Five public hearing sessions later, with another on the calendar, the Planning Board has yet to come to a determination on the controversial two-family project on Chestnut Street.
The project is located across from Pequossette Park, and neighbors and other residents at the most recent public hearing said while they are appreciative of the efforts the applicant has made to mitigate their concerns, those efforts are not enough.
“My main concern is there are a lot of different elements here that are [still] not addressed properly,” said abutter Azra Nelson. “I do appreciate the gesture, that you’re trying to get this back to compliance, but there are still a lot of issues with the lot.”
The public hearing opened on July 7 for the two-family house at 45 Chestnut St., where construction deviated far enough from permitted plans that the Planning Board requested a second review of the project. According to meeting agendas posted to the town website, the meeting was continued to July 21, Aug. 25, Sept. 8, Sept. 21, and now to Oct. 6.
The applicant, Asad Hammad, told The Voice that things are headed in the right direction but declined to comment further.
Related Posts
None found
“It’s really important for us to see the residents are happy,” he said.
As construction got underway this past year, residents in the neighborhood expressed feelings of frustration and being misled, with some arguing the project should not have been approved as presented in September 2025. Town officials, meanwhile, have defended the town’s approval of the project, arguing plans complied with all zoning regulations in that particular district.
Planning Board Chair Thayer Donham previously said this is only the second time during her near-decade tenure on the Planning Board that an applicant has had to return to the board with a new application because of changes made during construction that were made without town permission.
Before members of the public spoke at the Sept. 21 meeting, Building and Planning Director Chris Ryan shared results from the peer review process.
On building height, there aren’t any nonconformity issues: the allowed building height is 33 feet; the applicant originally planned for 32 feet, and the contractor’s “as-built” height was peer reviewed at 32.7 feet.
As for the building’s footprint, the originally proposed plan was listed at 2,276 square feet. As built, the contractor measured it at 2,329 square feet.
The lot coverage, meanwhile, which is allowed to be a maximum of 30% of the lot, was originally approved at 29.5%. It was constructed at 29.3%, according to the applicant’s measurements, and peer reviewed at 30.55%.
Ryan said the applicant noted that window wells should not have been counted toward the lot coverage, and as a result, bring the lot coverage down to below 30%.
The side yard setback also presented some discrepancies, with the requirement of 10 feet not being met by two-tenths of an inch. Again, the applicant defended the difference as falling within the margin of error.
“The biggest issue is the half-story calculation,” Ryan told the Planning Board, explaining the four-part test for measuring.
The difference was in the measurement of the half-story perimeter wall, as measured by the peer review consultant.
Just prior to the most recent hearing, following a meeting with officials, the applicant presented an amended plan. The plan–which aims to reduce the size, the apparent mass of the building, and visual impact of the half-story on Maple Street—involves removing two full-height inset walls on the third floor and stepping back two dormers and introducing, instead, a roof overhang to the third dormer.
“We’re meeting the intent,” said Michael Mena, who is representing the applicant from Community Matters Consultants, LP. “…Knowing we can’t go back to just bundling the original special permit, given the concerns of the neighborhood and the board, we wanted to come back and work with you and present this.”
Some residents still had concerns about the project, namely that the issue of the building’s apparent mass wasn’t quite addressed from other street perspectives.
Lisa Gibalerio, a resident of the Waverley Square neighborhood, asked Ryan whether the new plans assuaged the three concerns or violations.
“We can’t do that until we have a full set of plans,” he said. “But we’re hoping it will address, if not all of them, most of them, and anything that’s not addressed, the Planning Board will make a determination on whether that measurement is de minimis (so small as to be insignificant) , or will require a variance.”
Gibalerio followed up by asking, rhetorically, if Ryan and the board felt the plans are reflective of the character of the neighborhood.
“It seems ginormous and looming,” she said. “We don’t have backyards in Waverly Square, we have the PQ Park and this just looms hugely.”
