At the heart of the meeting was the project on Arlington Avenue, which aims to transform a vacant lot into a three-story residential building with 37 units, including an affordable housing component. The development requires a series of variances, notably for dwelling units in the basement, front yard setbacks, and rooftop elements. These variances were justified by the project’s representative, who cited the site’s unique topographical challenges and its proximity to public transportation as key considerations.

Alexander Perkins, a nearby resident, praised the project for its alignment with existing neighborhood structures and its potential to enhance community vitality without exacerbating parking issues. He highlighted the building’s accessibility to public transit as a boon for reducing car dependence, stating, “The requested variances seem minor and perfectly reasonable for making the plan work on what sounds like a difficult site.”

In contrast, concerns about the project’s trajectory since its inception in 2015 were voiced by Christopher Pettis from the Sherwood Claremont Neighborhood Association. Pettis emphasized that initial agreements for a smaller-scale project had shifted without adequate community engagement. He stated, “We are not nimbys and we’re up for adding housing. We understand that it helps with affordability.” However, he criticized the developers for not addressing community feedback, advocating for the removal of the fourth floor and basement units to reflect prior agreements.

Leela Blanch, a resident adjacent to the proposed development, echoed these concerns, particularly highlighting the strain on local parking and the perceived disconnect between the developer’s proposals and community expectations. Blanch argued that the proposed variances were excessive and not reflective of the community’s input, saying, “It’s just too much. You shouldn’t need four variances on top of the whole big master plan that was just redone.”

Further complicating the issue was the absence of parking provisions in the development plan, a point of contention for many residents. While the developers argued that the site’s compliance with the R1 zoning code negated the need for parking due to its affordability component, community members remained unconvinced. Kesha P. pointed out the unrealistic assumption that new residents would not own cars, given existing parking challenges.

The board’s approval came with specific conditions. These included ensuring ADA access within the units and compliance with city forestry standards for the proposed landscaping. Nevertheless, the approval did little to assuage the dissatisfaction of some residents, who felt their voices had been sidelined in favor of development goals.

In another notable agenda item, the board unanimously approved the renovation and subdivision of a commercial space on Hutton Street, despite it being a non-conforming use. This decision was supported by the board’s assertion that the project aligned with neighborhood commercial goals and would enhance the visual environment without altering the streetscape.

Additionally, the board addressed the proposed relocation of a house of worship to 48 Central Avenue. The plan for a four-story facility encountered parking-related scrutiny, similar to the Arlington Avenue project. However, an arrangement with a nearby school to use its parking lot during non-school hours was presented as a solution, contributing to the board’s unanimous approval of the application.