The meeting’s centerpiece was the proposed redevelopment of 30 Woodland Avenue. The property owner outlined plans to convert the current building into a mixed-use structure that would house three apartments and office space, with no plans for retail or medical facilities. The board reviewed the proposed exterior changes, including the roof replacement, trim repainting, and dormer expansion. There was also a review of the project’s compliance with the Historic Preservation Commission’s recommendations for restoring historic exterior detailing.

Deliberations extended to the building’s interior layout and the need to maintain the historic integrity of the structure while accommodating the proposed changes. The topics of code compliance, fire safety, and the inclusion of solar panels and electrical vehicle charging stations were also explored.

The engineer and planner, Mike Roth, presented the existing conditions of the property, which complies with current zoning requirements for maximum coverage and floor area ratio. The plan necessitates minor increases in these areas, prompting the request for variances. Roth detailed the criteria for granting these variances and the anticipated benefits of the project, such as enhanced land use and transportation routes, as well as improved visual aesthetics.

Parking was a notable concern, with discussions about the relocation of parking spaces to handle larger vehicles and the layout and dimensions of the parking spots. The board was particularly attentive to the site circulation plan, questioning discrepancies in traffic flow documents and how they could affect emergency vehicle access and garbage collection.

The board engaged with the applicant over the impact of lighting on neighboring properties. Concerns about light spillage were raised, with the board considering retaining jurisdiction over lighting even post-construction. The applicant showed a readiness to work with the board to mitigate these issues and sought assurance that adherence to the board’s conditions would prevent future hurdles.

Further discussions included the topography of the property’s northern side, focusing on the impact of a neighboring property’s wall and fence on light levels. The board also raised the possibility of neighbor complaints post-construction regarding lighting, and the applicant’s responsibility in resolving them.

Additional aspects of the development plan discussed at length included trash and recycling receptacles, stormwater management, signage, parking allocation, unit sizes, and snow removal. The applicant described the residential units, the intended use of the office space, and the variances sought, including those relating to parking, signage, and building dimensions.

The board also debated the distinction between professional and medical use regarding parking requirements, a distinction that could affect local traffic and parking patterns. After examination, the board approved the application, subject to several conditions and stipulations that had been debated throughout the meeting.