The first item on the agenda, which was quickly addressed, involved the approval of minutes for the reorganization and regular meeting held on January 8th, 2024. With no vouchers to discuss, the board moved on to updates on various cases, including the postponements of the Stanley Kryler and Gateway Industrial 175 LLC cases. A significant piece of correspondence was a letter from Charlie about the Fernando Campfield application.

During the meeting, the board approved several resolutions, including the appointment of professionals and the granting of bulk variance approvals. Noteworthy among these was the Janine and Joseph Maron bulk variance and the Celest Fendo Campfield resolution. The process of marking exhibits based on the submitted site plan was highlighted by a comment from the professional engineer Patrick Ward, which led to a brief confusion over the exhibits’ labeling but was resolved promptly.

The core discussion of the meeting revolved around the proposed site plan by So Brothers Paving, for which three exhibits were presented, including an aerial image of the existing conditions and a proposed color rendering of the site. The applicant had a previous application in 2015 that was not fully perfected, prompting the current effort to address the prior shortcomings. The proposal involved demolishing most existing structures to erect a permanent office building. However, the board was concerned about the buffer requirements and outdoor storage, debating whether the applicant should be granted relief from these regulations.

The 50-foot buffer requirement for the property became a focal point of contention. The board’s concern was the time taken by the applicant to perfect the site plan and the implications of relying on past variances. The debate hinged on the possibility of the applicant adhering to the buffer and impervious coverage requirements without the need for additional variances. Suggestions were made to alter the site plan, including relocating parking areas, to comply with the buffer requirements.

Ultimately, due to the concerns raised and the detailed feedback from the board, the applicant requested an adjournment to reassess their site plan in light of the board’s comments. The board consented to carry the application over to a future meeting without the need for further notice. The meeting was then adjourned, with no other business discussed.