During the meeting, the application submitted by Eugene and Angela Goen, represented by Mr. Capy, drew the board’s attention due to requests for variances concerning maximum lot coverage, building coverage, and height. The proposal involves a two-story addition to the left side of the dwelling and a raised patio at the rear, aimed at accommodating the Goen family’s need for more space. The existing house, built around 1900, had previously undergone minimal alterations, aside from a one-story addition. The plans also include the demolition of a detached garage, which currently requires a narrow driveway for access, replacing it with lawn to reduce impervious surfaces.

A key issue raised was the need for variances due to the newly implemented ordinance concerning yard amenities. The ordinance aims to preserve open space and limit building coverage. The applicant’s proposal, which includes a raised patio considered as building coverage, was one of the first to seek an exception under this law. Board members expressed concerns about setting a precedent by granting such exceptions so soon after the ordinance’s enactment.

The board engaged in discussions about the coverage calculations, scrutinizing the applicant’s claim of a 50% credit on the pervious driveway for coverage, despite inconsistencies in the application of the code. The applicant acknowledged these discrepancies but argued the driveway still affected runoff and visibility. The oversized nature of the 10,500-square-foot lot, compared to the standard 7,500-square-foot size, was noted, with questions raised about the necessity of increasing coverage given the available space.

The architectural plans, presented by architect Chris Lopez, proposed maintaining existing ceiling heights and claimed that the two-story rear addition and raised patio would not be visible from the street. The plans included a Four Season room connecting to the patio, designed for family gatherings. Drainage solutions for the patio were also discussed, with the applicant proposing a sloped design to manage runoff.

Concerns about the project’s scale emerged, with one board member highlighting the house’s significant footprint on an oversized lot. Questions were raised about the fit within the neighborhood context, particularly regarding the narrow garage doors’ practicality for larger vehicles. Public commentary included support from a neighbor, emphasizing the proposal’s alignment with the neighborhood’s diverse architectural character.

The board’s deliberations revealed the complexities of balancing zoning compliance with the proposed modifications. Members voiced a need for clear justifications for granting variances, particularly in light of the recent ordinance. The architectural design’s impact on the neighborhood and the proposal’s potential benefits, such as improved drainage solutions, were also considered.

The discussion concluded with a decision to carry the application over to a subsequent meeting on February 26, 2025, allowing for further examination of the proposal without requiring additional public notice. The board emphasized the importance of careful scrutiny of the architectural design and variances in relation to the surrounding community.

Other agenda items addressed included the swearing-in of new board members, Joseph Salva and George Goudier, and the appointment of professionals for the board, including Marina Stinely as the board attorney and Costa Associates as the engineering firm. The matter of a potential conflict of interest involving Rob Costa, a board member, was also discussed, with the attorney tasked with clarifying whether Costa’s proximity to application sites posed any ethical concerns.