The primary point of contention was the proposed home’s size, which at 4,424 square feet, exceeds the maximum allowable floor area for its R10 zoning classification. This proposed size also surpasses the 3,220-square-foot allowance even when considering the benefits of “up zoning” available for the oversized lot. The applicant argued that the lot’s 22,500 square feet, nearly twice the required size for the zone, justified a larger structure. However, the board scrutinized the need for such a variance, emphasizing that the proposed floor area ratio exceeded what the existing zoning laws permit.

Board discussions revealed a desire to balance the applicant’s intentions with the community’s character. The architectural plans included a traditional Center Hall Colonial design, aiming to integrate the existing pool into the layout, which influenced the setback variances sought. The architect, Anthony Koris, explained that the proposed home would replace an older structure with low ceilings and outdated living spaces. Despite these intentions, board members questioned whether the proposed design truly necessitated such extensive variances, with several expressing that the existing lot size provided an opportunity to adhere more closely to zoning ordinances without disrupting the neighborhood’s aesthetic.

Public comments further fueled the debate, with residents voicing a mix of support and concern. Longtime community members highlighted recent large constructions that improved the area but cautioned against setting a precedent allowing excessive deviations from zoning regulations. There was a clear sense of unease about potential overdevelopment, with one resident questioning, “Are we going to be at 5000 when does it end?” Others stressed the importance of preserving Fair Haven’s unique landscape and character, expressing fears that the proposed size and design might conflict with these values.

The board also addressed concerns about the potential environmental impact of the proposed construction. Residents inquired about tree preservation, particularly along the property’s southern boundary, receiving assurances that no trees were slated for removal. Drainage issues were another focal point, with comparisons drawn to problems experienced by nearby properties after similar developments, prompting calls for careful consideration of water management.

Legal considerations added another layer to the board’s deliberations. Without a demonstrated hardship, the proposal would require a flexible C variance, necessitating evidence that the project benefits the community at large. A board member articulated the challenge this requirement posed, stressing the need for new constructions to strive for compliance with existing laws. The board expressed concern that the proposed project seemed to benefit the property owner without providing a tangible advantage to the broader community.

The meeting concluded with a decision to carry the application to a future session, allowing more time for the applicant to explore design adjustments that might better align with zoning parameters. The board remained open to further dialogue, emphasizing the importance of community feedback in their considerations.

In addition to the primary topic, the meeting briefly covered administrative matters, such as the review and approval of previous meeting minutes and the need for a volunteer to compile the annual zoning report.