The application, represented by Bernard Shire and engineered by Paul Fletcher, sought variances for setbacks and floor area ratio for the new office building. Despite extensive testimony from the architect, Mr. Javheri, who described the building’s transitional design, and the planner Fletcher, who defended the variances under both C1 and C2 criteria, the project faced opposition from the public.

Community member Mr. Stochl raised objections to the project’s impact on the garbage district by presenting a document marked as Exhibit O1, which included photos and information on the master plan. Another individual highlighted violations and discrepancies with the proposed development, such as exceeding the floor ratio area, backyard and side yard setback violations, and deviations from the master plan and zoning ordinance objectives. They also raised concerns about the project’s potential impact on the neighborhood’s residential appearance and character, including the removal of existing buffers, the location of the trash enclosure, and the potential loss of privacy and changes to their views.

During the cross-examination of the architect and engineer, questions were raised regarding the building’s exterior design, compliance with Edison’s electric vehicle ordinance, and the specifics of the architectural plans. The board engaged in a discussion about the completeness of the project, the necessity of certain reports, and the residential appearance of the proposed building.

The board voted to deny the application, with the discussion highlighting the complexities and intricacies of the proposed development and its potential implications for the surrounding area.

In addition to this contentious case, the board approved an application for variances to construct two decks on Timber Road. Despite concerns from a long-time resident about the aesthetics of the proposed construction, the applicant’s representative, Mr. Fletcher, argued that the decks would enhance the family’s enjoyment of their outdoor space without being visible from the street.

Another noteworthy discussion involved a property on Jonathan Drive, where the applicant sought variances for a second-story addition to their single-family dwelling. The architect provided plans for expanding the basement and first floor and adding a circular driveway for safety. The homeowner agreed to a condition that the basement not be used for bedrooms or kitchens, and the board approved the application with no debate.