The focal point of the meeting was the proposal for a lighted, roofed tennis court, which sparked debate. The attorney representing the applicant presented a plan, including a landscaping exhibit and photographs to illustrate the property’s features. The design aimed to blend aesthetically with the environment while requiring variances for height and lighting. The lighting aspect was particularly contentious, as town ordinances prohibit lighting for tennis courts. The applicant’s attorney argued that minimal light spillage would occur, supported by lighting studies conducted in conjunction with the Historic Preservation Commission’s review. However, board members expressed skepticism, questioning whether the lighting was necessary and compliant with local regulations.

A resident voiced support for the lighting, emphasizing the benefits for their children’s evening activities during darker months. However, they acknowledged concerns about future property uses, such as potential late-night gatherings, which could violate the town’s noise ordinance. The board members stressed the need to consider long-term implications, with one member noting, “We have to think about what could happen 20 years from now.” The discourse centered around the balance between current and future property owners’ rights and the community’s overall impact.

The meeting also addressed the classification of the tennis court structure. The board debated whether it should be designated as a building or an accessory structure, which would influence the lighting requirements under municipal codes. A board attorney raised concerns about the enforceability of stipulations, such as lighting restrictions, if the property were sold. The attorney cited past examples where required conditions, like tree plantings, were not maintained. The board deliberated whether omitting lighting would alter their stance on the proposal, with some members questioning the necessity of the roof and lighting.

Mrs. Kogan, a neighbor, presented photographs and voiced her concerns about the proposed development’s impact on her property. She emphasized that previous owners assured her that no further construction would occur on the site. Mrs. Kogan expressed discomfort with the prospect of a new building, highlighting potential noise and lighting issues. She questioned the accuracy of a report stating noise levels would not exceed 55 decibels and disputed claims about tree plantings along the property line. Her insistence on maintaining her property’s quality of life and value underscored the broader community concerns about the proposal.

The board’s attorney expressed skepticism about the land use justification for granting variances for a sports facility in a residential area. The attorney noted, “There really is not” a valid land use reason supporting the application, warning that it could lead to public assembly issues. Board members echoed this sentiment, emphasizing the need for appropriate justification for variances. The consensus was that the application did not meet the positive criteria for a variance, with concerns about the facility accommodating activities beyond tennis, potentially exacerbating noise and disruptions for neighbors.

In addition to the tennis court discussion, the board considered variances for another property seeking to construct a garage. The application involved exceeding the permitted floor area ratio (FAR) by 5.1%. Board members scrutinized the proposed plans, particularly the reliance on Zillow data for property dimensions, and stressed the importance of using official town property cards. The absence of a garage was noted as a hardship justification, but board members expressed concern about the overall massing of the structure. The applicant was encouraged to revise the plans and return with a potentially scaled-down proposal, possibly including a single-car garage.