One notable matter was the consideration of roofing material approvals, especially following an application for a property located on Canary War. The applicant, represented by Dr. Robert Dudley, sought to replace an outdated white roof tile with a new gray tile, a choice necessitated by the discontinuation of the original tile. Dr. Dudley explained that the existing design manual, over 25 years old, only allows for white tiles, which are no longer manufactured. He emphasized the urgency of the request, citing potential additional costs if changes were required post-contract. The board debated whether to adhere strictly to the manual or approve the new tile, which had been successfully used in other neighborhood properties.

Board members expressed concerns about the color consistency of the proposed tiles, with some likening the appearance to a checkerboard effect due to variations. Historical approvals of similar tiles were referenced, questioning the decision-making process that led to those approvals. The motion to approve the new roof tile was approved unanimously, with an understanding that the code would be amended to ease future approval processes.

The board also deliberated on adjusting the roof tile review process, proposing a shift from a level three to a level two review, empowering the Architectural Review and Planning Board (ARPB) to handle color change decisions without town commission involvement. Emphasis was placed on allowing gray tiles that are “through and through,” with a consistent color throughout, acknowledging that flexibility in regulations could lead to disputes over tile acceptability. The group leaned towards a simplified approach prioritizing either flat white or flat gray tiles, with the aim of a consistent application of the code.

Another topic was the proposed changes to setback regulations for second-story structures, focusing on minimizing the visual impact of larger homes on smaller lots. Recommendations included reducing the allowable second-floor size from 70% to 50% of the first-floor area and mandating a 15% setback from the house’s width to prevent imposing structures. Participants discussed the architectural and aesthetic implications of these setbacks, with some commissioners favoring more central massing of buildings rather than pushing them to the sides, which could alter neighborhood aesthetics.

Concerns about the impact of landscaping on design visibility were also raised, emphasizing the need for building design focus rather than relying on temporary plant solutions. The board sought to establish minimum setback requirements while allowing flexibility based on property width. Previous decisions on specific properties, like the Ellis House, were reviewed, highlighting inconsistencies in setback interpretations and the need for clearer guidelines.