The primary issue revolved around parking space adequacy and configuration. The board scrutinized the proposal to accommodate six vehicles in tandem parking, which could lead to logistical challenges. The zoning bylaw requires six spaces for a three-family dwelling, but the plan involved tandem parking, meaning vehicles would need to be moved to access others. This arrangement raised concerns about its practicality and potential congestion in the neighborhood. The plan included two tandem spots per unit, and although the applicant assured compliance with zoning requirements, the board’s skepticism persisted.

Questions arose about whether the proposed changes would be “substantial” and alter the neighborhood’s character. The addition of exterior entrances and alterations to the front steps were discussed as potential factors affecting the dwelling’s appearance. A board member highlighted the need for compliance with zoning bylaws, specifically regarding parking in setback areas.

Community feedback added layers to the debate. Residents Katie Trillo and Donna Sharp voiced concerns about the driveway’s capacity and potential noise disturbances from additional renters. Trillo, from 11 MacArthur, expressed skepticism about fitting six vehicles in the driveway, while Sharp from 7 MacArthur highlighted the difficulties of navigating tandem parking, which could create a crowded and dangerous situation.

The board raised further inquiries about the proposed driveway expansion and whether it would require an additional curb cut. The planning director confirmed that any widening would need approval from the Department of Public Works (DPW) as part of the permitting process. The applicant reassured that the changes would not deviate from the current plan, but the board remained cautious.

The board members expressed varying opinions on the proposal. While some appreciated the architectural consistency, others voiced strong opposition due to parking concerns. The board debated whether the neighborhood could support a three-family dwelling, reflecting worries about setting a precedent for future conversions. Ultimately, the board decided not to approve the application as presented, offering the applicant the option to withdraw without prejudice or seek a continuance to revise their plan. The applicant chose to pursue a continuance.

In another discussion, the board reviewed a finding for a side setback encroachment on Salvador Circle. Betsy and Bob Dumashell sought approval for a 16 by 24-foot addition to their non-conforming single-family home. The proposal would place the addition 10.9 feet from the lot line, less than the required 15 feet. Despite concerns about the addition’s incremental nature, the board favored the application due to a lack of neighbor opposition and precedent set by previous similar projects. A vote was called, resulting in unanimous approval for the side setback encroachment.

The meeting also addressed a request for a rear setback encroachment related to an above-ground pool replacement on Putnham Lane. The applicant’s son, Joshua Samson, explained that the new pool would be in the same position as the previous one but with a wider railing necessitating a setback of 4.2 feet from the property line instead of the required 8 feet. The board discussed the historical context of past decisions and the need for clarity in documenting compliance with zoning regulations. After deliberation, the board voted unanimously in favor of the finding, with specific language about the change not being substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood.