One of the most issues discussed at the meeting was the proposed relocation of a driveway in relation to a pedestrian crosswalk and intersection. The board expressed concerns about the safety implications of moving the driveway closer to the intersection. The civil engineer, Brian Liskind, provided details on the relocation and a cut-fill analysis plan, but Cynthia Hajian of the Riverview Neighborhood Association questioned the rationale behind the relocation and the removal of a 30-foot requirement mentioned in a previous engineering memo. The board and the applicant’s representative debated the necessity of the 30-foot separation, a suggestion for traffic safety, not a code requirement.

Discussions on the project’s foundation were equally detailed, with structural engineer Jason Tarantino stating that the eight-story building would utilize a conservative approach, supported directly on diabase rock, with an estimated 1.5 Kips per square foot of the building area. Tarantino emphasized that rock is always the strongest bearing surface, providing a stable foundation. However, questions arose about the presence of fractures in the diabase rock and their implications for stability. Geotechnical engineer Mr. Jundy addressed these concerns, stating that fractures do not necessarily compromise stability, and the proposed foundation methods were suitable.

The board also heard testimony from the project’s architect, Anthony C. Vandemar Jr., who presented an extensive overview of the 8-story building, including 14 residential units, parking and bicycle spaces, a green roof, and rooftop amenities. Vandemar highlighted compliance with R3 Zone District regulations and addressed the design elements and site characteristics. The architect’s testimony was supported by renderings, photographs, and graphics to provide a clear visual representation of the proposed development.

Community members and residents voiced their concerns about the proposal. Dan Blidner, a resident living next to the planned construction, and others highlighted safety concerns and the project’s impact on the community’s stability. Objections were raised about the project’s compatibility with the neighborhood, with some stating it would not harmonize with the surrounding area. Traffic safety was a concern, with residents like Courtney Walker expressing apprehension about potential congestion and safety at the intersection of Palisade Avenue and Wood Place.

At one point, the meeting faced a procedural hurdle when Mr. Goll, an engineering expert, presented two exhibits that were not provided to the board or the applicant’s representative, Mr. Harrington, before the meeting. These exhibits involved the stormwater ordinance and the classification of development as major or minor. The late submission of these exhibits led to a discussion on fairness and the board’s policies, with Commissioner Torres expressing frustration over the acceptance of last-minute reports. Despite these concerns, the board voted to allow the presentation to proceed, with the understanding that a rebuttal would be allowed.

During the meeting, several witnesses, including Roger Heyman, Veto Bernetti, and Caroline Cats, expressed opposition to the project, citing the building’s height, impact on the neighborhood’s character, and potential safety hazards. The architect and developer’s representatives tried to emphasize the project’s positive aspects, but concerns about the building’s scale and potential to obstruct light and views to neighboring structures were raised. There was also a debate regarding the application of residential design standards and potential spot zoning issues.