Richard Paxton’s request for a front setback variance to build a garage on Fenton Drive was a central topic. Paxton, a long-time Southwick resident, explained the difficulties of limited parking at his home, where he currently rents additional garage space and leaves his pickup truck exposed to the elements. The proposed 17-foot variance aimed to accommodate a garage for three vehicles, addressing the practical challenges he and his wife face, especially during winter.

Paxton’s property is complicated by its small size—26,000 square feet in an R40 zone requiring 60,000 square feet—and limited frontage of 150 feet against a 200-foot standard. The board recognized the need for variances covering lot size, frontage, and setback requirements. Board members carefully evaluated whether the garage would be classified as attached or freestanding, as this distinction impacts zoning requirements. The potential for the garage to be integrated with the existing house was considered, but it might obstruct backyard access necessary for pool maintenance and other activities.

The presence of two intermittent streams on the property added complexity, requiring adherence to a 50-foot setback. Board members discussed how the garage’s placement could minimize environmental disturbance, considering both the property’s steep slope and existing neighborhood patterns. Neighbors, including Richard Quinn from 4 Fenton Drive, expressed support for the project, noting that it wouldn’t encroach excessively on the street.

The board weighed the project’s implications on local zoning precedents and neighborhood character. While acknowledging the hardships faced by the Paxtons, members remained cautious about setting precedents that might lead to future similar requests. The garage’s design, intended to match the home’s aesthetic, was considered in the context of maintaining visual consistency in the neighborhood.

In another discussion, the board addressed a variance request from David Greco, who proposed building a single-family home on Tanner Road near existing wetlands. Greco sought a 25-foot variance from the established 50-foot setback due to constraints imposed by a wetland buffer zone. The proposed home’s proximity to the buffer, although not encroaching directly on the wetlands, raised concerns about neighborhood compatibility and environmental impact.

Board members debated the necessity of Southwick’s local wetland bylaws, with one member suggesting that without such regulations, Greco’s request might not require a variance. Conversations also highlighted the challenges of aligning proposed setbacks with existing neighborhood standards while preserving wetlands. Greco’s property, smaller than the required 40,000 square feet, also necessitated a lot variance.

Greco’s representative emphasized the importance of addressing the variance before consulting the Conservation Commission on wetland impacts. The board considered how the proposed home would fit within the neighborhood, acknowledging potential benefits of visual consistency and the importance of protecting wetland areas. Greco detailed existing property conditions, including property line and wetland markers, and potential septic locations, all relevant to the overall development plan.

The meeting also featured updates on accessory dwelling units (ADUs), often referred to as tiny houses. Board members discussed regulatory challenges associated with these units, particularly concerning utility connections like water and sewage. The potential for ADUs to provide affordable housing was acknowledged, but there was considerable uncertainty about implementation.

Finally, the board briefly mentioned an upcoming variance request for a deck on Berkshire Drive, to be reviewed in a future meeting. The board members planned to conduct a site visit to gather more information before making any decisions.