The proposed mixed-use project stirred considerable discussion due to its need for a D1 variance, as mixed-use development is not permitted under the current oc2 Zone office service district designation. The project also required a D4 floor area ratio variance and multiple bulk variance approvals. The board was engaged in careful scrutiny of the proposal, which includes commercial space and three one-bedroom apartments on a property classified as a principal arterial roadway. The property’s visibility and traffic were cited as advantageous for the commercial aspect, while the residential apartments aimed to address housing needs.

A professional planner provided testimony, asserting that the proposed use is consistent with the master plan’s goals of providing diverse housing opportunities. The planner’s presentation, which included a PowerPoint and images of the surrounding area, argued for the general welfare benefits of the development. The discussion acknowledged the historical presence of mixed-use properties in the neighborhood and considered the project’s alignment with several goals of the municipal land use law. These goals encompass promoting public health, supporting various uses, conserving resources, and utilizing renewable energy.

During the meeting, concerns were raised by a representative of a neighboring nonprofit organization about access to their property and the potential impact the development might have on their operations. The board addressed these concerns by stipulating conditions with the approval, including the establishment of an easement for the organization’s access and maintenance. These conditions also detailed the designation of parking spaces for different uses, the restriction of the basement to storage only, and the unanimous motion to approve the application.

In addition to the mixed-use project, the board reviewed a case regarding the construction of a sunroom and the approval of two existing accessory sheds on a property on Mary Ellen Drive. The applicant aimed to build a sunroom to enhance the home’s appeal for family gatherings. The board’s inquiry centered around the sunroom’s height, its impact on drainage, and the justification for the proposed setbacks for the sheds. Concerns about impervious coverage were addressed by the architect, who asserted that the sunroom would not add impervious coverage to the site. After deliberation, the board approved the application with the stipulation that the smaller shed be removed and the larger one be relocated five feet from the property lines.

The meeting also introduced a case involving Goldberg Builders LLC, which seeks variances for a two-story multi-use building, though the discussion appeared to be in preliminary stages. The engineer for Goldberg Builders presented details of the proposed building, including its dimensions and compliance with zoning regulations. The board engaged in a discussion about the variances sought and the potential impact on the surrounding area.