The meeting commenced with the board addressing the application submitted by Penelli and Ben Duncan, who sought approval for a pole barn with a mean height of 18.7 feet, exceeding the 15-foot limit. The applicants explained the necessity of the additional height to accommodate their vehicle storage needs, specifically for a 14T board, and to avoid frequent rearrangements of stored items. The board scrutinized the height measurement methodology, noting the ridge stood at 22 feet and the eave at 16 feet. The barn, intended solely for personal use and not business purposes, would include electrical services but no plumbing. A board member inquired about access, learning that no immediate plans for a driveway existed.

Attention then shifted to the applicants’ request for a front yard setback variance for a residential addition. The proposed addition would extend two bedrooms and create office space, reducing the current setback from 24.6 feet to 17.7 feet, far below the required 75 feet. The board recognized that neighboring properties similarly failed to meet setback standards. Discussion highlighted the proposed addition’s impact on impervious coverage, projected to rise from 12% to 19.8%, potentially reaching 23.9% if a driveway to the barn were paved. The applicant was advised that a stone driveway might mitigate this, as it is considered more pervious than asphalt.

The maximum building coverage variance was another focal point, with the current allowance at 10%. The addition and pole barn would increase it from 6.3% to 14.1%. Existing nonconformities, including a lot area of 0.42 acres against the 1.5-acre requirement, and street frontage falling short of the 150-foot standard, were also noted. The board debated whether the addition could be relocated to minimize the impact, but the applicant explained logistical constraints due to the planned barn site.

Public comments on the application were varied. One community member expressed a personal connection to the applicants and opposed the variance, citing a history of unpermitted modifications in the neighborhood. Another speaker, identified as the applicant’s mother, emphasized the need for expanded garage space to accommodate vehicles and hobbies. The board members weighed these sentiments against zoning requirements, ultimately approving the application after ensuring public feedback was fully considered.

The board also reviewed an application from Avis Builders concerning a lot on Little Miller Road. The applicant sought a variance for lot frontage, as the property possessed only 102.62 feet against the required 150 feet. Although the lot’s area of 4.3 acres exceeded the minimum requirement, the frontage discrepancy was the primary issue. The applicant, represented by John Cos, highlighted that similar frontage nonconformities were common in the neighborhood. A professional review confirmed compliance with other zoning aspects, pending wetlands approval. With no public objections and a consensus on the lot’s alignment with neighborhood character, the board unanimously approved the variance.