A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to discussing amendments to the land use plan and hazard vulnerability assessment, presented by the professional planner, Ed Snieckus. Snieckus outlined updates to the zoning map, particularly focusing on properties requiring adjusted land use designations to reflect current conditions. These amendments involved reclassifying areas from public and religious use activities, confirming a park’s designation, and addressing the configuration of lots adjacent to a religious institution. The need to adjust zoning for a former farm property transitioning to single-family homes was also highlighted, with suggestions for implementing an overlay to reflect this change.

The board’s deliberations did not end with zoning updates. The meeting also included an application for a hardship variance, where an engineer recommended applying for a soil movement permit. This minor permit did not necessitate a public hearing. The board’s professional planner provided insights into the criteria for obtaining a hardship variance, a “70c variance,” emphasizing the property’s unique and exceptional characteristics. Board members engaged in dialogue about the property’s unusual configuration, ultimately leading to the unanimous approval of the application.

Another notable topic involved a property application concerning the construction of a two-car garage and a new addition. The proposal required variances for side yard and rear yard setbacks due to the property’s undersized lot. The plan included the removal of an older garage in a flood-prone area, replacing it with a modern structure designed to withstand hydraulic pressures. The board discussed the environmental constraints of the site, emphasizing the importance of accommodating the proposal within the existing regulatory framework. The board noted that the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) would have authority over certain aspects of this project, especially given its proximity to flood hazard areas.

The meeting also considered an application for exceeding the maximum allowable floor area ratio (FAR) on a property, which necessitated a d variance. This application required a supermajority vote, but with two members absent, the board advised deferring the vote to ensure full participation. The applicant was informed about the importance of presenting a comprehensive site plan, considering adjustments to the proposed addition’s size and exploring alternatives to reduce the FAR. Discussions emphasized the significance of aligning the property with zoning regulations while maintaining the community’s aesthetic standards.

The architect provided detailed descriptions of planned additions, emphasizing that no trees would be removed and that the property was mostly shielded from the road, minimizing impact on the streetscape. The board also discussed flood zone implications for the property.