The most contentious topic involved a proposed project on Two Westlake Road, where an applicant sought to replace a single-family dwelling with a new structure on a nonconforming lot. Concerns about the massive size of the proposed building dominated the discussion. Residents voiced fears that the new construction, which would stand at 31 feet 7 inches tall, would overshadow neighboring properties, particularly impacting a nearby single-story ranch house. The board acknowledged these concerns, noting that the height and bulk of the proposed home were issues affecting neighborhood character.

Water drainage was another critical concern raised by residents. Neighbors expressed apprehension about how the new construction would impact local flooding issues, exacerbated by the area’s clay soil and existing drainage challenges. One resident vividly described their struggles with water accumulation, emphasizing the importance of mature trees in managing water levels and expressing concern over their potential removal during construction.

In addition to water and size issues, safety concerns were highlighted, particularly regarding the location of the proposed driveway. Residents pointed out that the proximity of the driveway to a busy intersection could pose visibility risks for drivers. Although some board members suggested that the driveway’s placement might fall under the jurisdiction of the transportation department, the safety implications remained a point of contention throughout the discussion.

Despite these concerns, a motion to approve the project was ultimately denied.

Another agenda item was the application concerning 79 Mill Street, where the applicant proposed to replace the existing dwelling with a larger home. The new structure would occupy a substantial portion of the 11,000-square-foot lot, raising questions about neighborhood compatibility. Board members discussed the proposed home’s square footage, which exceeded the size of surrounding houses, and emphasized the importance of considering neighborhood aesthetics and environmental implications.

The board also addressed a related project on Westfield, where previous plans had been denied. The applicant returned with revised proposals, reducing the overall footprint and making changes based on feedback from earlier meetings. However, residents continued to express concerns about the mass and scale of the proposed building, highlighting the potential for increased flooding and environmental impact. The ongoing debate underscored the challenges of balancing development needs with community concerns and zoning compliance.

The board engaged in analysis of site plans, emphasizing the need to adhere to zoning regulations while considering community feedback.

As the meeting progressed, the board navigated several issues related to the proposed developments, ultimately deciding to continue discussions on certain applications.