professional office to be in certain neighborhood zones. That does not mean it is permitted as proposed. The reason she believes they are here is that the applicant does not comply with the applicable zoning standards and is asking the Board to grant multiple variances to complete the project. This is an 18,600 sq ft, 2 story office building with 8 suites in an R1 zone. The code requires 35 ft buffer, where the development is near residential property and the proposal is 15 ft. There are additional requests involving coverages, setbacks, and parking setback. She does not believe the question is does the ordinance mention professional offices. The question is should the Board grant the collection of variances necessary to make this particular development necessary in an R1 neighborhood. She believes this needs to be considered in context precedent, if use requires multiple variances from the standards meant to protect residents, we should ask are we granting reasonable relief or are we changing the character and intensity of the use of the zoning ordinance established for this property. She expressed concern that if this is established, the next applicant can point to this approval and say a similar project was already approved here. Gradually a residential area may become commercial without the town ever formally changing the zoning. She understands the towns Master Plan identifies this intersection for examining the area but examining an area for commercial planning is not the same as rezoning this property. Today the property is R1, if the town wants this area to become commercial, it is a policy that should be made through to appropriate planning process not one variance at a time. Her family and others chose to live here because we wanted a residential community with less traffic, less noise, and more open space. A different quality of life from the congestion they deliberately left behind. The do not oppose development, they are asking to follow the zoning framework that protects the residential character of the community and be careful about using variances to accomplish what would otherwise require a change in zoning. She is asking the Board to deny the variances asked in this application.
M r. Alfieri said he disagrees with some of the comments just made, as things have been amended since the last time. He wanted to make it clear that there will be no new notice for next meeting. Ms. Cipriani said the January 6, 2027 date is kept with no new notice required. Ms. Cipriani also noted that if the January 6^{th} date is not available they may try for an earlier date to be heard. If a date other than January 6^{th} is used new notice will be required.
M s. Tumolo stated that on January 6th the Board does their annual reorganization and added they will have a regular meeting afterward. M r. Martins wanted to put on record that the variance is a D3. He read: a variance should be granted in most cases, only if the Board, feels that the public interest, as distinguished from the private interest of the applicant, would be served best by permitting this project. M s. Cipriani does not agree to that statement in regards to this application. M r. Martins said how much weight should the Board give to the testimony of the neighbors. M s. Cipriani explained the Board can give weight to the testimony of the public. M s. Cipriani said what he read is an accurate summary of the D1 standard/use variance. This application is for a d3 variance, it is not a question of the use, the ordinance for R1 zone contemplates, under certain conditions, that professional office is appropriate for the zone. It is not a question of determining the use is appropriate, it is appropriate if certain conditions are met and they are requesting variances from those conditions. The focus of the Board is still positive and negative criteria but it is different. The focus is does this site remain appropriate for professional office use, despite the number of variances requested and on the negative criteria are there conditions the Board can impose on the approval to ensure the deviations do not cause substantial detriment to public good. They are requesting deviations from the ordinance standard and can it be conditioned so