continued “A lot of it (is) that the neighbors didn’t want it there. (But) when someone owns a piece of property, they have the right to develop,” LaCivita said.
“Looking at this particular plot of land, in my opinion, they’re doing their due justice. We appreciate your comments … but we’re also looking out for the applicant,” Austin said.
Board members did express they were concerned about the outward appearance of the property, saying they wanted it to blend in better with the homes. At the meeting, the project’s architect sketched an alternative plan that included a more colonial design that impressed the board.
“Even though it’s a commercial activity, it looks like a home (now) because it has a clapboard, a peak or valley, not a square roof brick that you typically associate with commercial activity,” LaCivita said. “It looks more residential and blends into the community.”
The board voted on and approved three waivers, including a condition to fix the building’s façade, and the project was granted final site approval. Stuto and board member Susan Milstein dissented.