0:07The primary focus of the meeting was the reconsideration of application PZ 22-24 concerning the Canters’ property, which featured existing patio retaining walls and an outdoor kitchen. The applicants presented revised plans, moving the kitchen approximately 2 feet inward and 5 feet further away from the property line, now totaling a distance of 7.5 feet from the boundary. This adjustment was made in response to feedback from a prior hearing.

Board members scrutinized the revised proposal, asking about its comparison to the previous plan, particularly in terms of distance from the house and street visibility. Questions arose regarding the necessity of three variances, even after the changes. The board’s attorney clarified that the decision to reconsider was discretionary, requiring the board to evaluate the application on its merits and the new plans. Concerns were raised about utility connections, including gas and potential electrical lines, and the absence of prior inspections, raising additional compliance and safety questions.

19:08A motion was introduced to reconsider the application based on the new dimensions, which was seconded and led to a roll call vote. Members expressed varying opinions, with some supporting the reconsideration due to the applicants’ efforts, while others found the changes insufficient. The newly appointed member emphasized the importance of balancing community needs with town regulations, noting that the changes did not fully meet expectations. The chair suggested that the current situation was not a true hardship but rather an improvement initiative, urging further modifications before the next meeting, scheduled for March 13.

In parallel, the board addressed an impervious coverage issue for a property on Saddlewood Drive, owned by Cetra Investments LLC. The initial impervious coverage of the property was 38.1%, exceeding the 30% maximum allowed by ordinance. After renovations, including a deck replacement, the coverage was reduced to 37.3%, but still required a variance. The managing member of the applicant testified about the renovations and permit confusion, noting that the previous owner had constructed the deck without proper permits, contributing to the current situation.

Board members deliberated the implications of approving such a variance, given the property’s history of non-compliance and broader flooding concerns in the area. Discussions highlighted the need to balance property improvements with adherence to zoning regulations designed to mitigate environmental impacts. Ultimately, a motion was made to approve the variance, with several members expressing support, noting that the proposed coverage was less than the existing coverage at the time of the original transaction.

1:02:11The board also engaged in a broader discussion about the Planning Board’s role in reviewing redevelopment plans and communication with the governing body. The board debated the governing body’s amendments to a redevelopment plan, particularly regarding vehicle access points and building height concerns. A motion was made to prepare a letter to the council reiterating the board’s earlier comments and acknowledging the governing body’s final plan.

Towards the end of the meeting, updates on affordable housing numbers were provided, with the figure recalculated from an initial estimate of 220 units to 171, based on available land adjustments. This updated number will be submitted to the state as a starting point for future discussions.