The most pressing topic was the proposal concerning the construction of a duplex on a compact 2,500-square-foot lot at Veterans Memorial Drive. The proposal aimed to create a three-bedroom structure with immediate access to train services. However, the board raised significant safety concerns, primarily regarding the tandem parking design, which could pose risks to pedestrians, especially children attending a nearby grammar school. The design was critiqued for potentially causing accidents due to the narrow street and the necessity for vehicles to back out into traffic. A board member termed this configuration “an accident waiting to happen,” reflecting the board’s apprehension about the project’s impact on community safety.

The architectural design, featuring vinyl siding and basic elevations, also drew criticism for its lack of alignment with existing neighborhood aesthetics. The absence of outdoor spaces for the units was another point of concern, with board members noting that the constrained lot size limited livability. Suggestions were made to reconsider the housing type, possibly opting for smaller single-family homes or mini-houses that could better suit the lot’s constraints while enhancing safety and community appeal.

In response to the board’s concerns, the architect acknowledged the challenges presented by the lot size and parking layout. A recess was called to allow for additional reflection and feedback, with the board aiming to ensure that the proposal met community standards and safety requirements before moving forward.

The meeting also addressed procedural matters, including the approval of a resolution for 188 West High Somerville. This resolution overturned a previous zoning officer’s decision, allowing the application to proceed with obtaining a building permit. Although the resolution was adopted, the board emphasized that it was a procedural step rather than an approval of the application itself.

Another resolution involved a proposal by Emanuel Ventures LLC to demolish a deteriorated building on Bets and construct a duplex. The board heard testimony from the project’s architect, who detailed the existing neighborhood characteristics and the proposal’s alignment with community redevelopment goals. The board engaged in a dialogue about the architectural design.

The board also discussed an application concerning 340 Union Avenue, where the applicant requested leaving a utility pole in place, necessitating a curved driveway design. The board reviewed the safety and convenience implications of this design, ultimately deciding to deny the request due to concerns about the driveway’s safety and accessibility.

Additionally, the board moved to dismiss an unresolved application for a property on Bell Avenue Holdings due to a failure to prosecute, as the applicant’s attorney had not provided sufficient testimony in previous meetings.