The most notable topic of the meeting was the community’s reaction to the proposed development’s scale and its implications for the Auburn Street neighborhood. Residents expressed concerns about the density of the proposed 32-unit multifamily dwelling, which requires several waivers from existing zoning regulations. A primary issue was the reduction in required parking spaces from 45 to 41, raising concerns about increased density and impervious surfaces in an area with historically low traffic.

One resident, Mark Bugden, articulated worries about the project’s scale and its impact on the neighborhood, suggesting that reducing the size of the units could create more parking and green space, thereby alleviating some density concerns. Bugden noted, “It started off with all singles…then it grew to 32 with 11, 17, and 4 larger units,” expressing discomfort with the project’s evolution and potential disruption to the neighborhood’s character.

Additional community input highlighted environmental concerns, with Sonya Ross emphasizing the project’s proximity to a riverbank and potential impacts on local wildlife, including bald eagles. She urged the board to consider the ecological implications, stating, “This is built on the edge of a riverbank…you’re impacting the environment.”

The discussion on waivers included parking requirements, landscape buffers, and curb heights. The applicant proposed compact parking spaces smaller than standard dimensions to facilitate stormwater management and sought modifications to landscape buffers due to the presence of a fire lane and dumpster enclosure. These changes prompted debate over whether the waivers aligned with community needs and environmental considerations.

Tensions also emerged regarding the board’s handling of the development process. Ed Shari, an abutter to the development, criticized a board member for dismissing community concerns, highlighting the perceived disregard for the neighborhood’s diversity and the project’s impact on residents’ quality of life. Shari pointed out the irony in selling valuable town property for a nominal fee while seeking community support for a budget override.

The discussion extended to the project’s funding and the potential consequences of partial funding. Concerns were raised about the possibility of an incomplete project if funding fell through, with a board member clarifying that funding issues were outside the board’s jurisdiction.

Patty Malone, another resident, expressed skepticism about the parking solution’s adequacy for the proposed unit distribution, emphasizing the need for the board to reconsider the plan in light of the project’s density.

Another focal point was the procedural handling of waivers, with the applicant requesting that the board serve as the reviewing authority for off-street parking waivers instead of the building commissioner. The board also discussed the implications of waiving performance guarantees, with concerns about the adequacy of general liability insurance in the absence of performance bonds.

As the meeting progressed, the board addressed ongoing issues related to traffic and street configurations, emphasizing the need for clarity on how recommendations from traffic consultants and peer reviews would be implemented. Concerns about emergency access and on-street parking were highlighted, with uncertainty over the jurisdiction of these decisions between the board and the select board.