Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Multifamily Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee sends negative recommendation on plan for added unit at 24 Arnold Street, cites parking and site-plan gaps
Summary
The Technical Review Committee voted to issue a negative recommendation for a variance to add a fourth unit at 24 Arnold Street, citing unclear parking access, incomplete site plans and missing survey information; the zoning hearing is scheduled for Sept. 2 and the committee asked the applicant to provide a survey and corrected plans before the hearing.
Get email alerts on the Multifamily Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Technical Review Committee on Aug. 14 voted to send a negative recommendation to the Planning Board regarding a dimensional-variance request for 24 Arnold Street, a proposal by Amir Rashid of Dream Homes Realty Incorporated to add a fourth unit to an existing three-family structure.
Committee members identified several unresolved issues in the application materials: the site plan shows eight parking stalls but provides no clear access path for two stalls along the main road, the driveway configuration and curb cuts are not clearly depicted, and the floor plan/site plan appeared inconsistent with survey data. A staff member and multiple committee members said they could not see how two of the proposed spaces would be accessed and requested a survey showing the curb cut, driveway routing and accurate lot dimensions.
"We can't be guessing," one committee member said, arguing the site plan must show traffic flow and curb cuts. The committee learned the property previously secured a special-use permit for a third unit; members noted neighborhood parking concerns at that time and stressed the need for accurate, accessible plans before a favorable recommendation.
Citing the incomplete site plan and uncertainty about parking and setbacks, a committee member moved for a negative recommendation to the Planning Board. The motion was seconded and carried on a voice vote. Members noted the zoning hearing is scheduled for Sept. 2 and that the applicant may supply a survey before that date; if a survey is not received prior to the zoning hearing, the committee suggested survey verification be added as a condition of approval.
What happens next: the applicant is expected to provide an updated site plan and survey clarifying curb cuts, driveway access and parking layout before the zoning hearing; the Planning Board will make the final determination.
