The approved application for Ashlin Mundra’s residence on Stewart Road involved a slight increase in the floor area ratio, which was narrowly over the allowable limit. The architect presented revised plans, emphasizing the modest nature of the expansion—just 135 square feet over the permitted size, translating to a mere 1.28% deviation.

In a separate and more proposal, the board examined a request for a pool house construction that required multiple variances, including for building and lot coverage. The proposed pool house, positioned 12 feet from the rear property line, featured a design intended to complement the existing residence’s materials and style. The applicant justified the need for a pool house by citing privacy concerns and the practical requirements of hosting guests, especially teenagers, without them having to traverse the main house.

Board members expressed skepticism about the necessity of the pool house, given the property’s current non-conforming status concerning building and lot coverage limits. A board member labeled the request “an outrageous ask,” suggesting the coverage already exceeded acceptable levels. The applicant’s justification for the project included arguments focused on safety, cleanliness, and the need for dedicated storage, though the board remained cautious about setting a precedent that could lead to further variances in the neighborhood.

The board also heard a variance application for a fence installation on a corner lot, where the property owner sought to balance the desire for a pool with maintaining green space. The proposed fence was intended to blend with existing mature foliage, but concerns were raised about potentially disrupting the neighborhood’s open aesthetic. Board members debated the implications of allowing the fence, considering the potential for it to alter the neighborhood’s character and set a precedent for future requests. Discussions highlighted the complexities of zoning laws, particularly the challenges faced by corner lot owners who seek to comply with aesthetic and safety standards.

During the meeting, board members grappled with the criteria for granting variances, weighing the benefits against potential detriments. They emphasized the importance of maintaining community standards while adapting to the evolving needs of homeowners.

The meeting also included deliberations on various other applications, such as a proposal for a building addition on Elm Street and a project involving a garage and fence on a different property.