The focal point of the meeting was an application concerning a second-story addition to a residential property, which required variances for a front yard setback and lot coverage. The applicant sought to extend the second floor two feet beyond the existing front facade, which already did not conform to current zoning requirements. This change was justified on aesthetic grounds. The applicant had initially obtained a permit for construction but paused the project pending further approvals to ensure compliance with zoning regulations.

The discussion revealed that the proposed addition involved no changes to the original garage footprint, instead focusing on constructing a second floor above it. The board was receptive to these arguments, especially after the applicant reduced the maximum lot coverage by removing a walkway and resizing the patio to stay closer to the 20% limit.

Further insights were provided by the architect, who confirmed his credentials and experience with zoning boards. He explained that the existing front facade of the house included portions set back at 38 feet, shy of the 40-foot requirement, and highlighted the benefits of the proposed design, particularly in facilitating the installation of solar shingles. The architect emphasized the practical benefits of the two-foot extension, which would provide additional shelter at the entrance and optimize the second floor’s internal layout.

The board was reassured by the applicant’s plans to manage stormwater effectively and their acknowledgment of existing drainage systems directing water into a seepage pit.

The meeting also addressed another application—the installation of a new swimming pool by the Namini family. They proposed replacing a deteriorating pool with a new gunnite version. The proposed pool slightly reduced the overall pool deck area, thus decreasing coverage. The only variance needed was related to the pool’s location concerning building lines.

Details about the Namini family’s application included a promise to maintain the existing fence and commit to planting new trees to enhance privacy and minimize the pool’s visibility from neighboring properties. Although they had not yet met their neighbors, the family noted positive sentiments from those nearby. The board reviewed the application, with professionals noting the pool’s condition and the need for a soil erosion sediment control plan.

The board carefully considered environmental aspects, such as the necessity of a current Letter of Interpretation on wetlands, though some members questioned its relevance given the property’s disturbed state. Ultimately, the board moved to approve the variance request, conditioned upon compliance with stipulated requirements and the planner’s and engineer’s reports.

Beyond these primary topics, the meeting also featured discussions about other applications, including a coverage variance for a property on Ellis Drive. The applicant sought to convert an attic into a bedroom without altering the property’s footprint, necessitating a variance due to previous owners’ unpermitted modifications. The board viewed granting the variance as a step toward bringing the property into conformity, benefiting both current and future owners.