The primary point of contention centered around the application for a property on Grant Street, which involved significant proposed alterations and associated variances. The applicant’s representative presented a case for aligning the property with historical zoning inconsistencies, emphasizing the need for adjustments due to past infrastructure changes such as railroad installations in the 1920s. The representative argued that the variance would bring the property into compliance with its neighbors, stating, “Let’s look at that why was it done why is it like that… let’s fix that.”

The proposed project included expanding the habitable area from 1,212 square feet to 3,134 square feet, increasing the number of bedrooms from four to six. A significant aspect of the discussion was the floor area ratio (FAR), with the current ratio at 0.274 and the proposal seeking 0.447, above the allowed maximum of 0.40. The engineer’s report highlighted this increase, raising concerns about massing and the visual impact on the neighborhood, pointing out that the FAR regulations aim to address these issues.

Additionally, the project aimed to reduce lot coverage from 53% to 42.3%, an improvement but still requiring a variance. Parking requirements were met with the proposed plan accommodating three spaces for the six-bedroom structure. The existing detached garage remained unchanged, retaining its non-conforming status. Several conditions of approval were discussed, including the need for a landscaping plan and compliance with stormwater management due to the area’s flood susceptibility.

Public comments brought forward concerns about the feasibility of leasing adjacent city-owned land for additional space, particularly since the area is designated for flood mitigation. The board members’ opinions were divided, with one member expressing opposition, stating, “I don’t find the exception satisfied… I find the lot to be just what it is,” highlighting the inappropriateness of considering land not owned by the homeowners in justifying the variance. Despite recognizing some positives in the proposal, the variance was ultimately denied, receiving only four affirmative votes out of the required five.

Another discussion involved a proposal for a property on Grant Street by Donna and John Doty. Their representative, Ron Gunis, outlined a plan to reconfigure the interior of their single-family home, including removing an interior staircase, a chimney, and adding new dormers to increase ceiling height. The architect, Pam Fine, presented the design changes, emphasizing exterior improvements like replacing concrete with pervious pavers and removing a rear deck. These modifications aimed to reduce impervious coverage and improve compliance with rear yard setback requirements.

The Doty application also involved internal adjustments to create more usable space, such as converting a narrow staircase into closet storage and counter space. The applicants shared their intention to retire in the area within two years, citing issues with the tightness of the bathrooms and inefficient bedroom layouts. The board sought clarity on the implications of these changes for zoning compliance.

A separate application discussed involved James and Carol Ramo concerning their property on Grand Street. The attorney representing the Ramose presented the case for variance relief due to unique circumstances, emphasizing the need to address flooding issues. The proposed design included raising the house to comply with flood elevation requirements and constructing a new house connected to the existing family room. The architect highlighted that the project received conceptual approval from the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) after addressing concerns. The discussion focused on maintaining the neighborhood’s architectural style and reducing lot coverage from 50.1% to 42.3%.

Lastly, the board reviewed a development project requiring various permits and approvals, including compliance with stormwater management and grading requirements. The project, located within the historic district, necessitated final approval from the HPC and adherence to affordable housing requirements at the time of building permit issuance. The board discussed conditions such as adding a street tree, evaluating sidewalk conditions post-construction, and ensuring compliance with inspection escrow requirements.