Attorney Andrew Carris, representing the property owner, outlined the case’s history and the proposed settlement under the Wooding Woods hearing. The revised application sought to subdivide a multifamily property to create a new lot for a single-family house. This proposal, which faced litigation due to a previous narrow vote of 4-3 that fell short of the required five votes for approval, now required only a simple majority.

Civil engineer Walter Hopkin presented detailed site plans, emphasizing that the new lot would comply with zoning requirements without necessitating any variances. Key features included upgrading the site, removing an existing shed, and increasing parking spaces from 10 to 12. Existing utilities would continue servicing the multifamily dwelling, with new utilities extended underground to the proposed lot. Hopkin addressed environmental concerns by explaining that while the percentage of impervious surface would increase due to the smaller lot size, the total impervious area was slightly decreasing due to the removal of certain structures.

Public concerns focused heavily on environmental and community impacts. Resident Carrie Butch raised questions about impervious surface coverage, to which Hopkin responded that the multifamily dwelling lot’s coverage would be 56.3%, below the 65% maximum permitted by ordinance. Residents expressed anxiety about potential flooding and stormwater management, with Butch emphasizing, “I think we’re going way too much in. We’re developing every single piece of land.”

Another resident, Katherine Murphy, voiced concerns about increased noise levels and the removal of large trees, stating, “it is a historic home and it is a residential area.” She highlighted the broader negative effects on the community, including light pollution and pedestrian safety, particularly with the proposed one-way traffic layout for vehicle ingress and egress.

Bill Gray addressed the safety implications of the parking lot’s design, questioning visibility for vehicles exiting the property onto Grand Avenue, and raised concerns about potential accidents due to speeding traffic. Reine Flin criticized the perceived disregard for the community’s historical character in favor of new developments, stating, “it seems that when folks do want to retain green space, things are rezoned or redistricted.”

The board members deliberated the settlement proposal, with one member expressing a reluctant willingness to approve it for the sake of good order, despite resenting the court’s characterization of their previous deliberations. Another member acknowledged the community’s concerns, stating, “every tree that comes down hurts us all together,” reflecting a collective understanding of the importance of green spaces and community integrity amidst development pressures.