Attorney Larry Simeone, representing the Sea Family Realty Trust, presented the project details, highlighting its location within the TED District, which mandates certain zoning requirements. However, the proposed building’s lot size of approximately 7,996 square feet falls short of the district’s minimum requirements. Architect Doug Stanos revealed a design exceeding the agreed maximum height by three feet, admitting that the structure would cast shadows on neighboring properties, a concern validated by a shadow study.

Residents, including Sean M. from 18 Green Street, challenged the project’s height and shadow impact, alleging inaccuracies in the shadow study and arguing that the building’s size would create a bottleneck effect on the narrow street. Another resident, an architect, criticized the shadow study’s orientation, claiming it misrepresented the building’s impact on local sunlight. He presented visual evidence to support his claims, warning that the development would obstruct sunlight for residents, characterizing it as a hardship.

Further concerns were voiced by Amanda Mordi, who questioned the project’s parking arrangements. She noted that eight parking spaces were insufficient for the 59 units proposed, citing existing auto body shop usage of these spaces. Mordi emphasized the shadowing effect from the developer’s existing office building, expressing doubts about the enforcement of parking regulations and veterans housing commitments. She presented video evidence of vehicle congestion, contradicting developer claims of ample parking availability.

Council members addressed these concerns, with one member noting previous discussions about prohibiting vehicle registration for tenants at the address, a condition tied to the variance granted by the city. Despite this, Mordi remained skeptical, questioning the integrity of parking data presented by developers.

The council session also covered a special permit for converting a former store into residential apartments within the neighborhood business district. This conversion required compliance with building, plumbing, electrical, and fire safety codes for all units. The council conducted a roll call vote, leading to a favorable recommendation for the special permit.

Additionally, the council debated a request to terminate a deed restriction on a property on Centennial Avenue, which would allow for a six-unit residential addition. The proposed development, characterized as transit-oriented, aimed to enhance the area with modern safety standards and aesthetics. However, council members expressed mixed views, with some advocating for density caution and others supporting the project due to state funding benefits for transit-adjacent developments.

The council voted on the deed restriction termination, with some members dissenting. Conditions outlined by the site plan review committee included fire separation requirements, code compliance, and sewer connection fees. The council ultimately granted a favorable recommendation for the special permit, reflecting ongoing debates about urban development and community impact.