Attorney Peter Solino, representing the applicant, outlined the development’s scope, highlighting a five-floor structure with residential units and an 8,000-square-foot adult daycare center. Solino detailed a parking plan that included 74 spaces, divided among residential and commercial uses. However, the board scrutinized the arrangement, particularly the allocation of spaces for daycare employees and the potential for overnight parking of commercial vehicles. Emphasizing the need for compliance with zoning ordinances, members discussed the impact of curb cuts on traffic and the challenges posed by the lot’s non-rectangular shape.

Further complicating the proposal, no public comments were received during the meeting, but a letter of support from the Bristol County Economic Development Consultants was presented. The letter underscored the project’s investment exceeding $20 million and its potential to address housing shortages and diversify options for various demographics, including young professionals and empty nesters. The board requested additional clarification on the proposed variances, which involve side yard setbacks and reductions in parking and landscaping requirements.

In light of these discussions, the board opted to defer a decision, requesting further details on the project’s compliance with zoning regulations and its impact on the surrounding area. The need for clear conditions on permits, particularly concerning employee and visitor parking, was also emphasized.

In another notable agenda item, the board considered a proposal from Tetral Real Estate LLC to divide an existing parcel on Belmont Street into two lots. The plan aimed to retain a three-family dwelling on one lot while creating a new single-family lot. This proposal followed the demolition of a barn previously slated for conversion into residential units, which had been denied due to community concerns. The barn’s demolition, deemed necessary by the building department due to safety issues, prompted questions about the rapid deterioration of the structure and the historic commission’s role in approving both renovation and demolition.

Community members voiced opposition, stressing the neighborhood’s historic character and expressing fears that the division could disrupt its residential nature. Concerns about parking and the potential for increased density were prominent in discussions, with residents advocating for preserving the neighborhood’s integrity. The board acknowledged these sentiments, balancing the need for housing with zoning compliance and neighborhood preservation. The variance request was ultimately tabled for further review.

The meeting also addressed a controversial after-the-fact variance for a non-conforming accessory structure on Bowler Street. The applicant had replaced an old garage with a larger structure without obtaining necessary permits, leading to drainage issues and concerns about compliance with size limitations for accessory buildings. Neighbors showed support for the new structure, but board members focused on adherence to zoning laws and the absence of a foundation beneath the structure. Discussion included potential solutions, such as shifting or resizing the building to meet setback requirements. The applicant agreed to table the petition, allowing time for redesign and reconsideration.

Finally, the board handled a request to divide a property with multiple structures into three lots. Opposition centered on potential neighborhood disputes over parking and access, although the division was considered a common request before the board. A motion to table the request was made, pending a more plans to address parking and access concerns.