The Concord Zoning Board of Adjustment recessed consideration of three variances for 181 Village Street after the appellant failed to appear and nearby residents raised safety and access concerns. The variances sought would allow a zero-foot front setback on two streets, a reduced lot area for conversion to a triplex and elimination of on-site parking.

Board members said they were uncertain whether the state of the property and outstanding questions about parking and circulation made a decision appropriate without the applicant present. The board set the matter for the next monthly meeting so the applicant could appear and legal staff could confirm permit requirements.

The variances on the table—listed in the public record as requests from Walter Dratner—would have allowed a 0-foot front setback along Village Street and Lilac Street where a 10-foot front setback is required, permit a lot area of about 6,005 square feet where 7,500 is required for conversion to a triplex, and allow zero off-street parking spaces where six would normally be required. Because the appellant was not present, no testimony from the developer was given and the board relied on submitted materials and public comment.

Two neighbors described operations on the narrow adjacent streets and said parking is already tight. Resident Chris Steven said the street is frequently congested and described a past fire at the same building that required fire personnel to move parked vehicles to reach the structure. Stacy Ballard, who also lives nearby, told the board that adding housing with no on-site parking would likely increase on-street parking on Lilac Street and could hamper snow removal and emergency access. “When the actual fire happened at 181, the fire department had to move vehicles in order to access the building to fight the fire,” Steven said. Ballard added that the small roadway “reduces our road to less than a single lane” when cars are parked on both sides.

Board members said those concerns weighed in favor of hearing the applicant and technical staff before taking action. At one point a board member said the case was “kinda odd” and suggested leaving the public hearing open so the record would include the neighbor testimony and the appellant could respond at the next meeting.

The board formally recessed the hearing to the September meeting date certain so the applicant and staff legal counsel could appear and so that the public record would include the testimony provided. No variances were approved at the August session.

The board’s discussion emphasized that if no parking relief is granted, the site may be undevelopable under current parking and circulation rules; conversely, the board said it did not want to approve variances that could create new public-safety problems without fuller information. The hearing was left open and will reconvene next month.