part, is where some concerns of the project come in. This would be the largest building in the area. One of the issues that was most previously discussed was the parking and to accommodate the parking on the ground floor to get the necessary depth, the building needs to utilize most of the lot. Mr. Haizel looked at the possibility of reducing the number of units which would bring the potential size down but if you are going to provide onsite parking, you are not going to lose some of the depth that they are taking, you may have to pull the

the number of units which would bring the potential size down but if you are going to provide onsite parking, you are not going to lose some of the depth that they are taking, you may have to pull the building in from the sides but the street frontage would still remain fairly large; you can maybe increase the setback. He thinks this is a good use for the site, it’s in keeping with what the master plan and the zoning ordinance envision for this area, it would be an opportunity to spread the commercial activity. It will also help in calming down the 4-lane road way that cars speed down. The applicant has an application that is conforming to the conditional use standards, however, there are a few variances in terms of setbacks due to the size. A smaller building would probably be more fitting to the character of the town. Mr. Haizel thinks this is a good use and should be accommodated here but he is concerned about the size relative to everything else around it as it is significantly larger. He is concerned about what it will do to Park Drive North; he thinks it will definitely increase vehicle traffic, not to say it would cause a substantial detriment to that area, but the street is narrow already.