The most application deliberated at the meeting involved Infinity Holdings 8 LLC, which proposed a new single-family dwelling on Melrose Drive requiring a variance for the habitable floor area ratio. The property, slightly undersized for the R4 residential zone, prompted a review by the board. Michael Lonzafama, the applicant’s witness, explained the proposal’s compliance with other zoning regulations, despite the variance for floor area ratio. The board accepted Lonzafama as an expert witness and engaged in a discussion about the proposal’s alignment with the town’s master plan, setbacks, and the potential benefits of granting the variance. The board’s approval of the application underscored its consideration of the overall benefit to the community and the neighborhood’s character.

The board also encountered a second application for a new single-family dwelling. The architect emphasized the property’s size as being the largest lot on the block, well above the minimum requirement for the zone. The board examined the proposed habitable floor area ratio and the architectural features of the new structure, including layout considerations such as aging in place and attic design. An exhibit displaying lot areas of surrounding properties was presented, alongside an aerial photograph of the neighborhood to contextualize the proposal.

Another application captured the board’s attention as it proposed a structure 14% larger than the maximum permitted floor area. The applicant argued that the extra space would update the house to current standards and enhance the neighborhood’s appearance. The board, after considering the size of the lot and neighboring houses, agreed that the house would not be out of character for the area and granted approval.

The meeting also addressed a request for a pool that did not comply with rear yard pool coverage and side yard setback requirements. The applicant, who had obtained prior approval for a pool that had since expired, highlighted the increased affordability of construction as a factor. The board approved the pool.

Lastly, the board examined an application for a second-floor addition that violated side yard setback, rear yard setback, and habitable floor ratio requirements. The applicant sought to expand their home to better serve their family of six, presenting supporting documents such as photographs and site plans. The board acknowledged the applicant’s consideration of minimal visibility from the street and neighbors and approved the addition, recognizing it as a significant improvement to the property.

The applicants responded with detailed presentations, clarifications, and justifications for their variance requests.