The meeting’s central focus was the testimony regarding the proposed three-story building, which necessitated variance relief for apartments on all floors, a deviation from the town center district ordinance. Discussions covered the need for 128 parking spaces, including six handicapped spaces and one EV space, to accommodate the building’s residents and visitors. Notably, the board scrutinized the sufficiency of parking and waste management, two issues of community interest.

Instead, Ganet advocated for more rental units, reflecting on the quick occupancy of the limited available rentals in the town. The board engaged with Ganet’s findings, probing the source of his data and the implications for local businesses and housing affordability.

Adding to the discussion, a professional real estate agent emphasized the need for residential apartments, drawing from extensive experience in the commercial real estate sector. The professional planner involved in the project outlined the calculations for the proposed parking spaces and discussed the handling of waste, a concern among the board and residents alike.

The design of the proposed building also came under scrutiny. A board member questioned the building’s adherence to the Town Center’s style, prompting a call for architectural features that would blend with the area’s aesthetics. Further, the building’s proximity to the street was debated, with the developer emphasizing the intent to create a pedestrian-friendly environment in line with the town’s downtown aspirations. Despite these discussions, detailed engineering plans, including those addressing right-of-way setbacks and garbage placement, were deferred to future meetings pending the approval of the use variance.

Public comments added a personal dimension to the proceedings. Residents questioned the necessity of the building’s placement near a busy road and the impact of additional commercial space on the town’s retail landscape. One resident, whose farmhouse has been a fixture since 1959, expressed emotional opposition to the development, fearing negative repercussions on the area’s charm and livability.