The most newsworthy discussion centered around Steven Barespi’s application for a variance to install a new inground pool, spa, and a six-foot high privacy fence at his property on Sycamore Street. The proposal required a bulk variance and site plan approval, primarily for the fence. The board focused on the necessity of the fence for both pool safety and privacy reasons, with an emphasis on protecting the applicant’s daughter and dogs. While the original application proposed a fence positioned just two feet from the curb, Barespi agreed to adjust the setback to 14.5 feet, aligning with sight distance requirements set by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).

The board’s examination revealed that corner properties present unique challenges, as both streets are considered front yards under local ordinances, thus restricting fence placement. During the public comment period, a resident, Lee Whitaker, opposed the variance, arguing against altering zoning laws for individual cases. Whitaker referenced his own experience with zoning compliance, expressing concerns about potential changes to the neighborhood’s character and the integrity of existing zoning regulations. Despite Whitaker’s objections, a board member clarified that the application was not about changing the rules but rather seeking relief from them, as is common practice for neighbors in similar situations.

Aesthetic concerns also dominated the conversation, with a resident worried about how the fence might affect property values. The applicant’s representative did not provide immediate details on the fence design, prompting further inquiries from the board.

Ultimately, the board approved the variance, conditioning it on adherence to a specific letter outlining standards and documentation of any pre-existing non-conforming uses. The approval was subject to a formal resolution to be memorialized and published, with a 45-day appeal period following publication, warning the applicant of the risks of commencing construction prematurely.

Another topic discussed was an application for a bulk variance on Bradshaw Avenue, concerning an expanded driveway apron. The applicant sought to widen the driveway from the maximum permitted width of 14 feet to 20 feet and requested a variance for maximum lot coverage. The proposed changes would increase lot coverage from 31% to 32.3%, exceeding the allowable 30%. The board noted that the driveway expansion would not negatively impact stormwater drainage, but it would affect a street tree located in the curb strip. The applicant was informed that any tree removal would require permission from the Shade Tree Commission and potentially necessitate the planting of new trees.

The board also scrutinized the accuracy of the applicant’s survey, which did not include all visible structures like a shed and patio. The applicant confirmed that permits were obtained for these improvements. The board discussed potential conditions for approval, emphasizing compliance with the Shade Tree Commission’s requirements. An alternative solution was suggested if the commission did not approve tree removal, allowing the applicant to retain the driveway’s current width in the public right-of-way.

The discussion revealed the complexities of balancing property improvements with local regulations, particularly regarding tree preservation and driveway modifications. The board approved the application, contingent on the Shade Tree Commission’s findings and adherence to municipal ordinances.

The meeting concluded with additional business, including ongoing discussions about a sign ordinance and anticipation of a busy month ahead with multiple applications for review. The board emphasized the importance of all members’ presence in upcoming meetings to ensure fair and thorough evaluation of future applications.