0:28The revisions necessitated several variances, notably for front yard setbacks, which were less than the required 100 feet—approximately 72 feet to Patterson Road and 79 feet to West Commodore. Additional variances were required for parking within the right of way, with the applicant requesting a 10-foot variance instead of the 20-foot requirement. The board engaged in a thorough evaluation of these variances, considering their implications for the community and the project’s feasibility.

Mr. Portnoy contributed insights into the revised layout, emphasizing the project’s compliance with side and rear setbacks and detailing the separate entrances for cars and trucks to optimize traffic flow. Notably, the redesign aimed to maintain fire access provisions, although the board raised concerns about the project’s ability to support emergency vehicle operations, particularly in adverse weather conditions. This was a point of contention, as the applicant’s design included grass pavers for driveways, raising questions about their capacity to hold up a 990,000-pound fire truck.

1:38:04Legal guidelines requiring a minimum of 270 degrees of access around the building for fire apparatus were noted, with the current design purportedly meeting this condition. However, some board members expressed apprehension about the adequacy of space for maneuvering heavy equipment.

1:55:33Signage for the warehouse project also drew discussion. The architect, Michael Millerman, proposed individual signage for each of the six tenant spaces, although the ordinance typically allowed for only one sign per building. This raised potential compliance issues and concerns about the visual impact on the community. Mr. Peters expressed skepticism about the necessity of such extensive signage, arguing that a more modest approach could prevent visual clutter. The board debated the merits of allowing signs up to 35 feet high for visibility purposes, with some members cautioning against setting a precedent that might lead to an “advertisement” look for the area.

2:12:39Discussions on signage extended to practical considerations, including the challenge of updating signs as tenants changed, and the proposal for permanent numbers to mitigate confusion. The applicant was open to integrating conditions from prior meetings, such as temporary “coming soon” signs to inform the public about the development.

Tree replacement emerged as another topic, with the board acknowledging community concerns over the loss of greenery. A proposal to document the number of trees and bushes planted was viewed as a positive step toward reassuring residents about maintaining the area’s natural aesthetics.

The applicant showed willingness to adjust the project, notably agreeing to remove certain office space to eliminate the need for parking variances. The board ultimately approved the application with variances for front yard setbacks and a minor parking issue, following a roll call vote. However, dissent was recorded from one member who believed the building’s size could have been further reduced.