The most engaging discussion centered around McMurphy’s Tavern’s request for a special permit to operate on North Pleasant Street. The tavern, seeking to move due to the demolition of its current building, proposed adding an outdoor patio to the new location. Concerns were raised about potential noise and disruptive behavior, especially given the proximity to a college area. The board emphasized the need for effective crowd control measures, with the applicant assuring that staff would manage outdoor activities. The outdoor seating was designed for a limited capacity, consisting of several tables, and aimed to foster a relaxed atmosphere. However, board members were wary of the area becoming overwhelmed during peak times, particularly with younger patrons.

A board member suggested keeping the outdoor space off-limits if it became problematic, prompting a discussion on operational adjustments. The applicant was open to modifying the outdoor area’s use based on community feedback and operational needs.

The board also scrutinized various conditions tied to the special permit, such as delivery times and management changes. There was debate over whether the conditions, like stipulated delivery hours, were standard or outdated, leading to a consensus to revise some terms for clarity. Another focus was on ensuring sound management within the outdoor seating area, with existing soundproofing measures detailed in the applicant’s proposal. The discussions concluded with a unanimous decision to approve the findings and conditions, granting the special permit for McMurphy’s Tavern.

In contrast, the application concerning the property on High Street proved more contentious. The owner, Mr. Roitz, sought to convert a porch into a bedroom while managing the property with a resident manager due to his frequent work-related absences. The board grappled with the implications of the owner-occupied status, especially given Mr. Roitz’s extended work assignments, which could last up to nine months. Concerns arose about the practicality of having a resident manager share living space with tenants, potentially blurring lines of authority and responsibility.

The board questioned the management strategy during Mr. Roitz’s absences, pointing out discrepancies in the documentation and the proposed oversight structure. While the intent was to maintain the property as an owner-occupied dwelling, the frequent absences complicated the application, leading to discussions about the viability of the management model proposed.

Board members expressed reservations, with some proposing that the application be withdrawn to address the noted issues more effectively. The sentiment leaned towards providing Mr. Roitz the opportunity to refine and simplify his proposal, focusing on clearer management plans and compliance with zoning regulations. Ultimately, the decision was made to allow the application to be withdrawn without prejudice, enabling a fresh start for future submissions.

The meeting concluded with logistical discussions on scheduling future meetings and site visits. The board agreed to implement a new policy for site visit scheduling to ensure clarity for applicants and board members alike.