The board’s deliberations began with a discussion about a Form A application for subdividing a property at 146 18th Street, owned by ICC Investments LLC and applied for by Innovative Investments LLC. The property, located in the G zoning district, was proposed to be subdivided into two conforming lots. Despite initial confusion about the setbacks, a board member clarified that lot one was a pre-existing condition and did not need to comply with the setbacks unless new construction was proposed. A motion to approve the plan followed, but it was met with mixed votes, including a dissenting vote from Beth Andre.

Next, the board reviewed another Form A application for 117 and Call Street, owned by Rodman Omen LLC. The proposal involved subdividing the existing parcel while maintaining structures on each lot, in line with relief granted by the zoning board of appeals. The board accepted that no further subdivision would be allowed due to zoning board conditions, and the plan was approved without debate.

A subsequent application from Rodman Omen LLC for a property on Star Street in the R8 zoning district was also discussed. The proposal to subdivide the parcel and create two additional building lots, leaving an existing dwelling and garage, met zoning requirements and faced no additional comments from the board, leading to its approval.

One item of discussion involved a proposal for subdividing a property on Hemlock Street and Ray Street, owned by Leonard and Catherine Freeman and applied for by Toby E. LaVine Revocable Trust. The plan aimed to leave an existing dwelling on one lot and create two additional building lots. Despite the proposal appearing to meet zoning requirements for frontage and setbacks, board members raised concerns about an easement and the lack of clear dimensions on the plan. They discussed the necessity of confirming compliance with zoning requirements before approving the subdivision.

Another point of discussion revolved around a single-family home and its compliance with zoning regulations. The board expressed doubts about the home’s original compliance and whether a variance was granted at the time of construction, leading to a motion to table the discussion. The board emphasized the need for evidence of existing compliance with zoning laws, especially since one parcel was built in 1970 and would not qualify under certain statutes. Members underscored the importance of detailed documentation to ensure transparency and adherence to zoning laws.

Concerns about fairness in the approval process were raised, particularly in relation to other property owners who had to provide comprehensive documentation. The board discussed procedural integrity and the need for thorough documentation, with a consensus that the plan lacked sufficient detail, particularly regarding dimensions and compliance with zoning laws.

The board also addressed an application from Dak Realty Investments LLC concerning a property at 1170 and New Hall Street. This application sought to resolve a boundary dispute caused by an encroachment of 3.9 feet from one property onto another. The proposed subdivision would create two lots and cure the encroachment by designating one of the parcels as non-buildable while maintaining the existing structure on a conforming lot. The board was informed that the subdivision would meet zoning requirements, leading to unanimous approval.

Another application for 52-58 Forest Street was discussed, where the applicant sought to subdivide the parcel while leaving structures intact, as per relief granted by the zoning board of appeals. However, the necessary variance had not been recorded, leading to a motion not to approve the plan until the variance could be confirmed, which passed unanimously.

The board also considered a subdivision plan for properties on Brion Avenue and Jefferson Street, which complied with previously granted zoning relief. This plan faced minimal concerns and was approved without opposition.

In addition, the board discussed correspondence regarding the Adams House on Highland Avenue being accepted for the National Register of Historic Places, leading to a motion to place the correspondence on file, approved by all members.