The board devoted considerable attention to the application concerning 40 Turbo Lane, which proposed the demolition of an existing barn/stable to make way for a new structure. This structure is set to feature a four-bay garage, a greenhouse, and an office on the upper level, with storage and mechanicals on the lower level. The property spans 9.4 acres and already includes a two-and-a-half-story dwelling. The board scrutinized the proposal, noting the applicant’s compliance with notification requirements and the absence of public opposition.

John Bey, a licensed architect, assured the board that the only alteration to the building’s footprint would be a modified stoop for office access. Paul Fox, a licensed engineer, discussed the impervious coverage, emphasizing the removal of part of the gravel driveway to reduce coverage and the installation of a new stormwater management system. The board determined that the project would not negatively impact environmentally sensitive areas and aligned with zoning ordinances and the master plan. The board granted the dimensional variance, stipulating adherence to board consultant recommendations and financial responsibilities.

The board then addressed the application for a property on Washington Road, seeking to construct a 13 by 20-foot concrete gazebo situated 21.8 feet from the rear property line. Additional improvements included grading around the swimming pool, expanding the concrete pool deck, and adding a sidewalk leading to a new door on the house’s southeast corner. The project required several variances due to existing property conditions, such as a reduced rear setback for the gazebo and increased impervious surface area.

The applicant’s civil engineer highlighted the residential nature of the surrounding area and the Environmental Commission’s recommendation to use permeable materials to manage water absorption effectively. The gazebo’s location, approximately 300 feet from the nearest dwelling, was noted as minimizing its visibility and impact. Public opinions were mixed, but the board ultimately found the applicant met the criteria for variance relief, approving the proposal with conditions including the use of permeable materials and compliance with board recommendations.

The meeting also touched on future planning, including the potential scheduling of a meeting on September 16, contingent on resolving scheduling conflicts and application readiness. The discussion included a review of past applications and financial matters, with emphasis on the timely resolution of outstanding invoices. Members recognized the importance of proactive engagement with applicants to ensure efficient processing of future applications.

The board briefly discussed the status of the Vander property, recently acquired by a CEO of a farming company. Concerns were voiced about the property’s condition, specifically outdated wiring, raising the possibility of demolition. The board also deliberated on the need to memorialize pending resolutions, considering the potential abandonment of an application involving a dog daycare due to community opposition.