David Spranger presented his application to the Kenilworth Planning Board, detailing the intended renovation of the second floor of his property to create additional space for his family. As a disabled veteran, Spranger emphasized his need for accommodations that the renovation and new installations would fulfill. The presentation included images and comparisons to neighboring homes. The board conducted a review, raising questions about various aspects of the proposal, including the schematics for the pool fencing and lighting.

The board’s inquiry delved into the structural specifics, such as the removal and replacement of the mass wall in the backyard, the absence of an attic plan, and the proposed changes to the basement. Members sought to understand the existing and proposed lines on the plans, expressing concerns over potential access issues to the pool from the back of the deck. The size and lighting for both the attic and basement, as well as the front entry and rear deck, were topics of further discussion.

Another focal point was the property’s impervious coverage. The board evaluated the potential installation of a seepage pit to mitigate runoff, aligning the project with environmental considerations. Throughout the discussions, Spranger responded to the board’s queries, including those on the property’s size and setbacks and the status of a neighboring lot he hoped to purchase to extend the rear setback.

Public commentary during the meeting was supportive of Spranger’s application, with a community member sharing historical information about the property and expressing favor for the proposed changes. Discussions among the attendees also touched on property inheritance, the support from neighbors, and the aesthetic impact of a pool on the neighborhood. A particular note of neighborly support was mentioned, with thanks extended to those who aided a recent widow.

Legal and bureaucratic issues surrounding the construction of a pool were a point of debate, as were the property lines and their impact on the neighborhood. The board considered the auctioning of properties and missed opportunities for purchase, alongside the importance of property maintenance. The need for a 52-inch fence around the pool and adjustments to the plan based on board review were also deliberated.

In the resolution, the board stipulated conditions related to the fence, seepage pit, and other plan details. The applicant’s proposed installation of a 40-foot chain link fence was debated, with two potential locations for pool mechanicals considered. Underwater LED lighting for the pool was confirmed, while plans to replace the existing roof from the garage and mass walls with dirt and grass were also discussed.

Improvements to services leaving the site, such as sanitary, water, and gas, were questioned to ensure the renovation would meet not only the objectives of the zoning ordinance but also the goals of the master plan. The board’s discussion culminated in a motion to approve the application, which was seconded and approved.

The meeting also touched upon a resolution application 23005, which was carried over to the next meeting due to incomplete paperwork and plan submission. The board required the removal of side steps from the right side of the house to maintain clearance width between the property line and the house.