The most notable topic centered on the proposed development by Jonathan Bombachi and his associated entities, which sought special permits to modify existing conditions by reducing the number of dwelling units from eight to seven and adjusting parking specifications. The council was engaged in a prolonged debate over whether the conditions of the original permit had been violated and whether the requested modifications were justifiable. The property owner, represented by an attorney, argued that the modifications were necessary due to unforeseen challenges in adhering to the original plan, specifically highlighting issues with parking space compliance.

Despite the owner’s claims of financial burdens, including a projected $175,000 loss over a decade and increased costs from redrawing plans and legal fees, the council was unable to reach a consensus. A vote on the special permit requests ended in a tie, with three members in favor and three opposed, leading to the denial of the requests due to insufficient affirmative votes. The council’s inability to approve the modifications prompted discussions about the voting process, resulting in a subsequent revote. However, the outcome remained unchanged, as the vote once again ended in a tie.

The property owner had attempted to resolve parking issues by acquiring an easement from an adjacent property owner, allowing for shared “buddy parking” spaces. However, reducing the number of dwelling units further was considered financially unviable, as it would risk foreclosure. The current parking scheme, which provides at least one space per unit, was described as insufficient, with tenants relying on on-street parking, contributing to neighborhood congestion.

Additionally, concerns were raised about lighting in the rear of the building and the potential impact of modifications on the overall project. The property owner proposed installing exterior lighting fixtures to illuminate the rear parking area, assuring the council that efforts would be made to prevent light pollution affecting neighboring properties. Despite these assurances, tensions persisted as board members questioned the feasibility of further enhancements to the parking situation.

In another development, the council addressed modifications to parking spaces associated with the “Hannaford to Go” program. A civil designer presented a proposal to relocate two spaces for greater efficiency while maintaining the total number of parking spaces at six. The council approved this modification unanimously after confirming that ADA compliance would not be compromised and that no additional spaces were required beyond the previously approved amount.

Amid these discussions, a resident, identified as Colleen Leerrier, expressed grievances regarding a neighbor’s construction activities. She detailed issues with the unpermitted construction of a driveway and the parking of a commercial vehicle, which allegedly caused structural damage to her property. Leerrier recounted interactions with city officials, including advice to “tread lightly” regarding the neighbor, Mr. Labbuff, who reportedly disregarded local regulations. She highlighted environmental concerns related to potential flooding and pollution from the proposed driveway, emphasizing the urgency of addressing these violations.

The council acknowledged the limitations of their authority, clarifying that they could not act on the situation unless a formal violation was reported by the building commissioner. Leerrier was advised to file a detailed letter outlining her concerns and the alleged violations to prompt an official response. The importance of documenting specific incidents and engaging with various city departments was emphasized, as the council aimed to ensure due process and further investigation.