One notable issues involved a construction project that had been completed without adhering to the approved plans, necessitating multiple variances. Concerns were raised about the project’s deviation from zoning ordinances. Board members expressed apprehension about approving variances post-construction, emphasizing the difficulty of rectifying noncompliance after the fact. The project in question included elements like an outdoor kitchen and pool equipment that did not align with the initial permits. The board deliberated on whether to approve variances given the construction’s completion and the absence of violations cited by the city.

The applicant’s representative admitted to assuming compliance with the plans, citing miscommunications with the contractor as a contributing factor. The board expressed unease about proceeding without further testimony from the contractor to clarify the discrepancies. The planner highlighted issues such as the height and placement of structures and the permeability of artificial turf. The board ultimately decided to defer the application to gather more comprehensive evidence and testimony.

Another topic of discussion revolved around a proposed four-foot front fence on a residential property on Comstock Street. Board members voiced concerns about the fence’s impact on the property’s aesthetics and neighborhood character. One member stated that the fence would create a closed-off appearance, which would stand out against neighboring properties that lacked similar fencing. The applicant’s representative acknowledged the board’s concerns but left the decision regarding the fence to the board, noting the client’s preference for it for aesthetic reasons.

The board debated the implications of including the fence in the application, with several members leaning towards its removal to maintain the town’s walkability and open character. The sentiment was that removing the fence could enhance the property’s openness and facilitate better lawn maintenance. After deliberation, the board recommended approving the application on the condition that the fence be excluded, along with other minor adjustments like installing wheel stops and extending front easements.

A neighbor, Spencer Pelis, raised concerns about the proximity of the proposed structure on Comstock Street to his property line, particularly its height and potential privacy implications. Another neighbor, Heather Fer, echoed these concerns but acknowledged improvements in the revised design. She suggested that a privacy fence might alleviate issues of visibility between properties.

Further discussions addressed the height of a wall surrounding a pool area, with board members questioning its necessity and potential impact on neighboring views. Suggestions were made to consider alternative forms of enclosure, such as landscaping, to balance privacy with neighborhood harmony. The board expressed a willingness to work with the applicant to find solutions that aligned with zoning ordinances while considering design intentions.

In addition to these primary issues, the board also tackled other topics such as the examination of impervious coverage regulations, the placement of utility lines, and the implications of using artificial turf. Concerns about drainage and landscaping requirements were also discussed, with the board emphasizing the importance of compliance with local regulations.