6 24 26 WO PB Draft Minutes

13 entrance has been created. However, she stated that a condition should be imposed limiting the apartment's use to staff members. - Ms. Apte asked Mr. Petry if he had reviewed the planner's reports dated June 5, 2026, and June 17, 2026. Mr. Petry confirmed that he had reviewed them. - Ms. Apte asked for clarification regarding the parking described in the testimony. She asked whether the restaurant and banquet facility would have a combined maximum occupancy of 1,563 persons. Mr. Petry confirmed that the combined maximum occupancy of the restaurant and banquet facility would be 1,563 persons. - Ms. Apte stated that the technical parking requirement would be 488 spaces and asked whether Mr. Petry’s testimony was that the 486 spaces being proposed would be sufficient, based on his extensive experience as the architect and engineer for the site. Mr. Petry said that he believes the proposed parking is sufficient. - Ms. Apte recommended that the Board recognize that the zoning permits a shared parking arrangement and that the apartment is a deed-restricted unit. She stated that the maximum occupancy of the site is 1,563 and that the proposed parking would be sufficient, but she wanted the record to be clear regarding the technical parking requirement. - Ms. Apte asked Mr. Petry whether he believed there would be sufficient lighting on the property based on the amount of lighting being proposed. Mr. Petry testified that the proposed lighting is comprehensive, appropriately scaled, and night-sky compliant. He stated that they believe it will adequately service the site, including the entry and exit serving the property. - Mr. MacNeill asked Mr. Petry whether the EV parking spaces would be make-ready spaces or whether all of the spaces would be installed during the first year. Mr. Petry stated that they agreed to complete at least the Phase 1 EV spaces during the first year. If the Phase 2 spaces are completed at a later time, they will be installed in accordance with the applicable regulations. He noted that, depending on the vendor and financial considerations, they may decide that it makes more sense to install all of the spaces at once. - Mr. MacNeill clarified that the applicant was essentially retaining the option to make all of the Phase 2 spaces make-ready or have them fully installed, while following the State statute governing those make-ready spaces.

that the applicant was essentially retaining the option to make all of the Phase 2 spaces make-ready or have them fully installed, while following the State statute governing those make-ready spaces. Mr. Petry confirmed that this was correct. PROFESSIONAL COMMENTS - Ms. Apte stated that she agreed with Chairman Bagoff’s suggestion regarding the gazebo and recommended that, if the variance for the buffer is granted, landscaping in that area be maintained. - Regarding signage, Ms. Apte explained that her memo only identified an existing freestanding sign. She stated that she did not have details about the sign and did not know whether a variance was required. She wanted the record to make clear that she had not identified any sign variances unless the applicant had identified them and provided that information. - Mr. Petry testified that the intention is to maintain the existing signs in their existing locations and simply re-letter them. He stated that the signs are smaller in scale than what is typically seen for facilities of this type. - Ms. Apte reiterated that she simply wanted to make the record clear that she was not aware of any sign variances. If the signs remain as they currently exist, they would remain as is.