The primary focus of the meeting was the consistency review concerning Town Council ordinance number 24-20 N2, which outlines the Redevelopment Plan for a property on North Second Avenue. Chris, the presenter, detailed the redevelopment initiative, emphasizing its streamlined process tailored for smaller-scale projects. The site, a small commercial building in the northwest part of town with approximately 7,000 square feet and a one- to two-story structure built in 1940, was vacated in 2022. The plan aims to reuse the existing building to create multifamily apartments or single-family homes with accessory dwelling units (ADUs).

Chris pointed out the zoning errors, noting that the property had been incorrectly zoned over the years. Initially part of the conservation recreation zone until 2001, it was later categorized as residential zoning (RA). Public outreach during the master plan development showed that only 6% of respondents wanted the area unchanged.

The vision for the site includes adaptive reuse of the existing structure, converting it into a small apartment building while maintaining its historical and cultural significance. The plan emphasizes landscaping improvements, sustainable design strategies, and development standards compatible with the neighborhood. Specific regulations such as parking requirements—one space per unit and provisions for bicycle parking—were highlighted. The board was advised that the plan must comply with recycling codes and other environmental regulations.

The discussion moved to the proposed development project’s specifics, including the potential conversion of the building into four to six residential units, contingent on adjustments to the building and parking layout. The existing structure has five parking spaces, with regulations requiring one space per unit. The plan involves removing encroachments from the building that block access and adjusting parking configurations, including peeling away part of the existing one-story section to comply with zoning requirements.

Concerns were raised about potential biological contamination from the site’s history, which involved companies producing biological products. Proper disposal of materials during any demolition was emphasized. The property, isolated within a residential area, requires the removal of the one-story portion of the building.

The board discussed maximum height restrictions for the proposed development. Maintaining the neighborhood’s character while allowing design flexibility was a priority. The board considered language to clarify height restrictions.

Interest from developers in the project was confirmed, with the Mayor and Council reportedly supportive of the adaptive reuse concept. However, converting non-residential buildings into residential spaces can be costly, sometimes making demolition and new construction more economical. The board emphasized aligning the plan with local housing needs, suggesting that if adaptive reuse does not materialize, the zoning should allow for single-family homes with ADUs.

Questions arose about landscaping and site standards for any new development. The board clarified that if a single-family house were built, an ADU would be permissible but not mandatory. In contrast, if a two-family house was constructed, no ADU would be allowed. The board expressed hope that developers would consider implementing the community’s master plan goals, acknowledging that this project could be a small but step towards addressing housing shortages.

The meeting transitioned to public comments, but no members of the public were present to voice their opinions. The chair reiterated the board’s policy regarding public participation and emphasized the importance of in-person attendance for those wishing to engage in discussions. The master plan was noted to be accessible online for reference.

A formal vote on the consistency of the proposed development with the master plan followed. The board members voted in favor of the motion, which would be referred back to the council for further consideration.