The 14 Proctor Avenue project underwent revisions that eliminated parking stackers, resulting in a reduction from 50 to 31 parking spots. These changes were reviewed by the planning board and included enhancements to the building’s design and functionality. The petitioner highlighted the housing crisis in Massachusetts and asserted that the building, with its new modifications including two units set aside for veterans, would benefit the neighborhood. In the debate over the variance request, Council Mark Sylvestri, who initially opposed the project, shifted his stance to support it, citing the addition of veterans’ housing and improvements to the building’s structure that made it less intrusive.

Opposition to the project was vocal during the public hearing phase. A direct abutter expressed worries about noise and safety related to the removal of the stackers. Another opponent emphasized the necessity to adhere to the standard parking requirement of two spaces per apartment unit and called into question the decision-making process, including the relevance of past promises made by the petitioner such as the repair of a culvert. The concerns about compliance with zoning ordinances were echoed by several individuals, including a city councilor and nearby residents who insisted on the importance of following the law and the original project plan.

Despite the objections, the board ultimately granted the variance request, emphasizing that the specific and substantial changes to the plans justified a reevaluation of the variance.

In another development, the board allowed a withdrawal without prejudice on an application for a variance on Beach Road, which sought to convert a single-family dwelling into a two-family home. This decision was made without discussion in the transcript and thus, while part of the meeting’s proceedings, did not generate the level of debate or concern as the 14 Proctor Avenue project.

The board also reviewed an application by 8 Avon LLC for the construction of a five-story residential apartment building on Avon Street. Attorney Jerry Dambrosio represented the applicant, detailing the poor condition of the existing structure and the economic hardship faced by the applicant due to the soil condition. The proposed building, located in the GB District near the Wonderland Train Station, raised concerns among residents about the potential parking strain. The board’s discussion highlighted the possibility of excluding tenants from the resident parking program. After considering public comments and the application details, the board voted to grant the requested variances, with conditions.

Another case involved an application for a variance to construct a 25-unit apartment building on Salem Street. Attorney Dambrosio also represented this appellant, with discussions focusing on parking requirements and the use of the building within the neighborhood business district. The outcome or further action on this application was not specified in the provided meeting transcript.