The focal point of the meeting was the proposed development by MJP Properties, Inc. and Johnson Construction Management LLC, which seeks to transform a single-story commercial building, housing a dental office, into a mixed-use structure with two additional residential stories. The plan outlines 16 three-bedroom units, designed to attract families, alongside commercial spaces on the ground floor. This proposal aligns with Danvers’ character-based zoning district goals, promoting mixed-use developments that cater to both residential and commercial needs.

During the presentation, Attorney Nancy McCann, representing the developers, emphasized the project’s alignment with zoning requirements. She noted that the building’s footprint and height comply with local regulations, despite seeking several special permits and waivers. These include permission to count some on-street parking spaces towards commercial parking requirements and a request for reduced ground floor transparency due to the dental office’s needs.

The board and residents voiced concerns about the development’s density, parking logistics, and visual impact. Some participants questioned the decision to focus solely on three-bedroom units. The design’s impact on the existing dental office was also a key topic, with assurances made to maintain its operations during construction, though complete continuity could not be guaranteed.

Parking arrangements were a contentious issue, given the 41 parking spaces planned, with many in tandem configurations. The developers sought to address these concerns by proposing on-street parking adjustments, but questions remained about the practicality and fairness of the setup. Residents expressed worries about increased street parking demand and its effect on local businesses and amenities.

The project’s architectural design sparked debate, particularly regarding its darker color scheme and modern aesthetic, which some felt clashed with Danvers’ historical New England village charm. Suggestions were made to incorporate lighter colors and more transparent elements to better blend with the neighborhood’s traditional style.

Concerns extended to the project’s potential environmental impact, with discussions about the landscaping plan and the removal of mature trees. The developers proposed a robust landscaping plan, including a pocket park and a roof deck, but the community expressed a preference for preserving existing trees and reconsidering the use of artificial turf in favor of natural options.

The introduction of affordable housing units was a point of interest, with the developers offering an additional unit beyond the requirement. While some praised this move, others questioned whether these units would truly be affordable for the community, particularly given the income thresholds set for eligibility.

The meeting also addressed broader issues related to zoning regulations and community character. Residents expressed concerns about setting precedents for future developments that exceed established density limits.

Some attendees supported the project for its potential to provide much-needed family housing, while others urged caution, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the town’s character and managing growth sustainably.