The primary focus of the meeting was the application for site plan approval, which included significant modifications to address previous concerns. Central to these modifications was the proposal for an eight-foot vinyl fence designed to buffer the surrounding residential properties from noise and light emanating from the commercial site. The applicant’s attorney, Frank Brennan, detailed that the proposed fence exceeded the local zoning limit by two feet, necessitating a variance. Brennan emphasized the fence’s potential public benefit, noting, “If you’re going to try and buffer for sound, if you’re going to try and buffer for light…the best way to do that is with a wall.” The applicant was prepared to absorb the estimated $57,000 installation cost to enhance neighborhood relations and address resident complaints.

This proposal emerged from previous dialogues with neighboring residents who expressed concerns over noise, light pollution, and the absence of adequate buffering. Complicating the matter was an existing easement, details of which were unclear.

Public response to the fence proposal was mixed, with some residents expressing skepticism about its effectiveness as a noise barrier compared to natural alternatives like trees. Concerns were also voiced about the fence’s aesthetic impact, particularly where it might end abruptly. The board discussed the possibility of using a combination of fencing and landscaping to mitigate these concerns, though the practicality of planting trees given the narrow buffer space was debated. Residents expressed frustration over past actions by the applicant, including unauthorized paving and tree trimming without permits, which had led to a notice of violation.

The meeting also addressed the ongoing issue of unauthorized tree trimming and its implications for local ordinances, which stipulate the replacement of damaged trees. A member of the board raised questions about the applicant’s compliance with these regulations, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive landscape maintenance plan that includes replacing any trees that die within five years.

Furthermore, the meeting tackled the topic of light pollution, with residents providing evidence of bright lights from the commercial site affecting their properties. The board acknowledged that while previous resolutions required adjustments to the lighting setup, these had not been fulfilled, necessitating further action to ensure compliance.

In addition to the fence, the board considered other site modifications, such as the removal of unauthorized parking and the installation of a trash enclosure. Testimony from Kevin Brack confirmed that changes to the parking layout had been made to comply with the 2007 resolution, which had originally prohibited parking along the western access driveway.

The board also heard from residents who expressed distrust towards the applicant’s intentions, citing a history of incremental changes that had eroded the residential character of the neighborhood. This sentiment was echoed by M. Sha, who criticized the board for prioritizing commercial interests over residential quality of life and urged members to experience the neighborhood’s conditions firsthand.

In response to the public’s concerns, the applicant’s representative reiterated their commitment to resolving the violations and complying with zoning regulations. They assured the board that unauthorized parking had been removed and that they were open to conditions regarding tree maintenance along the property line.

As the meeting concluded, the board emphasized the need for ongoing dialogue and collaboration with the applicant and the community to ensure that the proposed changes adequately address the residents’ concerns. The complexities surrounding property lines, buffer zones, and the responsibilities associated with them were evident.