The proposed development project, identified as PC17-12, seeks to build a ten-unit townhouse project on a 0.52-acre site currently zoned for low-density residential use. However, the project also involves the removal of several large trees, including a 200-year-old oak, which sparked community outrage.

Community members voiced strong opposition during the public hearing, emphasizing the ecological importance of preserving the mature oak trees. Katrina Morris, although not a local resident, argued against the tree removal. Andrew Russell reminded the commission of a previous unanimous vote to deny the project, citing unresolved community concerns and the lack of neighborhood meetings. The sentiment was echoed by other residents who criticized the project for its environmental impact and insufficient community consultation, urging the commission to reject the proposal outright.

Commissioner Bob questioned the adequacy of the proposed parking arrangements, highlighting the potential for overflow given the number of units and their likely use. He expressed skepticism about the developers’ engagement with local residents, emphasizing the importance of community involvement in planning processes. Further, Commissioner Pierre sought clarity on the environmental implications of the tree removal.

The developer’s representative, Mr. Geller, acknowledged the criticisms and pledged to conduct at least two community meetings before seeking further approvals. The deferment, passed by a majority vote of 6 to 1, was seen as a necessary step to address the community’s concerns comprehensively.

In contrast, a separate proposal for a high-density residential development on Northeast 135th Street received a more favorable reception. The project, which aims to construct an 11-story, 18-unit luxury condominium, was praised for its extensive community engagement and environmental considerations. Developer representatives highlighted their efforts to meet community feedback, including enhancing pedestrian safety, improving stormwater management, and maintaining the residential character of the street.

Despite positive aspects, the project also faced scrutiny over its parking arrangements. The inclusion of five-bedroom units with limited parking spaces was a point of contention, with concerns about potential overflow and the impact on existing residents.