The proposed development on Mammoth Avenue became the focal point of the meeting. The project involves transforming a site within the Waterfront Special District into a residential area, aligning more closely with corridor district zoning. This transformation necessitated various variances, including a use variance for residential ground-floor use in a district typically requiring commercial elements. The proposal also included a request for reduced front yard setbacks to nine feet, justified by the visual extension provided by the right-of-way and lawn area.

One of the primary concerns during the meeting was the proposed reduction in landscape coverage from 62.3% to 26.5%, falling short of the 35% zoning requirement. The developers argued that the decrease was necessary to accommodate additional parking spaces, which they claimed were essential to alleviate existing traffic issues and improve the area’s visual appeal. Despite the reduction, the project would still offer more parking than required, with 23 spaces for the six units.

Board members and local residents engaged in debate over the potential impact of the development on the community. The site’s current non-compliance with flood standards and building codes was a point of discussion. The developers assured the board that the new design would improve water drainage by directing stormwater to the street, as required by local ordinances. Residents voiced concerns about exacerbating flooding issues, particularly with the site’s elevation changes and the use of pervious pavers to manage stormwater.

The development’s height also drew attention, as it exceeded the allowable limit by approximately two feet. While some members considered this a minor variance, others worried about the potential visual impact. The developers defended the height increase, stating that it was necessary for the building’s design and that the overall aesthetic would benefit the neighborhood.

Board members deliberated over the project’s compliance with zoning regulations and the need for variances. They weighed the benefits of reducing the site’s density and eliminating commercial use against the potential drawbacks of deviating from the zoning plan. Ultimately, the board voted in favor of the development, citing the project’s alignment with the area’s residential character and the long-term benefits of addressing flood and parking issues.

In addition to the Mammoth Avenue project, the board reviewed another application for a modest addition to a property on Pacific Avenue. The applicant sought C variance relief for rear and side yard setbacks to add a bedroom and study area without altering the building’s footprint. The board unanimously approved the application, noting the addition’s minimal impact on the neighborhood and its contribution to retaining long-term residents.

A separate case involved Scott Dorfner’s application for variances related to a renovation project on North Brunswick Avenue. The proposal included the construction of a swimming pool, an elevated deck, and a front porch roof, requiring variances for building and landscape coverage, as well as exterior stairs. The board discussed the project’s alignment with zoning guidelines and ultimately determined that the requested variances were minor and would not negatively impact the neighborhood.