The Medford Street case, identified as Case 2025-14, involved Masucci’s application for a special permit and variance. The project aimed to convert an existing residential structure into two units and install a second means of egress. Despite the Planning Board’s prior recommendation for approval with conditions—such as prohibiting gas grills and umbrellas on the proposed roof deck—the Zoning Board faced strong opposition from residents.

Masucci explained that he had purchased the property in February under the impression it was already a two-family home, based on existing utility meters. However, he discovered it had been rezoned in 1983 as a single-family dwelling. His renovation plans included adding a bedroom, office, and laundry space in the basement, with two living units above. The second unit would have access to a roof deck. Masucci clarified that the only structural change would be reframing the dilapidated center stairwell and relocating it, which included incorporating a spiral staircase for egress.

Public comment brought a critical voice to the forefront. Thomas Johnson, a resident at number two Medford Street, articulated concerns about the transformation into condominiums. He emphasized that the area’s density, combined with existing parking challenges, would be exacerbated by such developments. Johnson shared his frustrations over a dumpster obstructing his parking space and the general disruption caused by ongoing construction, which he attributed to poor supervision and debris management.

Johnson argued that the neighborhood’s zoning regulations were designed to maintain its character, which he felt was threatened by multifamily conversions. He underscored the historical significance of the single-family homes and warned of potential overcrowding, which could detract from the area’s livability and integrity. The debate reflected broader perspectives on urban development, with Masucci advocating for adaptation to existing structures and Johnson defending community standards.

While Masucci’s project aimed to address housing needs, the board members sought to ensure that any changes would not detrimentally impact the neighborhood’s character or exacerbate parking issues.

In other discussions, the board addressed a variance request related to a property on Clinton Street, where Maria Cartahena sought approval to construct a rear addition and deck. The planning board recommended approval, provided the lighting complied with dark sky standards. With no public opposition, the board focused on ensuring compliance with zoning requirements, similar to their approach with the Medford Street case.

The meeting also considered a proposal for a taxi livery parking facility on Crescent Avenue. The petitioner, represented by an attorney, sought a special permit to accommodate 15 livery vehicles, transitioning from a former printing company operation. The board approved the permit, emphasizing that the proposal aligned with commercial property use and would not disrupt the neighborhood.

Additionally, the board reviewed plans to expand a function space and convert a residential unit into two on Broadway. The owners intended to make the space more appealing and practical for current market demands. While acknowledging the need for improved architectural solutions, concerns were raised about maintaining building safety and compliance with fire regulations. The board noted the importance of existing fire escapes and discussed the building code’s requirements for egress.

The meeting concluded with discussions on the need for site plans and parking evaluations for ongoing projects.