The most notable agenda item involved Crane Farm LLC’s application for an amended preliminary and final major site plan approval to restore a landscape buffer area. The business, operating under the name SNR Pools, required this amendment to continue storing materials such as concrete products and wood outside. The owner, Kevin Levenitis, testified about the necessity of outdoor storage for the business, particularly during peak seasons when the workforce expands significantly.

The board examined the impact of the proposed buffer reduction on neighboring residential areas, focusing heavily on the southern boundary of the property. Several adjustments were made to the site plan in response to community feedback, including relocating outdoor storage and adding fencing to limit visibility.

A key aspect of the meeting was the testimony from James Mance, a civil engineering expert, who outlined the revised site plan. Mance emphasized that the plan now incorporated an 8-foot high fence to enclose the storage area, ADA-compliant parking, and an underground stormwater management system to handle runoff from increased impervious surfaces. He assured the board that the revisions would not adversely affect the public good or nearby recreational and residential areas.

Lighting issues were another focal point of the meeting. Concerns were raised about the potential impact of rear-facing floodlights on neighboring properties. Levenitis expressed openness to removing unnecessary lights or modifying them to be downward-facing and controlled by timers or motion sensors.

Landscaping plans were also scrutinized, with landscape architect Thomas Biro presenting a strategy to enhance the buffer area with rows of evergreen trees and white spruce. The board discussed the importance of maintaining the buffer’s integrity, leading to a proposal for a two-year maintenance bond and a conservation easement to secure the area long-term. These measures aimed to ensure the buffer effectively screens the development from adjacent properties while preserving existing healthy trees.

The board also considered the necessity of a variance due to the constraints of the property’s layout. The engineer described the variance as a hardship, given the immovable nature of the existing building and the property’s limitations. The board agreed that the proposed 35-foot buffer, supplemented by new plantings and an 8-foot fence, would suffice in mitigating any potential adverse effects on the community.

Another point of discussion involved a site easement issue related to visibility from the property corner, which had not been filed according to the 1986 approval. The board acknowledged the need to address this with the county. They agreed that project approval should be conditional upon receiving county approval, with a board member noting, “I think as our standard practice, we would make the approval conditional on receiving the county approval.”