The proposal’s design was a point of contention. The facility’s resemblance to a warehouse rather than a commercial office was highlighted by both residents and board members. Critics pointed out that the building’s stark appearance and large size did not align with the aesthetic character of the neighborhood. The discussion included concerns about the potential for the facility to function similarly to a warehouse, a use not permitted under current zoning regulations. Specific worries were expressed about the possibility of frequent vehicle activity disrupting the area, as well as questions about what materials might be stored within the facility, particularly if they could be hazardous.

Landscaping plans also drew discussion. Adjustments to the site plan aimed to reduce tree removal, but there were still concerns about the adequacy of the proposed vegetative buffers. Current plans suggest replacing removed trees with new plantings, resulting in a net increase in tree count. However, a waiver was requested regarding the types of trees to be used, as the proposed buffer does not meet the ordinance’s requirement for evergreen coverage. Residents and board members emphasized the importance of robust landscaping to maintain the character of the neighborhood and provide visual screening for the large structure.

The height of the proposed building was another focal point. Although the building’s height of 31 feet is within commercial zone limits, concerns were raised about its visibility from nearby residential properties. Some residents argued that the building would be clearly visible over the treeline, affecting their views and the overall neighborhood aesthetics. The discussion included calls for clearer visual representations to assess the building’s impact from various vantage points, particularly from homes situated at higher elevations.

Traffic and site access further complicated the proposal. Residents expressed concerns about the entrance design and its capacity to handle larger vehicles, such as moving vans. The absence of a significant shoulder and adequate acceleration lanes on Route 28 was noted as a potential issue for traffic flow and safety. Although driveway modifications were intended to improve maneuverability, it was anticipated that a traffic expert would need to address these concerns in future sessions.

Additionally, the board scrutinized the operational aspects of the facility, particularly the presence of outdoor units with roll-up doors. These units raised questions about monitoring and security, with board members worried about the potential for misuse and the challenge of ensuring proper oversight without an established national operator. Concerns about fire safety and compliance with zoning regulations were also discussed, with assurances given that the building would include a fire sprinkler system and meet necessary codes.

Public participation highlighted the community’s strong feelings about the proposal. Residents voiced their dissatisfaction with the current plans, citing a lack of outreach from the developers and demanding more authentic visual renderings to accurately depict the project’s impact. The desire for a review of the application, including public input on landscaping and design elements, was underscored by multiple attendees.