The most notable aspect of the meeting centered on the proposal for the 30 Clinton Avenue site, which has been vacant for years. The project, spearheaded by Lam Capital Investments LLC, involves a four-story building with 22 residential units and 16 parking spaces. This revised plan followed community consultations that reduced the building’s height from a previously proposed five stories and decreased the unit count from 29 to 22. The revisions aimed to align the new structure with the neighborhood’s predominantly four-story character and address community concerns regarding parking and density.

The development required several variances, including a D5 density variance, as it proposes 103 units per acre in an R1 zoning district where only 42 units per acre are permitted. Additionally, a D6 height variance was necessary, as the building’s proposed 42 feet exceed the district’s 35-foot height limit. The project’s architect presented a design featuring a mansard roof and elements intended to harmonize with the local architecture, such as dormers and red brick facades.

During the meeting, a traffic engineer provided insights into the anticipated impact of the development. A traffic study suggested minimal increase in local traffic, projecting only six peak-hour trips, below the threshold for significant traffic impacts. The development’s proximity to the Garfield Avenue light rail station and various bus routes was noted as a factor that could mitigate vehicular demand.

The inclusion of affordable housing units was a crucial component of the proposal. The project incorporates two on-site affordable units—one three-bedroom and one one-bedroom—along with a contribution to the affordable housing trust fund.

The deliberation also addressed parking concerns, an issue for the community. The project provides 15 parking spaces, exceeding the required 10, to alleviate local street parking congestion. Despite the higher density and height variances, board members recognized the project’s efforts to meet community needs while adhering to zoning goals.

The meeting concluded with a motion to approve the application, which passed with a 6 to 1 vote. The dissenting board member expressed concerns over the number of variances requested, questioning the project’s alignment with zoning regulations. However, the majority deemed the proposal’s design attractive and necessary to address community housing demands.