The most discussed issue during the meeting was the request by Ralph Gian Gregorio to expand his personal training facility into the remaining space of a building on North Putnam Street. This location, already home to a gym, a three-family residence, and an HVAC facility, presented a complex scenario due to its non-conforming status. The primary concern raised by the board revolved around the lack of a stamped engineering drawing for the proposed parking plan, a critical requirement for assessing the feasibility of expanding the facility.

Board members expressed apprehension about the current parking setup, which included the addition of five or six compact car spaces and two more spots at the front of the building. Despite these additions, concerns persisted over the legality and safety of the parking configuration, especially without an engineer’s stamp. John H emphasized the necessity of having an official plan, stating, “we definitely need to have an official approved plan stamped within how many legal spots you have.” The absence of this documentation led to hesitation among board members to approve the expansion.

The debate also touched on the potential overflow of vehicles during peak times, with particular criticism directed at the use of tandem parking for three cars, which was deemed illegal. A board member warned of liability risks, suggesting that the current parking situation might lead to unauthorized parking on the street, thereby impacting neighborhood welfare. Echoing this sentiment, another member articulated a cautious approach, noting, “we can put our foot down and say you need 16x10t spaces but then people are going to be parking where they shouldn’t be.”

During the proceedings, Ralph defended the existing parking arrangements, highlighting that the busiest period was only for one hour each day, and the current setup managed to keep cars off the street. However, the board maintained that compliance with zoning requirements could not be overlooked. They suggested that Ralph engage his engineer to create a comprehensive parking plan that included designated spaces for both residential and commercial aspects of the property. This plan would ideally clarify the number of spots needed and ensure that the arrangement was both legal and safe.

A broader conversation emerged around the overall functionality of the site, particularly the mix of operations within a residential zone. One board member expressed skepticism about supporting the expansion, stating, “I can’t support this on any level,” citing the complex nature of the site as detrimental to the neighborhood.

As the meeting continued, the board collectively decided to postpone any decisions on the application, allowing time for Ralph to provide the necessary documentation. The board scheduled the next meeting for January 13, 2025, with the expectation that Ralph’s engineer would clarify the parking requirements. This delay was aimed at preventing miscommunications and ensuring a more efficient review process in the following sessions.