The application by Manet Sing and Ravinder Cower to transform the existing garage into a convenience store brought forth a series of discussions. Michael Svaji, representing the applicants, acknowledged the site’s challenges, noting its small, triangular shape and the need for improvements in traffic flow and parking. The revised plan proposed closing some entrance points to enhance circulation, relocating the dumpster, and incorporating a sidewalk with an ADA ramp for accessibility. Despite these efforts, the proposal faced scrutiny for not meeting the parking requirements stipulated by the ordinance. The plan proposed eight parking stalls, a variance from the required 18, raising questions from board members about the sufficiency of parking and the reliance on professional opinions without empirical data.

A point of debate was the potential increase in transient traffic and the impact on the residential neighborhood. Some board members expressed skepticism about the site’s suitability for a convenience store, given its residential surroundings and existing traffic patterns. Residents voiced concerns over the proposed changes, highlighting issues like insufficient sightlines at intersections and the potential for increased noise and safety hazards.

The discussion also touched on the proposal’s compliance with zoning regulations, particularly regarding impervious surface area and the non-conforming use in a residential zone. Cameron Black, a professional planner, argued that the conversion would enhance the site’s aesthetic, improve stormwater management, and reduce noise. However, board members challenged his assertion that the convenience store would not increase traffic, emphasizing the need for more direct evidence from the master plan to support the variance request.

Concerns about traffic safety were pronounced, with Danielson highlighting the inadequacy of sightlines for vehicles entering or exiting the site. He argued that increased traffic from a convenience store would exacerbate safety risks, particularly with poorly placed parking spots requiring customers to cross traffic lanes. The debate underscored a broader tension between aesthetic improvements and potential traffic and safety issues, with some board members questioning whether the proposed changes would genuinely benefit the community.

The conversation also addressed noise levels associated with the proposed use. An expert testified that sound levels from the convenience store would be comparable to those in residential driveways, but residents expressed doubts, arguing that the frequent customer visits would generate more noise than the current auto shop. The board allowed Danielson to continue sharing his observations, despite objections about his non-expert status, revealing a divide between professional assessments and community concerns.