Rolfs presented an update on the project’s status, highlighting interactions with various town bodies and the submission of additional documentation, including a historical use compilation and a legal memorandum. These documents were crucial for establishing the project’s consistency with historical uses and ensuring compliance with current zoning laws. The board considered these materials, emphasizing the importance of the historical research in supporting the transition from a restaurant to townhomes.

The proposal’s adherence to zoning bylaws was scrutinized, particularly concerning the change from one non-conforming use to another. Rolfs argued that the proposed townhome project is less detrimental than the existing restaurant, citing improvements in areas such as water and sewage consumption, traffic, and noise levels. A reduction in parking spaces from 42 to six, due to the new underground parking, was positioned as a public safety enhancement.

A point of discussion was the Floor Area Ratio (FAR), which would increase from the current non-conforming 27.4% to 41.5% under the new proposal. Despite concerns, the development team argued that this increase should be contextualized with other site improvements, such as reduced building height and increased setbacks. They proposed deed restrictions to prevent future modifications that could impact the FAR.

The board also addressed the responsibility for on-site public improvements, with the town taking on long-term maintenance, while the applicant would handle construction. This led to a broader conversation about pedestrian safety and the potential need for crosswalks, especially given the project’s location at a busy intersection.

Transitioning to a different agenda item, the meeting also covered proposed modifications to a pavilion structure at 2-8 Old Point Road, associated with the Sunset Club. This involved a planned rotation of the building and additional structures like storage containers and a merchandise shack. The board examined shadow studies and lighting plans, noting the importance of maintaining the neighborhood’s visual character.

Concerns were raised about the aesthetic impact of enclosing the pavilion’s gable end, which differed from previous open design plans. The potential for the structure to obstruct views and alter the neighborhood’s character was discussed, emphasizing the need for updated renderings to ensure that the final design aligns with original intentions.

Suggestions were made to include provisions that would require the applicant to return to the board if necessary permits were not obtained, preventing potential bureaucratic gridlocks.

The meeting concluded with plans to draft a formal decision on the redevelopment proposal. A motion was passed to continue discussions on the pavilion modification at a future meeting, allowing time to gather additional documentation and renderings.