The most time-consuming topic of the meeting was Wilson’s application for a pool that necessitated a variance due to its encroachment into the setback area. The board scrutinized various aspects of the proposal, including the need for a new pool fence and the applicant’s plan to enhance privacy with landscaping. Wilson emphasized the importance of privacy for his family, particularly his 13-year-old daughter, and proposed planting approximately 20 arborvitae trees to create a natural barrier. The trees were planned to be six feet tall at planting and capable of growing to heights of 30 to 60 feet, aimed at mitigating sightline issues with neighboring properties.

The landscaping plan, marked as Exhibit A1, included a colorized photograph and was a central point of discussion. Questions were raised regarding the placement and maintenance of the pool fence and existing fences on the property. A new fence was proposed to be installed while retaining the existing one, with the arborvitae serving as the primary privacy measure. The board and Wilson engaged in a dialogue to ensure that the landscaping would not negatively impact property values but rather enhance privacy for all parties involved.

Further discussions delved into the technicalities of the fence and landscaping, including the required distance between fences and the overall design aesthetics. The board emphasized the need for consistency in the fencing style around the pool and stressed the importance of the landscaping plan being implemented as depicted in the provided renderings.

Public participation played a role in the proceedings, with residents voicing concerns about the potential impact of the variance. Susan Donald, a neighboring property owner, queried the nature of the variance and its implications for the existing fence’s ownership and maintenance responsibilities. The board clarified the difference between hardship and beneficial variances and assured that each application is evaluated on its own merits, with no precedent set for future constructions.

A notable concern was whether the proposed buffer plants would survive the shaded conditions of the property, leading to assurances from Wilson that the arborvitae would thrive. He cited previous experiences with similar plants as evidence of their viability. The board discussed the necessity of a grading permit and installation of dry wells to manage water runoff and ensure compliance with local regulations.

The board ultimately approved Wilson’s application with conditions, including maintaining the landscaping plan, installing a 48-inch pool fence, and adhering to the town’s tree ordinance for any future tree removals.

In addition to Wilson’s application, the board considered a variance request from Joseph and Meg Gaul for constructing an inground pool and patios at their property on Applewood Lane. The Gauls sought a rear yard setback variance, and their proposal included assurances of minimal impact on neighbors due to the property’s proximity to a forested area and a sound barrier wall. The board unanimously approved the application, noting the lack of opposition from neighboring residents.

Another application from Alexander and Rebecca Langua involved a second-story addition to their home on Albert Avenue, requiring variances for front yard setbacks. The Langua family faced spatial challenges with a growing household, prompting the need for expansion. The board evaluated the proposal’s impact on the neighborhood. The application was approved after thorough consideration of the existing structure’s constraints and the proposed changes.