The architect introduced the townhouse proposal, presenting renderings that depicted the front and rear views of the development. The design featured separated units with carports. This innovative approach included three bedrooms and two bathrooms on the second floor, with additional bedrooms and a laundry room on the top floor. Despite the architect’s assurances about adequate lighting, concerns were raised about the carport design’s impact on natural light for the units. A second exhibit was submitted to illustrate how the roofs intersect with the windows, and the architect likened the design to porches that allow for ventilation while providing coverage.

The Planning Board expressed reservations about the aesthetic appeal of the building facing Main Street. One member noted the side elevation appeared bland and suggested adding architectural details to enhance visual interest. The architect acknowledged the feedback and mentioned potential additions like extending the roof or adding windows to improve the building’s façade.

The dialogue also covered the total number of bedrooms in the design, with the architect confirming there would be five bedrooms total. The need for variances due to existing lot size issues was discussed, with the architect clarifying that the design complied with all bulk requirements and did not require side yard or F variances.

Parking configurations and the inclusion of electric vehicle (EV) charging spots were also points of discussion. Each unit would have a one-car garage, supplemented by an EV charging spot positioned nearby. This sparked further discussion on the practicalities of parking and the expected number of vehicles per household. The architect’s presentation received mixed reactions, with support for the innovative design approach and reservations about the building’s visual impact on Main Street, highlighting the ongoing debate about balancing modern residential needs with aesthetic considerations in community planning.

The meeting then addressed a separate proposal for a multifamily development, focusing on parking configurations and potential subdivision concerns. The architect provided clarification on guest parking. Landscaping, including tree inclusion, was recommended to enhance the site’s visual appeal.

Historical context played a role in the discussions, with inquiries about the existing house’s historical significance. It was noted that the previous structure was beyond restoration, and the new building would feature traditional aesthetics with clapboard siding and cottage trim. Flood risk was also a concern, but it was clarified that the property has dry access and is unaffected by floodwaters.

Environmental impacts were considered, with assertions that the development would have negligible effects. The site does not harbor rare or endangered species or contain wetlands. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was requested to document ecological effects, particularly given the diminishing green space in the area. The developer referenced zoning regulations permitting multifamily housing.

Noise implications were also discussed, with concerns about proximity to Route 78. The introduction of trees as a noise buffer was mentioned, and it was argued that the residential addition would not increase noise levels in the neighborhood.

The meeting then transitioned to a detailed review of architectural plans for another proposed development. This site, approximately 15,915 square feet, is located near the intersection of Main and Bleer Streets within the Commercial Medical Office District (CMO). The proposal includes four connected dwelling units, each with just under 2,000 square feet of living space and a one-car garage. Green infrastructure features, such as permeable pavement and a retention basin, were highlighted, along with a landscaping plan that includes 76 trees, exceeding the required replacements.

Lighting compliance with local standards was discussed, with the average lighting level along the walkway slightly above the permitted limit. The design aims to balance safety and aesthetics while minimizing negative impacts on the surrounding area. The need for design waivers related to lighting and parking arrangements was also addressed, with discussions on the practicality of tandem parking spaces.

The meeting also touched on the importance of maintaining historic elements in new developments. There was a call for integrating historic features into new designs, such as gas lighting and traditional shutters, to preserve the historical character of Main Street. The need for collaboration with the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) was emphasized to ensure that new developments respect the area’s historical significance.