The primary focus of the meeting was the application from Jason and Cinda Cway for preliminary and final site plan approvals and variance relief for their property on Hugh Street. The property is situated in a residential seasonal zoning district, and the proposed changes have stirred community concern. The applicants had previously secured endorsements from various municipal departments, including public works and fire, but faced a recommendation for denial from the city’s environmental commission. To address these concerns, the Cways presented revised plans targeting environmental issues, specifically shade tree coverage.

The proposed project includes an 18×25-foot inground swimming pool with an adjacent patio, technically located in the front yard due to the property’s corner lot designation. A central point of contention was whether the physical connection between the patio and pool necessitated a variance under current ordinances. One board member noted the ordinance aimed to ensure pool areas were set back adequately from property lines to minimize noise and disturbances. The debate hinged on whether a six-inch grass strip separating the patio and pool could satisfy setback requirements.

After a thorough discussion, the board concluded that a variance was indeed required due to the patio’s proximity to the pool. This decision framed the ongoing dialogue about planning regulations and their application to specific cases.

Public comments reflected strong opposition to the pool project. One resident, Thomas Scanlan, voiced concerns about the potential noise and disruption, comparing the proposed pool’s size to that of larger commercial establishments and emphasizing the potential loss of neighborhood tranquility. Marie Went reminisced about the area’s historical changes and emphasized the importance of preserving a century-old fig tree on the property, arguing that the pool would negatively impact the community’s character.

Another resident, Kim Gaglardi, raised issues about the noise and potential disruptions from large gatherings, particularly with the property being advertised for events on platforms like Airbnb. Kate Emerson stressed the importance of maintaining the historical aesthetic, arguing that the proposed pool would violate setback standards designed to keep such structures hidden from public view.

The board also discussed the project’s compliance with historic district standards, particularly the type and height of the fencing around the pool. There was confusion regarding the Historic Preservation Commission’s (HPC) requirements, with some board members expressing concern about approving a six-foot fence that might not align with historic standards. The decision was made to seek further clarification from the HPC before proceeding.

A significant part of the deliberation involved the environmental commission’s recommendation for denial due to insufficient landscaping details. The board emphasized the need for a comprehensive landscaping plan, including a four-foot-wide planted green space along the rear and side property lines, to mitigate the pool’s visual and noise impact. The applicant agreed to enhance screening along Decatur Street with a depth of 10 to 12 feet, subject to the environmental commission’s approval.

Operational considerations for the pool were also discussed, including limiting pool usage hours to mitigate noise. The board suggested closing the pool at 9:00 p.m. and encouraged the applicant to consider reducing the pool’s size and using saltwater instead of chlorine to address community concerns.

Despite reservations, the board approved the application with conditions, acknowledging the constraints imposed by current ordinances. The board expressed discomfort with the situation, with one member likening the approval to being “forced to say yes” due to regulatory limitations.

The meeting also included a brief discussion on the master plan reexamination, with a focus on affordable housing and other long-term planning issues. Craig presented a memorandum detailing the status of recommendations in the master plan, commending the governing body and planning board for their active efforts to implement these recommendations.