The meeting’s central topic was the discussion surrounding the DL Development LLC application for the property on New York Pompton Turnpike. The representative for DL Development provided a comprehensive historical overview of the building, which has seen significant deterioration over the past 15 to 20 years. Originally operated by the Walker family as a market dating back to 1920, the building has undergone numerous modifications and currently stands as a mixed-use structure.

The property presents a unique zoning challenge as it is split between B1 and R1B zones, complicating redevelopment efforts. The proposed plan aims to maintain two residential units while introducing a retail space of approximately 1,800 square feet. This project required variances due to split zoning and existing non-conformities, including an encroachment into the right-of-way of Route 23.

The engineering witness detailed the site plan, including the lot dimensions, existing structures, and proposed improvements. The plan involves removing existing structures and constructing a new mixed-use building of approximately 2,600 square feet. Variances are needed for front and side yard setbacks, and the proposal includes 13 parking spaces, exceeding the required nine. Trash and recycling facilities would be located at the rear and screened from view.

A significant portion of the discussion focused on traffic concerns, specifically the adequacy of the proposed parking and the feasibility of left turns out of the driveway given the heavy traffic on Route 23. One board member highlighted safety concerns, noting the site’s long-standing shared driveway and increasing traffic congestion. Another member suggested that a no-left-turn restriction on residents could be burdensome. The engineering witness provided insights into stormwater management and the need for state permits due to the flood hazard area, emphasizing compliance with local and state regulations.

Architect Adam Loda, newly introduced to the town, discussed the architectural plans, focusing on the building’s height and the definitions of a half-story. Loda explained that the design aimed to maintain a two-and-a-half-story structure to avoid the need for a variance. However, the design did not meet all criteria for a half-story, particularly concerning the roof pitch. Loda emphasized that the design aligns with the overall intent of maintaining a lower profile in relation to neighboring properties and the street view.

Loda also addressed the building elevations, noting enhancements to provide more visual interest, as suggested by the planner. These modifications included additional design elements to increase the aesthetic appeal of the side elevations. The applicant proposed marking the updated plans as an exhibit for further consideration.

Further discussion highlighted parking provisions, with the applicant indicating that no parking variance would be necessary as they might have one extra space available. There were also discussions about signage, with a preference to avoid self-illuminated signs. Concerns were raised about the driveway’s design and safety, particularly regarding a curb jump and the potential difficulties for cars exiting the driveway at night. A board member suggested extending the curb to alleviate these concerns, and the architect affirmed efforts to address these within existing constraints.

The meeting also involved testimony from John Teina, a licensed planner, who spoke about the proposed application for a D1 use variance. Teina emphasized the need to establish that the site is particularly suited for the proposed use, addressing various criteria required by the board. He highlighted the mixed-use nature of the area and the project’s potential to provide substantial visual and functional improvements, arguing that even the aesthetic improvements alone could justify the relief sought.

Teina outlined three special reasons for the application: providing sufficient space for various uses, promoting a desirable visual environment through good civic design, and encouraging coordination of public and private land development procedures. He also discussed the challenges posed by floodplain regulations and the architect’s efforts to address these concerns.

During the public commentary phase, there were no immediate questions from the audience. Board members discussed maintaining accessibility during the construction phase, particularly due to the proximity of a church. A board member proposed ensuring that the sidewalk remained open throughout construction, highlighting the potential inconvenience caused by sidewalk closures. The chair responded positively.