The property on Union Street, owned by Francisco Guaja, was under scrutiny due to excessive impervious coverage and unauthorized structures, including a pool, deck, and driveway. The board detailed that the impervious coverage was at 46%, far exceeding the allowable 25%. Discussions highlighted the necessity to remove several structures to bring the property into compliance. The board was firm in its stance that variances could not be granted for structures violating property lines, and emphasized that the property owner must reduce impervious coverage, which would involve significant alterations, including the removal of the pool, deck, and stone driveway. The engineer provided a comprehensive breakdown of the coverage, explaining that compliance would require reducing the coverage to 25%, equating to approximately 3,750 square feet.

Concerns were also raised regarding a conservation easement, particularly with the pool area encroaching on designated conservation space. Board members discussed the implications of these encroachments and the necessity of securing easements or removing the structures entirely. The conversation extended to the need for a fence to be repositioned within property boundaries, with clarifications that variances could not accommodate encroachments.

Testimony from a resident, Carl Sunberg, brought additional concerns to light, specifically regarding illegal fill brought onto the property. Sunberg detailed his observations of construction activity and questioned how such actions could have been permitted, citing support from the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) regarding his claims. The board acknowledged the concerns, emphasizing the importance of adhering to environmental guidelines and the potential impacts on neighboring properties, particularly in terms of drainage and flood risk.

Another topic involved a property in a flood zone, identified as the old Metsler property, which saw discussions around compliance with DEP regulations. The board stressed the need for any modifications to receive DEP approval, given the flood hazard rules governing the area. It was noted that less impervious coverage would likely align better with DEP’s concerns, and board members clarified that while local permits could be issued, ultimate jurisdiction lay with the DEP due to the floodplain ordinance being aligned with FEMA standards.

The board also deliberated on a variance application for a property on Gates Avenue, where an engineer proposed modifications that would reduce impervious coverage slightly but still required a variance. The board reviewed the historical context of the property, noting previous plans and the need for stormwater management to accommodate additional runoff. The engineer assured the board that existing systems would suffice, and the board expressed a willingness to work with the applicant to resolve past issues while ensuring compliance with zoning standards.

Additionally, the meeting addressed a variance request for a property owned by Jessica Sache, focusing on discrepancies in the dimensions of her home and deck. The board sought clarification on the gravel area adjacent to the deck and its impact on impervious coverage. Jessica explained the gravel served as a patio, which did not count towards impervious coverage due to its water infiltration capabilities. The board discussed the two-foot overage beyond approved plans, resulting from a contractor’s mismeasurement, and its implications on compliance.

Finally, the board reviewed an application for a variance related to a residential property on Miles Road. The proposal involved setback variances for a one-story addition. The board members considered the impact of the addition on the neighborhood and found merit in the application, emphasizing adherence to zoning standards and expressing support for the project.