The most prominent agenda item was Case No. 2025-17124126 for a property on Pearl Street, where the petitioners, Wang Gaygo and Ever Savala of GZ Realty Trust, sought to transform a third-floor residential unit into two separate units, while maintaining commercial spaces on the lower floors. The proposal required variances due to non-compliance with rear yard setback, usable open space, and off-street parking standards. It was noted that the Planning Board had reviewed and recommended approval of the proposal, prompting the petitioners to make alterations based on feedback from both the Planning Board and the Historical Commission.

David Mlin, representing the petitioners, detailed the modifications made to the project. Initially, the plan included twelve residential units but was revised to accommodate nine units across the upper floors, with two one-bedroom and one two-bedroom unit on each floor. The petitioners focused on optimizing unit size and ensuring the building’s exterior matched historical aesthetics through careful window placement and finish selections. No public opposition was recorded during the hearing, with the board expressing general support for the amendments.

The board’s approval was contingent on several conditions: the submission of a compliant lighting plan, a roving control plan, a waste management plan, and a construction management plan. Additionally, the installation of a white roof and the prohibition of grills or umbrellas on the roof deck were mandated. An important stipulation was that occupants would not be eligible for the city’s on-street parking sticker program, highlighting the ongoing parking concerns in the area.

Board members acknowledged the inherent limitations of the site, constrained by its existing footprint and passageways. The building’s age necessitated upgrades to remain viable, and strict enforcement of zoning provisions would result in substantial hardship. The board concluded that the project would not negatively impact the neighborhood, would enhance public good, and fit seamlessly into the urban context, addressing the city’s housing shortage and facilitating economic development through additional retail spaces.

The board also deliberated on Case 2025-9 for 403-405 Broadway, which involved converting a third-floor residential unit into two units while preserving the commercial use on the lower floors. James Cipto, representing the applicant, highlighted the planning board’s feedback regarding storage in the function hall on the second floor, leading to a reconfiguration that included storage for foldable furniture. The historical commission had positively engaged with the project, and aesthetic enhancements such as a mural and decorative elements were proposed.

Public concerns were raised about the function hall’s operational hours, especially in proximity to residential units. The board stressed the importance of determining hours of operation in coordination with the Licensing Board. The proposal’s variance and special permit requirements were discussed, emphasizing the narrow and small lot’s unique challenges, which had historically lacked parking. The proposal aimed to optimize the property’s use without extending beyond its current footprint, aligning with community development goals.

Another noteworthy discussion involved a property on Washington Street, where internal modifications were proposed to meet financial hardships associated with maintaining the structure. The board agreed that the project would reduce traffic and enhance safety by upgrading the building to meet current standards. The proposal met all criteria for granting special permits, serving community needs by adding a residential unit and maintaining neighborhood character.

Finally, the board reviewed a proposal for a property on Library Street, involving a significant expansion from a three-dwelling unit structure to a twelve-dwelling unit structure. This project faced zoning challenges, particularly concerning parking and lot coverage. The applicant, Efron Molina, outlined plans to construct additional levels on an existing garage, creating nine new units. The board did not vote on this case, as further review by the Planning Board was scheduled.