The board’s attention was primarily drawn to the application presented by Craig Janetti on behalf of Mineber Road Urban LLC. The application sought to amend design elements across three affordable housing sites on Burners Avenue, 18 Mount Air Road, and Mine Brook Road. The proposed changes primarily involved substituting fiber cement siding with vinyl siding and replacing standing seam metal roofs with asphalt shingles. These adjustments, according to Janetti, were necessary to address cost overruns in the project. He reassured the board that the proposed changes adhered to zoning ordinances and design standards, explicitly stating, “We’re not seeking any relief in connection with it.”

The discussion intensified around the environmental implications of using asphalt shingles, which might contribute to petroleum runoff. Despite acknowledging these concerns, the architect clarified that there are no regulatory prohibitions against using asphalt shingles. The board members expressed their interest in ensuring that the project’s materials align with both aesthetic appeal and environmental efficiency. The architect provided samples of the new materials, allowing the board to conduct a comparative analysis with the originally proposed materials, emphasizing that the dimensions of the buildings remained unchanged.

A significant portion of the meeting addressed the visual impact of the development, particularly as one building would be highly visible from a nearby traffic light. A board member underscored the importance of using higher quality siding on the fronts of these structures to enhance the community’s aesthetic, despite budget constraints. The sentiment was echoed by other members, who maintained that the development should present a visually appealing façade, reflecting well on the community.

Further discussions revealed that the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee had been consulted on the color selections for the buildings, which were adjusted due to material availability. The committee provided feedback on these changes, and there were no significant objections reported. However, the topic of vinyl siding versus fiber cement siding did lead to a suggestion that future resolutions might include conditions to prevent assumptions that vinyl siding is always acceptable.

Public commentary was invited, and attendees raised questions about the project, including the electrical metering of each unit, which was confirmed to be individually managed. Additionally, the matter of excess dirt from excavation was discussed, with suggestions for potential collaboration with the council to find beneficial uses for the fill nearby.

The board also considered suggestions for improving the development’s visibility, such as installing a monument sign large enough to capture the attention of passing drivers. This proposal highlighted concerns about the building’s impact on the town’s visual landscape, stressing the importance of quality standards despite financial limitations.

Ultimately, the board moved to approve the proposed changes to the site plan, including the design modifications and material selections. During the procedural vote, members emphasized the necessity of accurately communicating the building’s street number.

In addition to the main application, the board reviewed a separate matter concerning a different location, focusing on stipulations regarding outdoor seating relative to interior arrangements. This review concluded without further public comments.