Foremost in the discussions was the extensive revision of the residential design, which had seen substantial changes since its initial submission. The proposal now featured a reduced habitable floor area of 8,981 square feet, a notable decrease from the original 11,827 square feet, as per the applicants’ representative. This reduction aimed to align the project more closely with community standards and address feedback from prior meetings. The proposed structure, which occupies a sizable lot, includes a sports court and features such as covered balconies designed to minimize visual massing from the riverside view.

The board scrutinized the modifications made to the house’s layout, particularly in response to concerns about its size relative to the lot. The architect presented a series of design strategies intended to make the structure appear smaller, including pulling back certain elements and employing strong rooflines typical of waterfront homes.

A point of discussion was the inclusion of a pickleball court. Although the court’s footprint had already been reduced, further noise mitigation measures were explored to address concerns from neighboring properties. The applicants expressed willingness to implement soundproofing strategies, such as buffering and enclosure, to lessen any disturbance. The board debated the need for additional soundproofing and the possibility of limiting the court’s hours of operation to further alleviate noise issues.

The board also examined the potential for future subdivision of the property. While the lot’s current configuration and proposed development were deemed appropriate, the board deliberated on the implications of subdividing the land into smaller parcels, which could lead to more intrusive developments. The applicant’s representative countered that the current proposal, despite exceeding the zoning cap, was preferable to the alternative of multiple smaller homes, which could disrupt the community’s character.

The applicant sought relief from certain zoning caps, citing the large size of the lot as justification for a larger structure. This argument drew on comparisons with similar properties in the area and referenced a past legal case concerning zoning laws and affordable housing.

Public comments were also heard, with some residents supporting the project for its potential to enhance the neighborhood’s aesthetic and preserve open space. Others expressed concerns about noise and the impact on community standards.