The board engaged in a detailed review of the proposed construction on Fairmount Avenue, where architect Caroline Cco presented plans to expand an existing building. The project aimed to improve the streetscape by removing non-conforming front yard parking, adding a street tree, and reducing impervious coverage. Despite the need for several variances, including height and front and side yard setbacks, the board approved the project, with planner Carolyn Worell noting that the proposed building height complied with zoning standards.

Another focal point of the meeting involved the application for a property on Glenwood Avenue, a continuation from a previous session. Nathan and Sharan McCormack, residents and neighboring property owners, voiced strong opposition to the size of the proposed building. They argued that it would negatively impact the historic character of the neighborhood and overshadow adjacent historic homes. Shireen McCormack also criticized the proposed plans, highlighting concerns of increased density, loss of green space, and potential flooding due to the removal of mature trees.

Further complicating the issue on Glenwood Avenue was a dispute over the accuracy of a streetscape image presented by the McCormacks, which the board questioned for its authenticity in representing the scale of the proposed building. The board sought additional information, including a more detailed visual representation of the proposed building, to fully assess the development’s impact.

The meeting also included discussions about a property seeking a use variance for residential zoning in the University Zone. The applicant highlighted several design revisions based on community and city planning feedback, arguing for a residential use that would conform to the original aims of the property’s zoning. However, board members expressed concerns about the 10-foot buffer requirement and the overall design’s impact on the neighborhood.

Public comments on a development project revealed a mixture of support and concern from the community. While some residents supported the developer’s adaptive reuse plans for a building on their block, others raised issues related to parking, increased density, and infrastructure challenges. Despite these concerns, the board ultimately approved the adaptive reuse project, with the staff recommending approval based on affordable housing, adaptive reuse, and historic preservation conditions.