6 24 26 WO PB Draft Minutes

7 - Mr. Petry identifies the Manor Room as the room historically used for the à la carte dining and lobster buffet. - He explains that the lounge was used for private or public dining, with a bar also located in the area, while the Virginia Room served as a banquet room. - Mr. Petry explains that the current proposal involves modifications to the existing spaces. - The former Manor Room will become the Sinatra Room, and notes that the room is located directly off the kitchen. - Mr. Petry states that structural issues previously identified in the Manor Room have been addressed as part of the proposed structural renovation. - Mr. Petry explains that the former dining area will become more of a lounge area, while the Virginia Room and the greenery will be opened up and combined into one pre- function space. ○ The pre-function area will be able to spill over into the Sinatra Room when necessary. - Mr. Petry explained that the existing patio will be extended across the width of the room and will also be covered. - The completed rear of the building will have an updated appearance while maintaining the character of the existing structure. - Mr. Petry described the existing rear elevation, noting that it has the same type of sloped glass that was discussed on the front of the building, along with a mansard-style roof that previously accommodated second-floor office space. - Mr. Petry explained that much of the office space has been removed, with the intention of raising the ceiling in the area and providing larger windows and a colonnade along the rear of the building. - The proposed changes will allow people to come through the bump-out doors onto the patio, with windows opening onto the patio across the rear of the building. - Mr. Petry explained that the existing sloped glass area at the rear will be lifted to provide a larger span of windows and bring more natural light into the space. - The ceiling height will also be increased because multiple ceilings were found in the existing space. ○ The work will strip the area down to a single ceiling. - Mr. Petry noted that the roof has already been replaced as part of the work completed to date. - The rear façade will receive a fresh look while remaining classic in its architectural integrity. - Mr. Petry discussed the existing carriage house and its first-floor plan. ○ He described it as a Z-shaped or S-shaped

ill receive a fresh look while remaining classic in its architectural integrity. - Mr. Petry discussed the existing carriage house and its first-floor plan. ○ He described it as a Z-shaped or S-shaped building. - The existing first floor includes ○ Greenhouse area off the foyer ○ Living room ○ Powder room near the stairs ○ Dining room ○ Kitchen ○ Bedrooms in the rear - Mr. Petry explained that this was the house that Harry Knowles moved into when he opened the property in 1956. ○ Mr. Knowles and his wife raised their sons, Kurt and Wade, in the house. - Mr. Petry explained that in the 1970s, the family modified the second floor. ○ The modification included a separate kitchen and a four-bedroom space.

8 - The second-floor space was later used to house the chefs for both the Manor and the High Lawn Pavilion throughout the 1980s, 1990s, and into the 2020s, before the facility shut down. - Mr. Petry emphasized that the layout and fixtures within these spaces are quite old. - Mr. Petry explained that the second floor is accessed from the interior through the first floor, but there is also an exterior entrance. - There are stairs on both the east and west sides of the building that lead to a balcony, with a doorway providing access to the second-floor apartment. - Mr. Petry stated that the intention is to eliminate the residential use on the first floor and eliminate the residential use in the front portion of the second floor. - The remaining front portion of the second floor will be used for a bathroom and locker rooms for restaurant staff. - Mr. Petry explained that the balance of the second-floor space will remain a two- bedroom, one-study apartment and will have exterior access. - Mr. Petry showed that the stairs come up to a porch facing the parking lot. - There are three doors on the façade, two of which are dummy doors included only for aesthetic purposes. - The third door is the actual entrance to the apartment. ○ Mr. Petry explained that the door is located on an intermediate level, which he referred to as a “tweener,” rather than directly on the first or second floor. - Mr. Petry emphasized that this is an exterior entrance that services only the apartment and does not provide access to any other portion of the building. - Mr. Petry referred to the restaurant exhibit and explained that the same floor plan shows the stairs, the exterior entrance, and the stairs leading into the apartment. ○ He also noted that there is a rear stair that comes up to the same area. - Mr. Petry explained that the stairs lead to a mid-level patio facing the parking lot. - Mr. Petry explained that the proposed plan closes up the wall separating the apartment from the staff area. - The apartment will also contain a study overlooking the dining area, a living/dining room, and a kitchen. - Mr. Petry clarified the proposed square footage of the second-floor uses: approximately 1,845 square feet for the two-bedroom apartment and 525 square feet for restaurant staff use. - Mr. Petry noted that the diagram identifies the square footage of these areas, as well as the individual

1,845 square feet for the two-bedroom apartment and 525 square feet for restaurant staff use. - Mr. Petry noted that the diagram identifies the square footage of these areas, as well as the individual square footage of the rooms, so that the information is included in the record - Mr. Petry then moved on to discuss the requested variances. - Mr. Petry stated that the project will eliminate a long-time historic non-conformance involving impervious coverage on the property. - He reminded the board that during Phase 1, the project reduced impervious coverage despite increasing the number of parking spaces. ○ This was accomplished by reconfiguring the parking, adding landscape islands within the parking area, relocating the driveway, and providing additional landscape area along the driveway. - The property will now comply with the 60% limitation, with impervious coverage reduced to 59.76%. - Mr. Petry stated that all other existing nonconformances are unaffected by the proposed improvements. - Mr. Petry addressed the planner's indication that a variance may be required for 26 parking spaces without an island.

9 ○ He believed those 26 spaces are located in the front and explained that those spaces, along with another 29 spaces, were all part of the Phase 1 plan. - Mr. Petry stated that if the board determines that variances are necessary for those spaces despite their inclusion in Phase 1, he would provide proofs for the variances. - He emphasized that the landscaping within those parking lots is being improved through the addition of landscape islands. - Mr. Petry also discussed the parking along the common property line with the hotel. - He identified 22 to 28 existing spaces in that area and stated that those spaces are existing, with the project only reconfiguring Lot C in that location. ○ Mr. Petry said that if the board considers those spaces to require variances, he will also provide proof for those variances. - Mr. Petry stated that if the board is hesitant to grant the variances, the applicant will add islands and reduce the parking count. - He reminded the board that the project is increasing parking by 15 spaces, so even if several spaces are removed to accommodate additional islands, the property would still increase its parking count by approximately 10 spaces. - Mr. Petry then addressed the driveways and explained that the project needed to confirm their configuration. - The northerly driveway from Prospect Avenue to the parking lot functions as an ingress driveway and is one-way into the site. - Mr. Petry explained that from the northerly driveway to the parking lot intersection, traffic is one-way entering the property. - From the drop-off area at the front doors of the Manor, where Lot B intersects the driveway, traffic traveling east uses an exit driveway. ○ Mr. Petry emphasized that the eastern driveway has always been one-way out and will remain one-way out. - The purpose of the configuration is to allow people arriving for a banquet to queue without backing out onto the road. - The configuration also allows vehicles to queue without having incoming and outgoing traffic interfere with one another, with left-turn traffic able to form one lane and right- turn traffic able to form another. - Mr. Petry stated that this is how the property has always operated and that the project has improved the condition by increasing the flat area at the top of the driveway. - Mr. Petry then discussed several other existing conditions and potential variances. -

operated and that the project has improved the condition by increasing the flat area at the top of the driveway. - Mr. Petry then discussed several other existing conditions and potential variances. - He addressed a new stormwater management ordinance that was adopted in May 2025. - Mr. Petry explained that the new ordinance requires storage for 50% of the existing stormwater runoff for the two-year storm. - He stated that he was not certain whether the ordinance applies because the current proposal is a modification to an application that was filed before the ordinance was adopted. - If the ordinance is applicable, Mr. Petry argued that the project is making significant improvements to stormwater runoff conditions because impervious coverage is being reduced. - Mr. Petry emphasized that although this is a major development, the project will reduce stormwater runoff in every storm and will reduce the total volume of runoff, not simply the peak runoff. - He explained that while detention can prevent an increase in peak runoff, this project will actually decrease both the peak and the total volume of runoff. - Mr. Petry then discussed the gazebo as another potential variance.

10 - 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. ○ 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. ○ 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

etry 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 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.

11 - Mr. Petry stated that the project does not create any substantial detriment and does not affect the existing landscape buffer in the rear. - He characterized the improvements as internal and stated that every part of the property that has been touched by the project has been improved. - Mr. Petry specifically pointed to the decision to move the entire restaurant into the carriage house as an improvement because it brings the facility closer to conformance with the ordinance. - Mr. Petry stated that the applicant believes it has met the standard of proof and presented an exceptional project to the board, and he asked the board for its consideration and approval. BOARD QUESTIONS - Chairman Bagoff asked about the latest stormwater management iteration. He asked whether documentation could be provided showing that the proposed changes, including the decrease in impervious coverage and addition of green spaces, would address residual stormwater management from the two-year flood on the site without requiring separate holding tanks. Mr. Petry stated that he believed the stormwater management report already addressed this. - Chairman Bagoff asked how many tree islands would be required if the applicant were to install islands in both parking lots to eliminate areas with more than 20 parking spaces in a row. Mr. Petry explained that the parking row fronting Prospect Avenue, which was part of Phase 1, contains 26 spaces and would require one island. The parking area abutting the driveway in Lot B contains 29 spaces and would require another island. He then explained that the existing parking in Lot C toward the hotel side has a row of 22 spaces requiring one island, another row with 28 spaces requiring another island, and a back row with 23 compact spaces requiring a fifth island. - Mayor McCartney asked if there are other options than the turf. She suggested considering an alternative such as porous damp concrete or another material. Mr. Petry said they could certainly look at alternatives. He stated that he was not aware of porous stamped concrete but knew that porous concrete was available. - Mr. McPherson stated they are willing to look into alternatives - Mayor McCartney wondered whether the apartment might be used by guests, such as a bride or groom, similar to arrangements at Pleasantdale Chateau where a room is available for people attending an event.

yor McCartney wondered whether the apartment might be used by guests, such as a bride or groom, similar to arrangements at Pleasantdale Chateau where a room is available for people attending an event. Mr. Petry explained that, since the last meeting, the owner or a group headed by the owner had purchased the residence property as well, meaning they now control both properties. He clarified that the apartment in question was intended purely for a staff member rather than for event guests. - Mr. Guarino asked about the driveways and whether the project would ensure that sight lines were significantly improved so that drivers exiting the property would be able to see traffic traveling along Prospect. Mr. Petry stated that improving the sight lines had been one of his priorities. He said he had personally found the existing driveway dangerous when leaving the facility and had immediately suggested improving the exit drive to the purchaser, who agreed with him. - Mr. Guarino asked whether sidewalks would be installed along the entire frontage of the property, connecting to Woodland Avenue. Mr. Petry confirmed that they would. - Mr. Guarino asked how people staying at the Residence Inn would access the property now that the owner also controls the Residence Inn. Mr. Petry explained that there has historically been a walkway across the front of the Residence Inn that comes down and