The lengthy deliberations surrounding the Allenel Rehabilitation and Healthcare facility culminated in the board’s denial of the application, which sought to expand the existing non-conforming use. This decision followed a series of public hearings where the applicant presented various forms of variance relief. However, the board concluded that the proofs presented were insufficient, leading to the application’s rejection. The application’s denial was not contested, as a clear majority of board members voted against it.

Following this decision, the board shifted focus to several residential applications, starting with a proposed addition and deck expansion for Keith and Jennifer Bachetti’s property on Kentterbury Avenue. The application included standard conditions, such as compliance with an engineer’s report and specific prohibitions on enclosing the porch and relocating existing mechanical units. Additionally, the board imposed restrictions on new exterior lighting, limiting it to the front porch areas as detailed in the approved plans. A revised landscaping plan was also requested, and the property’s utilities were to be reviewed and approved by the engineer’s office. The board approved the resolution without further discussion.

Next, the board reviewed an application for a property on Austin Avenue, where the owner sought to construct a one-story addition and enlarge an existing deck. The board incorporated standard conditions and emphasized that the addition should not create an illegal two-family dwelling. Concerns about the potential segregation of an in-law suite were addressed. The board unanimously approved the resolution, with the applicant required to confirm the integrity of utility services and obtain a soil movement permit.

Another notable discussion involved a revised proposal for additions and renovations to a single-family residence on Canterbury Drive. The application sought relief from the rear setback requirement due to the lot’s unique shape. The revised plan reduced the scale of the addition from a previously approved 1,122 square feet to 604 square feet. The proposal included a guest suite, a new family room, and a deck while maintaining a floor area ratio within permitted limits. The board acknowledged the property’s irregular shape and proximity to a golf course, which mitigated concerns about visual impact on neighboring properties. The board approved the application, recognizing the thoughtful adjustments made by the applicant.

The board also addressed a proposal for a dormer addition over the living room and kitchen of another residential property. The applicant assured minimal impact on the house’s structure as perceived from the front, maintaining existing landscaping where possible. The board raised questions about exterior lighting, drainage, and chimney height compliance. Public comments were invited, with a resident expressing support for the application, highlighting the need for more space for the family residing there. The board approved the application unanimously, with prior conditions from previous approvals remaining in effect.

The session concluded after approximately 43 minutes, with members expressing gratitude for each other’s participation.