The proposal’s primary contention lies in the request for several variances, notably a density variance to permit more homes than currently allowed under the OSG Zone regulations. The OSG Zone, which includes public land uses and single-family homes, typically demands a minimum lot size of three acres per home, a standard the applicants argued was unreasonable for this specific parcel. The proposed development aims for a density of one home per every 15,800 square feet, denser than the existing requirements.

Michael Toia, the applicant’s professional planner, provided extensive details on the layout and design of the proposed development, which includes sidewalks, community areas, and nearly 200 new trees to comply with the town’s tree replacement ordinance. Toia emphasized that the development is tailored for empty nesters, offering smaller living spaces within a community setting, which he argued aligns with the town’s master plan and caters to the aging population’s housing needs.

Despite these assurances, concerns were raised about the development’s impact on the environment and local infrastructure. The lack of soil tests and the adequacy of the stormwater management plan were highlighted as critical oversights. Experts pointed out that the absence of soil profile pits and infiltration testing could lead to significant design issues, particularly if the groundwater mound exceeds allowable heights, potentially affecting the basin’s ability to manage stormwater.

The proposed development also faced scrutiny for its potential to set a precedent for future development on open spaces. There were fears that allowing this development could jeopardize other government-designated open spaces, likened to the importance of maintaining Central Park in Manhattan. The necessity of a D1 use variance was discussed, given that the current zoning ostensibly only allows single-unit dwellings on larger lots, and the proposed development was perceived as a departure from established planning principles.

The proposal’s compatibility with existing single-family residential areas was another point of contention. The arrangement of 13 detached single-family units on a single lot effectively constituted a multifamily use, contrary to zoning regulations. The proposed plan failed to provide sufficient frontage and lot area as required by the zoning ordinance, with calculations showing deficiencies in these aspects.

Additionally, the meeting addressed the procedural aspects and the necessity for transparency in the exchange of expert reports. Concerns were raised about the fairness in cross-examination due to the late submission of an eight-page report by one of the witnesses. This led to a proposal to continue the cross-examination at a later date, allowing all parties adequate time to review the relevant materials.

The proposed development’s significant deviations from the established zoning ordinance and its potential impact on the community’s character were central to the discussions. As the council and board members navigated through the technical details and varying opinions, the need for additional information and clarity on critical environmental and planning issues remained a focal point.