The golf course’s application requested dimensional variances for fencing installations to address the ongoing problem of golf balls leaving the property and hitting neighboring homes. The proposed fences would stand 15 and 17 feet high, with reduced setbacks from property lines than typically required. The variance was justified by the golf course’s unique topography and layout, which contribute to the issue. Attorney Benjamin Zender, representing the club, emphasized the necessity of the fences for safety and their minimal visual impact, as they would blend with existing vegetation and not exceed the tree line.

Jonathan Silverstein, representing an adjacent property owner, confirmed the hardships caused by stray golf balls. A resident shared personal experiences of property damage, including broken windows and vehicle damage. The board discussed whether the golf course should have addressed these issues during its recent renovations, but it was argued that the problem was separate from the club’s capital planning.

During deliberations, board members expressed differing views on the application. One member suggested the burden should not fall on the neighbors, highlighting the risks associated with errant balls. The board also considered wildlife safety and the netting’s design, which would include a six-foot clearance from the ground. Ultimately, the board approved the variance with conditions, including construction activities being confined to the golf course property.

In addition to the golf course discussion, the meeting tackled the application from Kathleen Maguire and Paul Crook to replace a non-conforming garage with a larger structure, including a woodworking shop and additional living space. Attorney William G. Lichfield represented the applicants. The proposed garage would have a one-foot setback instead of the existing half-foot, still below the 15-foot requirement. The board expressed concerns about the garage’s visual impact, particularly its height compared to the main house.

A feature called a “Koopa” on the garage was debated, with some members suggesting its removal to improve neighborhood compatibility. The board eventually approved the project with conditions, including restrictions on construction during peak summer months and limited working hours.

The board also considered an application from Elise Erbonte and Edwin Lopez to enlarge a conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot. The proposal included a two-story garage and an additional bedroom. Attorney Sean Donahugh stated the project would adhere to dimensional requirements and not impact traffic or safety. However, concerns about the septic system’s adequacy led to further deliberations, with the board opting to delay a decision pending these considerations and potential new ADU regulations.

Lastly, the meeting addressed a proposal from Sugartown Worldwide LLC to open a clothing store in a new location. While the application was for a formula business, concerns were raised about preserving historical elements of the building, specifically a tile mosaic from its previous use. The board discussed whether to impose conditions for the mosaic’s preservation, ultimately deciding to move forward without additional stipulations.