At the heart of the meeting was Liberty Assets LLC’s application to subdivide property on Carnegie Place. The plan involves building a two-family dwelling on the current site and a new single-family home on an adjacent smaller lot on Oswald Place. The applicants presented an amended plan, removing the need for a previously sought parking variance, and outlined provisions for two parking spaces for the new single-family home. However, local residents expressed concerns about parking congestion in the neighborhood. Roger Sanders, a resident of Oswald Place, highlighted the already tight parking situation, questioning the adequacy of the proposed parking arrangements given the current challenges with vehicles spilling onto the streets.

Public sentiment was divided on the project. Marjorie Lake, an eleven-year resident, denounced the proposal, citing severe parking shortages and the impact of increasing density on the neighborhood’s character. She emphasized the struggles residents face due to limited parking and the inconvenience it presents during bad weather. Valerie Howell echoed these concerns, pointing out that residents often have to park on sidewalks due to the lack of space, creating difficulties for neighbors with mobility issues. She criticized the real estate agents for not adequately informing potential buyers about the area’s challenges.

Conversely, some residents supported the development. Mary Beasley expressed optimism about the project’s potential to increase property values and improve neighborhood aesthetics. Regina Menddees Domen also backed the proposal, seeing it as an opportunity for economic growth that would benefit local businesses.

The board members acknowledged the parking concerns but pointed out that the development plans complied with existing ordinances. The proposal includes four parking spaces for the two-family home and two for the single-family home, which they argued were sufficient, considering the local standards.

The meeting also featured testimony from various experts. Adnan Khan, the project engineer, detailed the subdivision plan and changes to the parking arrangements, explaining that the revised design meets state residential site improvement standards. Ryan Intindola, a traffic engineer, addressed concerns about the narrow streets and parking availability, confirming that adjustments had been made to conform to parking requirements. He reassured that the design accommodates necessary vehicle movements despite the street’s compact nature.

Another aspect of the meeting was the testimony on stormwater management and zoning compliance. Khan outlined a proposed dry well system to manage roof runoff, addressing concerns about potential flooding due to soil conditions. The board highlighted the need for soil investigations to ensure the system’s feasibility.

Alexander McClean, a licensed planner, argued that the development aligns with the neighborhood’s character and density, emphasizing the benefits of modern housing and streetscape enhancements. He noted that the project does not impair the intent of the master plan and zoning ordinance and could advance municipal land use goals, such as promoting general welfare.

Despite public opposition, the board seemed inclined to support the project, emphasizing the applicant’s compliance with zoning regulations and parking standards.