The most contentious discussion of the evening centered around a proposed residential development project on North Rumpson Avenue, requiring multiple variances. The applicants sought to extend rear decks into the side yards and install a swimming pool that required several setback variances. Their representative, Eric Goldstein, introduced modifications to the project, such as reducing the height of the proposed deck to address neighbors’ concerns. Despite these adjustments, the board was divided over the necessity of the variances.

One board member voiced skepticism about the rationale for the variances, stating that there was no compelling testimony justifying the requested changes. Concerns were also raised about potential negative precedents for future applications if the variances were granted. Ultimately, the motion to approve the variance requests related to the deck failed with a vote of two in favor and seven against, signaling strong opposition from the board.

The meeting also discussed another application from Joseph and Barbara Murray, who sought variances for their property on South Kenyon Avenue. Represented by attorney James Swift and architect Chris Halliday, the Murrays aimed to elevate their existing single-family home, necessitating variances for building coverage and height. The modifications included eliminating the existing garage and increasing the sideyard setback to improve compliance with zoning regulations. Despite the proposed improvements, including transforming the first floor into non-livable garage storage to address floodplain concerns, the board had reservations about driveway access and potential curb cuts.

Discussions highlighted the challenges of balancing property development with community standards and the importance of maintaining open spaces and landscaping. The board also deliberated on the implications of pool equipment placement, with concerns about compliance with flood elevation regulations and potential impacts on neighboring properties.

In the case of the North Rumpson Avenue project, there was debate over the pool’s location and the dimensions of the proposed decks. The board weighed the potential impacts on neighboring properties, as well as the importance of maintaining emergency access and adequate landscaping coverage. Despite these considerations, the absence of objections from nearby residents appeared to favor the development, though this did not sway the board’s final decision.

As the meeting concluded, tensions were evident among board members, with some frustrated over perceived unanswered questions and the lack of consensus on the variances. The board chairman emphasized the need for open-mindedness in evaluating requests, but the evening ended with unresolved issues and a clear message from the board against the proposed changes for the North Rumpson Avenue project.