0:00The height increase request for the property on Pine Tree Drive was a focal point of the meeting. The applicant sought to increase the building’s height by two feet, bringing it to a total of 28 feet. However, this request drew opposition from adjacent residents, notably Beth Colleen Martin, who invoked the legal principle of res judicata, arguing that the board had previously denied a similar request in 2020. Martin contended that revisiting the application would require an appeal rather than a standard administrative review.

Martin’s objections were comprehensive, pointing out that the proposed structure would be taller than neighboring homes, including her own, which stands at 24 feet. She described the height increase as “extremely out of cohesive” with the neighborhood’s character. Martin presented visual evidence, including photographs and drawings, to demonstrate the potential negative impact on her property, such as blocked sunlight and exacerbated drainage issues due to impervious surfaces like a proposed 13-foot high pool and deck.

The board discussed recent ordinance changes allowing for administrative approval of certain height modifications, but Martin argued that waivers previously denied were still necessary, and administrative approval alone was insufficient. She highlighted unauthorized actions by the applicant, including the removal of vegetation and improper encroachment onto her land. Martin’s detailed critique was aimed at preventing the approval on both legal and practical grounds, emphasizing the substantial impact on her home and neighborhood.

22:21In response, a board member explained that while the ordinance allowed for some administrative approvals of understory homes, the applicant might still need to vacate the prior board order and submit a new permit for compliance review. The implications of the new ordinance, which included height restrictions based on district and lot size, were thoroughly examined. The board member encouraged residents to lodge formal complaints if discrepancies were perceived.

37:05Elsewhere in the meeting, the board reviewed several architectural proposals, including a significant modification to a construction project involving the front façade. The design team had altered the height of louvers and added larger windows, which received positive feedback for improving the structure’s aesthetic and perceived scale. The modifications were part of an ongoing dialogue with the board.

54:14Another notable discussion involved a request to legalize air conditioning units at an apartment building on Lincoln Terrace. The installation had been conducted without permits, necessitating a variance to align with setback requirements. The board was sympathetic to the applicant’s predicament, recognizing the financial and regulatory challenges posed by the oversight. They approved the variance unanimously, noting the broader issue of permit acquisition for common upgrades.

1:10:46The board’s engagement with a project on Alison Road also drew attention. It involved modifications to a previously approved design, incorporating a larger footprint and a paddle court. The proposal aimed to improve stormwater infrastructure while maintaining unit size standards. The board scrutinized the implications of a lot split and its influence on unit size and coverage regulations but ultimately supported the modifications, which were deemed consistent with the neighborhood’s character.