The project had previously secured preliminary approval from the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) and was seeking the board’s approval for both preliminary and final site plans, as well as necessary variances. Key to the board’s discussions was the historical integrity of the building, as the proposed plans included not only the restoration of the front porch but also the construction of balconies and outdoor spaces for the residential units. The project team provided detailed presentations, with the architect explaining the rationale behind the design choices, which aimed at maintaining the historical character of the building while accommodating modern use.

Floor area ratio was a point of debate, as it initially included commercial space in the calculation. However, subsequent realizations led to a focus solely on residential habitable space. Despite this, the project still required use variances due to the mixed commercial and residential application. The board scrutinized the proposed third-floor addition and other changes to ensure they were in line with the historical essence of the structure, with particular attention given to the front porch’s alignment with its original location, as suggested by remnants of previous footings.

The owner of the property expressed intentions to convert the upper floors to residential use while maintaining the ground floor for professional office space. The low parking demand associated with professional offices was highlighted by a professional planner, who presented a parking analysis supporting this claim. Throughout the discussion, the board evaluated various aspects including the proposed use, parking analysis, expansion, and architectural changes.

Another major topic of discussion was an application concerning a property on New York Avenue. The attorney representing Fern and Kevin Waters presented a case emphasizing the historical significance of the property, which exceeded the zoning district’s floor area ratio limitations due to past renovations. The board considered the property’s unique circumstances, including a shared driveway and the reduction in residential intensity from six to five bedrooms. The attorney argued for a variance based on the property’s non-conforming status and plans for further improvement.

The board also deliberated on a building expansion proposal on Lafayette Street, which involved an in-depth examination of the impact on zoning regulations, neighborhood aesthetics, and parking requirements. The proposal sought to renovate a building housing a realtor and an accountant, improving safety and aesthetics while expanding residential units. The board discussed the need for variances for lot coverage, parking, and maintaining the non-conforming dual use.

During the public comments, a neighbor expressed support for the Lafayette Street project, praising the applicants as conscientious property owners and expressing enthusiasm for the preservation of the historic home. No issues with the current site use were reported.

The meeting further covered a review memo for another project in the R2 District, seeking a floor area ratio variance and a parking variance. Various departments, including the fire department, public works, and the shade tree commission, recommended approval, with conditions noted for sidewalk replacement.

Towards the end of the meeting, the board discussed the importance of zoning board of adjustment decisions, acknowledging their critical role in modifying the Zone plan and ordinance. The board recommended allocating time on nights with lighter agendas for a comprehensive analysis of these decisions.