0:00The application presented by the architect requested variances due to the undersized lot within the R20 zone. The existing property, a Cape Cod-style dwelling on a 15,000 square foot lot, required adjustments to accommodate the proposed Center Hall Colonial expansion. The key variances included exceeding the floor area ratio, front yard setback, and accessory structure setback. The architect emphasized the design’s compatibility with the neighborhood, citing the plan to modify the existing structure’s aesthetic to a more Colonial style, thus aligning the addition with surrounding homes.

41:00A central issue revolved around the shed’s non-compliance with zoning regulations. The applicant sought to retain the shed in its current location due to spatial constraints, arguing that moving it would intrude either on the garage or the limited yard space. The shed was positioned near neighboring detached garages, and its preservation became a point of contention. Acknowledging existing non-conformities, the board considered options such as downsizing or relocating the shed to better adhere to zoning requirements. Eventually, a proposal to reduce the shed’s size to a 6×8 configuration was put forth, which aimed to decrease impervious coverage and improve compliance. This adjustment was favorably received by the board, as it allowed the shed to maintain required setbacks.

15:05The architectural team addressed concerns from a review memo dated November 15th, stressing that the five-bedroom colonial design aimed to minimize massing issues. By employing a skirt roof, the structure’s visual profile was softened, maintaining harmony with the neighborhood’s character. The proposed garage, situated 10 feet from the property line, was designed to match the main dwelling’s architectural language, with assurances that its placement would not adversely impact neighboring residences.

The proposal’s impact on impervious surface coverage was another significant concern, with the applicant striving to remain within one square foot of the 25% limit. The project entailed the removal of a single six-inch caliper red maple tree, and the applicant agreed to plant additional trees to enhance vegetative buffers, addressing environmental and aesthetic considerations.

41:00During the board’s discussion, members expressed varied opinions on the application. Some members supported the expansion, noting that similar projects had been approved in the past. They highlighted the neighborhood’s transitional nature. Others raised concerns about the proposed structure’s size and its potential to set a precedent, noting that it would be the tallest in the vicinity. Despite these reservations, the board acknowledged the necessity of the expansion, given the lack of a basement and the applicant’s intention to accommodate family growth.

The board’s deliberations culminated in a motion to approve the application, conditioned upon the revised shed size and location. This decision was met with unanimous support.