opportunities, which are all positive benefits. Given that this site does have a unique shape and configuration and its lot width is much less than that required by local ordinance, the variances being requested can be granted without substantial detriment and he has satisfied the test for the grant of each of those. They reviewed the letters from the Board professionals and they do not take any exception to satisfying their technical comments.
Mr. Peters asked if the variance for the buffer was for §244-193. Mr. Macfarlane replies that is correct. Mr. Peters asked if they have buffer requirements to the west to Lot 2 and Lot 4 and across Diana Street to those residential units as well. Mr. Macfarlane replied no, because they are not residential zoned. The buffer language is very clear that it only applies to properties that are zoned residential use. They happen to have residential uses in commercial zones and the ordinance does not require buffers for those properties. They would be happy to provide some additional landscaping if the Board feels it is warranted. But again, the ordinance does not require it. Mr. Peters stated that the corner of the building requires a side yard setback where 25 feet is required and 21.7 is proposed. It does not appear there is any landscaping there. To put a 35 foot building in an area where you need a variance next to a residential unit, he thinks the least the applicant could do is put some landscaping in that area or make the building smaller. Mr. Macfarlane confirmed that they do have a vinyl privacy fence proposed along that property line as well, but they will be happy to add some landscaping there.
Mr. Klee did not have many comments on the site plan itself. Most of the engineering comments he had were for William Street and Diana and we have covered that thoroughly. For that side yard setback, the 21.7, he asked if there is not 3.3 feet that can make it comply. Mr. Macfarlane really did not think so because they are pretty tight with the design the way it is. That request is so de minimis that he does not think there is any impact regarding that 21.7 feet. Mr. Klee will leave it to the Board, but it seems like 3.3 feet would be easy to make up so they comply. Rotate the building a little bit, bring the northerly end closer to the property line, which will let them drop down to 21.7 to 25. He just thinks there is some room. Dr. Campbell stated the Board is making a lot of considerations here, so the applicant has got to do their share on considerations. Mr. Macfarlane offered 22.5 feet. Dr. Campbell said that is better than nothing.
Mr. Bressi understood that the Cl variance is all pre-existing. But with all of the C2 variances, if the road does not get vacated, that changes a lot. If they do not have to come back in front of the Board, it still has to be addressed some way. Maybe Mr. Klee can come back to the Board and say they have arranged everything to work around the lack of the vacated road. Mr. Pfeffer agreed that they will still comply with Fire and Police and to make sure that the Board professionals are happy with whatever they are proposing. Mr. Bressi asked that Mr. Klee come back to review it with the Board as he has in the past. Dr. Campbell stated the Board will rely on Mr. Klee if that does not get passed. Mr. Pfeffer said it is their intent to make it a nice project, but also to comply with outside agencies and the Board's conditions.
Mr. Sullivan asked if the applicant received a letter from the Fire District. Mr. Macfarlane replied they did get a review letter dated March 3, 2026 that had a couple of comments that were not significant. It talked about Knox Box insulation, landscaping and making sure there is no mulch in close proximity to the bed. They do have a fire hydrant on site. The Fire Bureau wants them to adjust that. The letter also addressed emergency disconnects for the EV charging