The board’s discussion on architectural design was the most pressing topic. A member underscored the ordinance’s need to avoid “cookie cutter houses,” prompting a broader dialogue about the submitted plans. These designs were essentially mirror images, which did not align with the community’s established standards. The board reached a consensus that changes were necessary and emphasized that the architect must appear before the board to address these concerns, particularly regarding room layouts and drainage plans. It was decided that the revised plans should be submitted by January 30, in advance of the next meeting scheduled for February 13. The board members stressed the importance of receiving colorized architectural and engineering plans to facilitate a clearer understanding of the project.

In addition to the architectural issues, drainage concerns were a focal point of the meeting. The site in question has a significant slope, which poses a risk of flooding in adjacent areas. The board and the applicant discussed various drainage modifications to prevent runoff from affecting neighboring properties. A board member noted, “we’re reducing the amount of the PE runoff to the neighbor,” highlighting the intention to alleviate water issues for nearby residents. Proposed changes included relocating retention features to the front of the property, adding catch basins, and implementing a comprehensive drainage strategy. The board underscored the need for a plans that included specific designs and materials.

During the deliberations, engineering professionals outlined the revisions aimed at improving the site’s drainage system. The original plan had not adequately addressed the topography and water flow dynamics, necessitating changes such as repositioning drywells to the front of the property and incorporating a scour hole to manage water flow. The board acknowledged these efforts but emphasized the importance of having all details finalized before granting approval. The potential for carrying the hearing to a later date was discussed, with a member asserting the simplicity of resolving the minor subdivision issues, provided the necessary revisions were made.

The meeting also revealed concerns about the timing of the revisions, as the board wanted to ensure they had adequate information before the public hearing. The architect’s timely submission of revised plans was deemed critical to prevent further delays. The board members expressed frustration over the lack of clarity in the architectural submissions, pointing out that what had been presented seemed to be merely slight modifications. They collectively stressed the need for transparency and thoroughness in the planning process.