Chair Andrea Kelly opened discussion of petition 304‑25, a special‑permit site‑plan application to allow ground‑floor residential use and dimensional relief for a proposed four‑unit building at 1100–1102 Beacon St. Planning analyst Sondria Berman told the committee the applicant had added turning‑radius drawings, located trash and recycling at the rear, revised façade details and submitted a groundwater sampling assessment that recommended monitoring but no further remediation. Berman said planning finds the site appropriate for the proposed building and noted the project would provide additional housing near transit.

Architect John Downey described design changes — a Juliet balcony, a gable roof over Unit A and window groupings on the Beacon Street façade — and confirmed added site details including trash locations and a 15‑foot curb‑cut dimension. Downey also presented a turning‑radius plan and said the driveway aisle is wider than 15 feet beyond the curb cut.

Committee members probed zoning and policy implications. President Mark Laredo and several councilors asked what would be allowed if the parcel were zoned residential versus the current business (BU‑2) district and whether a mixed‑use development could realistically fit on the 5,000‑square‑foot lot. Councilor Tariq Lucas argued that Beacon Street is an "ideal location for mixed use" and said he would oppose approval in committee; Councilors Alan Lobovitz, Randy Block and Steven Farrell also voiced opposition citing limited parking, multiple waivers and the area’s commercial character. Councilor Lisonbee Leary and Councilor Andrea Downs said the site has been vacant for years and defended the proposal as a viable way to add housing near transit; Leary asked technical questions about sewer ejector pumps and condo‑association maintenance and pressed the applicant on whether to return with a different configuration.

Given several stated no votes in committee, the applicant asked for time to consider options. The committee discussed choices: vote tonight, withdraw without prejudice (allowing the petitioner to return sooner with a revised project), or hold the matter for a future meeting. A motion to hold the item and keep the public hearing open carried on a voice vote; the committee will revisit the petition at a December meeting.

The committee did not make a final recommendation to the full council and left the public hearing open to allow the applicant time to consider revisions or to return with additional information.