19:31One of the meeting’s key outcomes was the approval of a proposal to increase residential space on Research Drive, facilitating the inclusion of a caretaker apartment. The modification increased the residential area designation from 14% to 30%. The applicant, represented by Ron Ler, argued that housing an on-site employee would enhance service quality and reduce travel time for the caretaker responsible for cleaning multiple properties. The board reviewed the application and supporting documents, noting that public opinion was silent on the request, reflecting either neutrality or support.

Board members discussed the implications of this modification extensively. A member voiced strong approval, noting that the space transition would not diminish commercial rental income but instead support the property’s operational needs. The board considered this distinction, as it demonstrated alignment with zoning bylaw intents without creating nuisances. Acknowledging the separate nature of other nearby properties, the board noted that the proposed increase in residential space would not conflict with existing zoning regulations or the neighborhood’s character.

The board emphasized that the caretaker unit would contribute positively to workforce housing, aligning with the town’s efforts to balance commercial and residential needs. Conditions for approval included adherence to the proposal’s plans and application package. The motion to approve the expansion carried unanimously.

40:07The board’s agenda also addressed compliance issues at properties on Salem Street, specifically concerning parking arrangements. A site visit exposed improper parking conditions, with several cars parked on grass and within setback areas. The applicant, represented by engineer Bucky Sparkle, proposed a parking solution involving asphalt and grass pavers to create a firmer surface, alongside vegetation buffers for stormwater management. Despite these efforts, public comments highlighted mixed sentiments about parking adequacy and tenant density.

1:14:49Concerns about parking persisted throughout the meeting. Board members deliberated on the practicality of stacking vehicles and the potential impact on neighborhood aesthetics. One member questioned if reducing parking spaces could minimize disruptions.

2:14:38A public hearing continuation was scheduled for March 13, allowing further exploration of parking solutions in collaboration with the Conservation Commission. This pause aimed to refine the proposal.

In addition to these discussions, the board addressed a request to withdraw an application for a variance on Amity Street without prejudice. Economic constraints, notably steel costs, rendered the original plan to increase building height to six stories untenable. The board’s acceptance of this withdrawal allows the applicant to revisit the project with revised plans when feasible.