The most compelling discussion of the meeting revolved around the application from Alo and Ankita Batra for their property on Ridge Drive. This application, noted as 2025-29-V, requested variances for a first-floor addition at the rear and a second-floor addition. These modifications required variances due to non-compliance with corner lot setback regulations and an increased habitable floor area ratio. The architect, Yuval Wellisch, testified that the revised proposal reduced the house’s size to 3,517 square feet, a decrease of 14.8% from the initial application, to better align with zoning standards. Despite these adjustments, a variance was still necessary as the proposed setbacks fell short of the required 40 feet, standing at 38.2 feet, and the floor area ratio exceeded the allowed 21%, reaching 23.3%.

The board was notably receptive to the applicants’ efforts to revise their plans in response to previous feedback, with one member acknowledging the applicants’ personal circumstances that had complicated prior discussions. The board unanimously approved the variance, with the condition that the attic space would remain non-habitable.

Conversely, the meeting also featured intense scrutiny over the proposed construction on Bryant Drive. A neighbor raised concerns about potential runoff issues due to the increased building footprint, emphasizing the need for proper stormwater management and dust control during construction. The applicant’s planner, Nick Graviano, justified the variance request by pointing to the property’s unique shape and the alignment of the proposed dwelling with neighboring homes.

Another topic was the application for a new single-family home on Cliffside Drive. The applicant sought a variance for a reduced front yard setback, justified by the averaging ordinance and the property’s topography. The board examined the potential impact on the neighborhood, including the preservation of large trees and the overall aesthetic. Public comments also reflected concerns about construction safety and compliance with excavation regulations, emphasizing the board’s role in balancing development with community interests.

The meeting further addressed several other applications, such as the construction of a retaining wall and an inground pool at Hearthstone Terrace, which faced opposition due to setback violations and concerns over impervious coverage. Ultimately, this application was rejected by the board after a motion to approve it was narrowly defeated. The board’s decision underscored the importance of adherence to zoning laws, even when constructions are already underway.

Throughout the session, the board demonstrated a careful consideration of each application’s implications on neighborhood integrity and zoning compliance.