A key point of contention revolved around the removal of mature trees on the property, which many residents saw as a critical environmental issue. Eric Blake, representing the McGinley Square community board, vehemently opposed the removal of the trees, arguing that their destruction would undermine sustainable landscaping efforts. “Destroying established trees can hardly be considered reinvigorating a sustainable landscape,” Blake stated, urging the board to preserve the mature trees and maintain the courtyard’s public accessibility.

Other residents echoed Blake’s sentiments, emphasizing the environmental and aesthetic value of the trees. Dermit Ronan described the removal of the trees as “vandalism” and highlighted the ongoing parking problems on Glenwood Avenue, stating, “There is no parking on the block.” Ronan and others called for a parking solution to accommodate the increased development in the area.

Charlene Burke, president of the Westside Community Alliance, reiterated the community’s longstanding request for a parking solution and the need for developers to engage more effectively with local residents. She suggested that additional affordable housing units could be negotiated in exchange for preserving the trees. “We need every tree we have in this city to stay and we need a lot more coming online,” Burke remarked.

In response to these concerns, the project’s attorney, Steven Joseph, explained that the trees needed to be removed to create a staging area for construction. He clarified that the application did not request a parking variance due to the building’s historical significance and compliance with existing density regulations.

Parking remained an issue throughout the meeting. John Hanac pointed out that even if only half of the proposed 53 units had cars, it would substantially impact parking availability in the neighborhood. Hanac argued that the lack of parking solutions would be “incredibly detrimental to the neighborhood.”

Further complicating matters, the meeting addressed another significant proposal for a mixed-use building on Montrose Avenue. The application sought several variances due to the historical significance and non-conforming use status of the property. The proposed project aimed to combine three buildings into two commercial units and five residential units, with the attorney emphasizing the building’s historical significance and the intended restoration efforts.

Public comments on this proposal reflected concerns about density and environmental impact. Long-time resident Patrick Finucan questioned the historical claims about the property and raised concerns about flooding and sewage capacity, citing issues experienced during Hurricane Ida. Maryley Nguyen, another resident, expressed worries about the new building’s height affecting her home’s light, particularly during winter. “I have a direct sight line from my house… if you’re going to build to fourth story and above what I’m afraid is the lights down by Kennedy and Sanford place,” Nguyen stated.

Despite these concerns, the board approved the application with conditions, including working with staff on tree preservation and construction logistics. The motion passed with a majority vote, although one commissioner dissented.

The meeting also featured a discussion on a revised application for a building initially approved in 2017. The architect presented changes made to the building’s layout, materials, and green roof area, arguing that the modifications enhanced the overall appearance and functionality. Board members expressed satisfaction with these changes, and the application was approved without public opposition.

Another notable case involved a mixed-use building on a 2,500 square foot lot zoned R1. The proposal sought several variances, including those related to density and building height. Public comments raised concerns about the building’s impact on parking and the neighborhood’s character. Despite these concerns, the board approved the application, contingent on conditions and recommendations from the Historic Preservation Commission.