The meeting addressed the application by Plus Holdings LLC, which seeks approval for an apartment building. The representatives of Plus Holdings presented site plan revisions, a rendering of the building’s front elevation, and a wetlands consultant report. Board members and professionals raised several concerns regarding the design and materials of the building, including the lack of a significant roof structure and the potential development of adjacent properties affecting its visibility.

The discussion continued with a focus on whether the proposed flat roof and parapet wall complied with the town’s ordinance. The board members expressed preferences for lighter shades for the building’s exterior and discussed the need for soundproofing between units. The potential improvements to the sides and rear of the building to align with the ordinance and the overall architectural design were also debated.

Further, members of the board and the public raised concerns about the appearance of the building, particularly the sides and rear, and whether it aligned with the architectural style of the established theme within the Town Center. Questions were raised about the materials and colors used on the sides and back of the building, as well as the placement of brick and cultured stone. The public comment section included questions about the windows on the second floor and the presence of lightning rods.

The meeting also covered the 24-711 application submitted by JP Morgan Chase Bank for approval of a solar carport. Members of the board discussed bird prevention measures for the flat roof, potential fire hazards of PVC balconies, and the building’s visibility from a nearby road. Public comments included objections to the building’s design and questions about safety features such as window guards and fire truck access.

In response to the extensive testimony and debates, the board decided to carry the meeting to the next available date, scheduled for June 19th, due to time constraints and the need for further testimony from the applicant. Discussions touched on various aspects of the building’s design and safety measures, with the board attorney requesting to continue the meeting to allow for a review.

While the design of the proposed building took center stage, the board also approved three resolutions, including the review of the capital improvement plan for classroom additions, a minor subdivision application, and a reapproval for a subdivision application. Each resolution was approved with minor or no amendments.

The board approved the executive session to discuss attorney-client privilege matters concerning two legal cases. Following the executive session, a motion was authorized for the attorney to draft and execute an agreement requiring the applicant to return to the board with specific revisions.

The meeting delved into a proposed development site’s details, discussing excavated material amounts, pedestrian access, parking and loading spaces, and waivers for certain design requirements. Landscaping plans, the storm drainage system, and approvals for tie-ins to drainage were also reviewed. The engineer presented a traffic report, addressing the proposed development’s traffic generation compared to previous uses of the property.

Additionally, public concerns were voiced by Alex Barard about changes to the ordinance in 2022 related to the enforcement of site plan applications and the impact on small local businesses. Mark Scott highlighted issues regarding hazardous materials within the Ed Zone, and Adrian Mayman suggested consulting with a color specialist for building color schemes.