The most notable issue of the meeting centered around the proposed construction of a two-family home on the vacant lot on Grand View Road, which has remained undeveloped since its subdivision in 1988. The proposal, which was discussed in detail, involves a duplex design with two three-bedroom units, each with two and a half baths. Despite the design’s compliance with the zoning district’s height requirements, it sparked debate due to concerns about its impact on the neighborhood.

Residents voiced apprehensions about the construction’s potential to exacerbate existing parking issues. One resident highlighted the loss of parking spots due to necessary curb cuts for the new development, stating, “we’re already losing the two spots for their parking when they cut the curb.” This concern was echoed by others who noted that the narrow street conditions already pose challenges, particularly with hospital overflow traffic contributing to the problem.

Stormwater management was another issue, as residents feared that changes in underground water flow could lead to flooding. The developers have proposed a drainage system featuring pervious pavers and a flow-through foundation to address these concerns. However, questions remain about the system’s effectiveness, particularly in light of uncertainties regarding the groundwater level. The proposal includes multiple gutters to direct runoff to an underground infiltration system, yet the community remains skeptical about its ability to mitigate previous complaints about water drainage to the street.

Mary Jasi, representing Barbara Lawler from 23 Grand View Road, read a letter of opposition into the record, supported by a petition signed by 26 neighbors. The letter underscored worries about flooding, loss of direct sunlight to adjacent properties, and decreased parking availability. It also called for independent studies on watershed impact and shadow effects to fully assess the new construction’s implications.

City Councilor Todd Taylor joined the discussion, pointing out the substantial opposition to the project. He reiterated concerns about water issues and parking challenges. Taylor’s comments highlighted the broader regulatory and logistical issues facing the neighborhood, calling for careful consideration of the project’s impact.

In response to these concerns, the board acknowledged the need for the petitioners to substantiate the variances required for the project. They informed attendees that further discussions would take place after a review by the planning board on March 25, with the petitioners expected to return for additional deliberations on April 8.

The meeting also addressed another development project on Malor Street, where Carolina Linares, the trustee of the Lerys Family Revocable Trust, sought a special permit and variance to add two residential units by constructing third and fourth floors above an existing two-family residence. Linares emphasized the necessity of these additions to make the building viable for rental purposes, considering previous neglect by former owners. Her proposal faced challenges related to parking and setbacks.

Linares outlined plans for five parking spaces, acknowledging the tight fit, especially after demolishing the existing garage to create an additional space. City Councilor Lisa Santagate expressed concerns about potential parking issues, noting that granting a special permit for parking relief would preclude the new units from obtaining street parking permits. Further complications arose regarding emergency access, parking lot layout, and the impact on neighboring properties, particularly with respect to light pollution from headlights.

The board raised the possibility of requiring a fence or wall to mitigate light issues for adjacent properties. Despite these challenges, no communication from abutters had been documented at the time of the meeting, leaving questions about community support or opposition to the project.

In an older case review, the board considered a request to remove a stipulation prohibiting the separate sale of two parcels on Broadway Street. The properties had been sold separately after 11 years of common ownership, creating a violation that went unnoticed for years. The board concluded that the statute of limitations had passed, categorizing the modification as minor and approving it unanimously.