The applicant’s attorney, Stephen Greenberg, and engineer Mark Walker presented the case, which included plans for an addition to the property affected by a flood zone and an easement for an underground aqueduct. The attorney clarified that the application was for variances with a potential future application for a full site plan. The board members engaged in a debate over the interpretation of property lines, zoning regulations, and the location of the easement. There was also a discussion about the classification of the property’s yard lines and the presence of cars on the site.

Further discussions raised concerns about the visual impact of the proposed 40-foot building, particularly in relation to neighboring residential areas and a nearby sports field. The board and public questioned the need for appropriate screening to mitigate negative effects on surrounding properties. Issues of parking setback variances were also debated, as proposed parking spaces appeared too close to the front yard. The applicant addressed these concerns by indicating adjustments to access points and limiting the number of loading docks to five.

Another focal point was the engineer’s response to comments from reports, which included modifications to the key map and architectural plans. A fire official’s report led to the agreement by the property owner to install a gate for emergency access only and provisions for a fire department connection and a new fire hydrant.

Public participation further highlighted community concerns. A resident spoke on behalf of his mother, raising questions about operations during construction, potential for a second floor, and drainage and flood plans. The role of the applicant’s representative, not testifying as an architect, sparked debate over the scope of questions permitted, emphasizing the need for clarity on individuals’ roles addressing the board.

Planner Alex Doggery presented details about the proposed development and the variances sought, stressing the need for variances due to property constraints and potential community benefits. The height of the building was a point of contention, with discussions on its impact on light and space and the requirement for screening and landscaping to mitigate environmental impact.

The board informed that parking relief and building coverage would be deferred to the site plan phase, with the parking variance being a preexisting condition. The height variance was considered necessary for product storage and operational efficiency, despite concerns raised by board members about the current site condition and skepticism regarding the positive impact of doubling the building’s height.

During the meeting, concerns about the proposed 40-foot elevation were raised, with the board questioning the necessity of such height given previous approvals and zoning allowances. Public concerns over traffic impact, flood zone effects, and the visual impact of a 40-foot building were also voiced. Suggestions included changing the building address or using signage to direct traffic. The board debated a suggestion to set back the 40-foot height by 20 feet, to which the applicant showed willingness to accommodate.