The proposal for a property on Washington Street LLC to convert a single large residential unit into two smaller ones was a central point of discussion. This proposal sought site plan preliminary and final approvals, along with variances due to longstanding non-conformities, such as minimum required off-street parking, maximum permitted lot coverage, and minimum required rear yard setback. The building, which has remained unchanged since at least 1982, was proposed to be recognized as a pre-existing non-conforming structure. The planned conversion would not alter the building’s exterior aside from adding egress windows, which had been pre-approved by the Historic Preservation Commission.

The application’s rationale was to provide housing for employees of a local business, thereby supporting the workforce while addressing the town’s housing demands. However, the conversion raised concerns about exacerbating existing parking issues. The property currently offers no off-street parking, and the proposed changes would technically increase the need for parking spaces. A representative claimed that the conversion might not increase parking demand, arguing that two smaller units could generate less need than one larger unit. This assertion was met with skepticism, with board members and public participants expressing worries about potential short-term rental use and the impact on neighborhood parking.

To address these concerns, the discussion considered whether a deed restriction could ensure the units remain for workforce housing. However, this suggestion faced resistance due to potential long-term feasibility issues, should housing needs shift. The board weighed these factors, ultimately seeking a balance between the benefits of increased workforce housing and the practical implications of parking variances within the community’s existing framework.

Simultaneously, Kings Cafe LLC presented a separate application to modify its seating arrangements by incorporating outdoor seating. The cafe’s owner testified that patrons often preferred outdoor seating, leading to sidewalk congestion. The proposal included moving some indoor seating outdoors, with plans for five tables and two seats each, to be placed strategically to maintain pedestrian clearance.

The board’s discussion extended to safety concerns highlighted by police and fire departments, recommending the installation of bollards to protect patrons. The business’s representative acknowledged the need for redesigning the layout to address these safety issues.

Board members deliberated on the feasibility of relocating the parking or using planters instead of bollards as a cost-effective alternative to direct pedestrian traffic safely. Ultimately, the board decided to table the application, allowing time for further planning and refinement of the proposed changes to ensure safety while maximizing outdoor seating potential.