Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ZBA hears engineered plan for three‑family site; parking, permeable pavement and lost street parking drive requests for variances
Summary
Engineers for a three‑family property proposed subsurface stormwater controls and alternatives (pervious grass‑pave or fewer parking spaces) to offset increased impervious area; the board debated parking standards, sidewalk projects that will remove street parking, and whether to require parking reductions rather than expanded paving.
An engineering presentation to the Greenberg Zoning Board of Appeals laid out measures the applicant says will reduce off‑site runoff even as the proposal increases on‑site impervious coverage to add required parking for a three‑family dwelling.
Dan Collins of Hudson Engineering described a subsurface system sized for a 25‑year storm that would capture new runoff and asserted that, overall, on‑site containment would reduce runoff leaving the property. Collins also said a nearby DOT sidewalk project will eliminate roughly half of the on‑street parking used by tenants and argued that the proposed six off‑street spaces would help compensate for that loss.
Because local code counts grass‑pave or reinforced lawn as impervious coverage, the applicant offered two alternatives: (1) grass‑pave (permeable grid) to reduce the visual pavement footprint but still count under code as impervious, or (2) reduce the parking provided to three spaces and seek a parking‑reduction variance. Board members questioned vehicle stacking and circulation in the proposed layout, practical safety when several vehicles must reverse onto a two‑way street, and whether precedent would be set by allowing larger coverage via grass‑pave.
The board did not reach a final vote on the broader parking and coverage requests at this meeting; members asked staff for clearer figures on existing vs proposed impervious coverage and requested that the applicant include explicit contingency language for how coverage would change if adjacent jurisdiction approvals do not proceed.
