Among the significant items on the agenda was the application by Avis Builders for a variance on a property on Little Miller Road. The applicant sought approval to adjust the lot frontage requirement from the mandated 150 feet to the existing 102.62 feet. Despite this deviation, the board noted that the surrounding area already consisted of several similarly sized lots. The representative for Avis Builders, John Cos, clarified an error in the agenda regarding the block number, which was corrected to 253. The board’s planner reviewed and confirmed the lot’s size as 4.3 acres, exceeding the zone’s minimum requirement, but noted the potential impact of wetlands buffers on the buildable area. Public commentary was opened but yielded no responses, leading to the board’s unanimous approval of the application.

The meeting also addressed an application by Penelli and Ben Duncan, which involved multiple variances for a residential property, including those for a pole barn’s height and setbacks. The proposed barn’s height exceeded the zoning limit of 15 feet, reaching 18.7 feet, to accommodate larger vehicles like a 14-ton truck. The board scrutinized the potential business use of the barn, but the applicants assured it was for personal use, with electric connections planned but no immediate driveway.

The conversation extended to a proposed addition to their house, which required a variance for front yard setback reduction from the required 75 feet to 17.7 feet. The board acknowledged that no houses in the vicinity complied with the 75-foot setback, further justifying the variance request. Additionally, the property faced challenges with impervious coverage, as the proposed changes would increase it from 12% to 19.8%, potentially reaching 23.9% with a new driveway. The board discussed the merits of using stone for the driveway to mitigate impervious surface concerns, although stone can become compacted and lose permeability.

Building coverage variances were also considered, with the proposed development increasing coverage from 6.3% to 14.1%, surpassing the 10% cap. The board noted existing nonconformities, including the lot’s 0.42-acre size, below the required 1.5 acres, and street frontage of 118 feet, short of the 150-foot requirement.

During the public comment period, a resident expressed support for the homeowners, recalling neighborhood history and expressing a desire for them to remain. Another speaker, the applicant’s mother, supported the garage expansion, explaining its necessity for housing larger vehicles, but the board emphasized the primary issue was the house addition. Concerns about the neighborhood’s aesthetics and property values were raised, with some residents contrasting their maintenance efforts with neighboring properties’ conditions.

The board concluded public comments and further deliberated on the variances. Clarifications were sought regarding shed relocations and the proposed office space within the garage, confirming no home-based business operations. Ultimately, the board approved the requested variances, expressing willingness to accommodate the homeowners while maintaining zoning integrity.