The proposal’s significant number of variances primarily pertained to land subdivision and the construction of the structures. The applicant was required to establish the positive reasons for the variances that outweigh their potential detriments, including the negative implications the project could have on the public good, the master plan, and the zoning ordinance. The term “Cottage Court” was also scrutinized and determined inapplicable to the current proposal.

Board members expressed concerns over the balance between increasing the housing supply and preserving the quality of life in existing neighborhoods. The municipal landscape architect and Municipal arborist submitted memos concerning the trees and rain gardens on the site. Additionally, the applicant provided revised architectural plans that eliminated some variance requests related to the structure design.

The board engaged in a discussion with the applicant, seeking clarification on various proposal aspects, including the existing accessory unit, the concept of Cottage Court, and the details of the proposed buildings and variances.

Further discussions delved into the positive and negative aspects of the proposed structures, the potential conditions to mitigate impact, such as floor area ratio, and the board’s discretion in deciding whether to hear the variances or defer the decision to the zoning board. The board also considered the possibility of conditioning the subdivision upon the demolition of the existing house.

The applicant, portrayed as a homeowner rather than a developer, provided context for the proposal, explaining the intention to downsize within the community and the financial considerations involved. The architect presented the zoning compliance and potential neighborhood impact, with the homeowners emphasizing their transparency and intentions for the property.

Public input also featured prominently in the meeting, with several residents raising concerns about the impact on neighborhood character, increased impervious coverage, potential tree removal, and the overall environmental footprint of the development. Residents Claire Baxter, Michael Bell, Jane Mccarty, and Katarina Tanik voiced their opposition to the development, with concerns ranging from drainage issues to setting negative precedents for the area.

The board also tackled the issue of stormwater management and the preservation of trees, with some questioning the feasibility of retaining existing trees during construction. A landscape architect suggested that saving many of the trees might be unrealistic given the extensive construction planned for the site.

Additionally, the board explored the technical aspects of the proposed development, including the placement of ADUs, the shared driveway arrangement, parking spaces, and green infrastructure considerations such as rain gardens and pervious pavement.

The debate extended to the broader implications of the proposed development, with discussions on the impact of redevelopment on the community’s character, the process of changing zoning, and the need for thorough analysis and public outreach. The board also contemplated the subdivision in relation to the master plan and the municipal land use law, weighing the desire for diverse housing options against the need to preserve neighborhood fabric.