The property on Lor Circle presented a complex case due to its irregular shape, with nearly all frontage adjacent to a roadway. The applicant’s representative, Michael Lin, explained that the configuration created a hardship under current zoning regulations, describing it as a “quintessential case” of a property that didn’t fit the standard zoning framework. The applicant aimed to construct a paddle court and had previously received approval from the Design Review Board for the project, which initially included a tennis court.

The board meeting saw an in-depth presentation and discussion regarding the variance request. Visuals were provided to illustrate the property’s unusual lot shape and the proposed location of the paddle court, emphasizing the extensive landscaping that would screen most of the front yard from public view. The applicant’s proactive community outreach was highlighted, with several letters of support from neighbors indicating strong local backing for the project. The board was informed of the positive relationships maintained with neighboring homeowners, contributing to the board’s favorable consideration.

Concerns were raised about potential nuisances from lighting on the paddle court, particularly regarding late-hour usage. It was confirmed that lights would be installed, but conditions were agreed upon to limit their operation, aligning with existing regulations for tennis courts. The board unanimously agreed that the lights would be turned off by 10:30 p.m. and not turned on before 7:30 a.m., mitigating any potential disturbances to neighbors.

The discussion also delved into the technicalities of the property’s frontage definition. It was clarified that the frontage was determined by the narrower street adjacency, with both sides of the property considered as front yard setbacks due to their equal width. This clarification helped address questions about whether the design of the new house on the property contributed to the need for the variance. It was established that the new construction adhered to the previous home’s footprint.

Board members visited the site and expressed appreciation for the significant investment made by the owner, noting the property’s overall aesthetic appeal. Although there were observations about the size of newly planted trees, which were expected to grow and provide coverage over time, these concerns did not impact the board’s decision regarding the variance.

In addition to the paddle court variance, the meeting addressed future scheduling and member appointments. The next meeting was tentatively set for February 8, with a possibility of cancellation due to a light agenda. Adjustments were also discussed for the April and July meetings, including moving an appeal from April to May. These scheduling matters were agreed upon without opposition.

Before the meeting concluded, a personal acknowledgment was made for a board member, expressing appreciation for their service and contributions. The sentiment was that the member would be missed, highlighting the collaborative nature of the board’s work.