Ashish Shaw’s proposal for a pergola on Sentinel Drive was a key topic. Shaw sought a variance to install a pergola five feet from his house, contrary to the ten-foot zoning requirement. He explained the pergola’s height and structure, emphasizing its compliance with accessory structure height limits. The board reviewed the stormwater management plan associated with the project. Shaw and his engineer, Priti Sha, detailed a drainage system designed to handle runoff via gravel and pipes directing water to a designated drain, alleviating concerns about potential impacts on neighboring properties.

Discussions highlighted the zoning regulations necessitating the ten-foot distance, rooted in open space preservation and historical fire codes. Board Engineer David Schlott explained that while the pergola was considered a building for zoning purposes, it did not increase overall impervious coverage. An emphasis was placed on ensuring future modifications to the pergola adhered strictly to approved dimensions. Neighborhood feedback was positive, with no objections from the homeowners association and interest from a neighbor in constructing a similar structure. Ultimately, the board approved Shaw’s application, noting it enhanced the patio space without obstructing views.

The board also deliberated over a bulk variance for a deck replacement on Winding Lane. The applicant, identified as Mr. Stoddard, aimed to replace a sloped patio causing water drainage issues. His plan reduced non-conforming lot coverage while maintaining the neighborhood’s character. Board members acknowledged Stoddard’s efforts to address drainage, and the proposal received unanimous support, resulting in the approval of a C1 variance.

Zachary Bond’s application for a property on West Oak Street presented a more complex case. Bond sought to expand his home by adding a one-story extension and a dormer, necessitating variances due to the structure’s proximity to the street. Concerns were raised about how the addition would impact neighborhood aesthetics and the streetscape. The board scrutinized the public notices and verified compliance with the requirements for serving property owners within a 200-foot radius. Bond reassured the board that his plans were confined to the existing footprint and addressed questions about gravel coverage and stormwater management, recognizing the need for clear strategies to mitigate runoff.

Another discussion involved a property with an asphalt driveway encroaching on a neighbor’s land, affecting impervious coverage calculations. The board recommended stormwater mitigation measures such as a dry well, emphasizing the importance of managing runoff despite the minor additional coverage. The property owner expressed willingness to implement suggested strategies while confirming no tree removal or significant alterations to existing structures.

Discussions underscored the necessity of adhering to zoning regulations, managing stormwater effectively, and preserving neighborhood aesthetics.