Developers previewed a conceptual plan for a six-unit residential building with ground-level parking in the town’s historic district and the Historic Preservation Commission asked for additional drawings and a parking site plan before any formal approval. The applicant (identity not recorded) outlined an intention to place parking beneath residential units to achieve needed unit counts and said the architect believed the scheme could provide up to 10 parking spaces. Commissioners emphasized that new construction in a historic district is not required to look historic but raised concerns that ground-level, open parking could appear too modern and might obscure an existing mural on a neighboring property. Commissioner David Wills and others noted precedents in other U.S. cities (San Francisco, Chicago brownstones, Gulf/Atlantic coastal buildings and examples near Marathon/Big Pine) but said local context differs. A commissioner cited a local height limit of 45 feet as a constraint. Commissioners asked the applicant to return with front elevations (showing whether a peaked or flat roof will be used) and a simple site sketch showing parking access, egress, and how vehicles would enter and exit the lot; they suggested the applicant “test the waters” and bring refined drawings to a future meeting rather than proceed immediately to purchase or construction. Commissioners described the concept as “worthy of looking into” but said it “will be a tough sell” in the community without design changes that better fit the historic streetscape. One commissioner suggested that increasing housing density could help the town reach a population threshold (about 3,500 residents) that would affect the town’s budget and regulatory relationship with the county; that point was raised as general context, not as a formal policy decision. The commission did not take a vote or impose conditions; the applicant was advised to return with drawings and a parking plan.