The discussion of the Elm Road development proposal dominated the meeting, highlighting community concerns about potential impacts on road conditions, septic systems, and compliance with zoning regulations. The proposal involves merging multiple undersized lots into a larger, yet still non-conforming, lot to construct two new houses. Variances sought included those for front and rear yard setbacks due to the unique constraints of the existing road and lot dimensions.

Residents raised several issues, notably regarding the septic systems and the distance required from existing wells. The board engineer confirmed that the proposed septic systems must adhere to a minimum 50-foot separation from wells, complying with health regulations. Concerns about road improvements were another focal point, particularly the implications of widening Elm Road to meet Residential Site Improvement Standards (RSIS) while maintaining its gravel character to minimize environmental impacts.

Community members such as Jessica Dagostino, who resides nearby, voiced apprehensions about the proximity of new construction to their properties. Dagostino noted the increase in traffic due to delivery services and emphasized the importance of adhering to setback regulations, expressing dissatisfaction with any deviations. Other residents questioned the availability of architectural plans, with assurances given that they were part of the public record, albeit requiring specific requests to access.

The board also deliberated on the maintenance responsibilities for the proposed road improvements. With Elm Road classified as a public right-of-way yet remaining unpaved, the board highlighted the necessity of establishing clear maintenance responsibilities, particularly concerning snow plowing and repairs. The potential impact of these factors on emergency vehicle access was underscored, with suggestions made to consult the fire department for safety assessments.

In response to these unresolved issues, the board opted to postpone any immediate decisions on the Elm Road applications. They emphasized the importance of obtaining reports and input from relevant stakeholders, including emergency services, to ensure all safety and logistical concerns are thoroughly addressed. A reconvening of the board was scheduled for February 12, pending further consultations and potential adjustments to the plans.

Beyond Elm Road, the meeting also addressed other zoning applications, such as those from individual property owners seeking variances for residential expansions. One notable case involved Charles Warner, who sought approval to raise the roof height of his historic home on Westshore Trail. The proposal included variances for front yard setbacks and the extension of a balcony, with plans to preserve the home’s architectural integrity while accommodating modern needs. The board unanimously approved Warner’s application, contingent upon receiving necessary approvals from the Lake Mohawk Board of Trustees and adherence to specific conditions.

Another approved application was from Steven Cashin, who sought a variance to extend his deck for safety reasons. The board discussed the specifics of the proposed extension, including adherence to safety regulations and obtaining an easement for a minor encroachment onto a neighboring property. The approval was granted unanimously, allowing Cashin to waive the waiting period for a written resolution and commence construction without delay.