Developer seeks five townhouses at 45 Station Street; board and neighbors raise traffic, trash and design concerns

The applicant 45 Station Street LLC presented a plan to demolish a single‑family house at 45 Station Street and build five three‑story townhouse units with 12 parking spaces and underground stormwater infiltration. Attorney Patrick Foley said the units would be owner‑occupied condominiums, each about 1,950 square feet with two to three bedrooms; the project will require variances from the Zoning Board of Appeal.

Foley and architect Arthur Chu described a linear arrangement of five units with garage parking at grade plus seven exterior spaces, three light poles to illuminate the parking area, and a six‑foot vinyl perimeter fence with a concrete retaining wall at the property edge. Civil engineer Chi Minh (Hadi Main Design Group) described an infiltration system sized, the team said, using site test pits and reported the system is designed to hold the two‑ and ten‑year storms on site.

Board members and several residents raised practical concerns. Members questioned the front entry configuration because a car using the first garage would back into a narrow shared driveway at the property entrance, creating a conflict point. Several board members and neighbors said the frontage and building massing looked tight to the street given the number of units, and that trash staging for five units needed a clearer plan so trash barrels would not obstruct the public way. Councilor Devine and other speakers asked that exterior lighting use downlighting and photometrics to avoid light spill to neighbors.

Support and opposition letters were offered to the record. Margaret Lombard, a nearby condo owner, read a letter of support saying the property has not been maintained and that 12 parking spaces should be adequate “especially considering that the lot is located within a mile of an MBTA station.” A separate letter asked the board not to approve a 12‑foot retaining wall as proposed and requested clearer survey monumentation and utility locations at the rear property line.

The board continued the public hearing to April 16 and asked the applicant to return with a revised circulation/turning plan to resolve vehicle conflict at the driveway, an explicit trash staging and collection plan, a more robust landscaping plan and photometric lighting details. The applicant also told the board they will include electric vehicle charging capability and will refine the snow‑management and mailbox/transformer locations for the next appearance.