The most notable discussion revolved around the application by Joni Shehu for a variance to construct a single-family dwelling on a 21,000 square-foot lot that fell short of the required frontage by 10 feet. Represented by Kenneth P. Phillips, the applicant argued that topographical challenges, such as steep slopes and ledge-filled soil, justified the need for a variance. The lot, originally part of a 1911 subdivision, had remained undeveloped due to these difficulties, despite its high assessment value. Phillips emphasized the lot’s historical context and noted that several nearby homes also failed to meet current frontage requirements.

Community members raised strong objections during the public hearing. Kim Vander, a resident and landlord on the same street, expressed frustration over the potential precedent the approval might set, referencing her own challenges in obtaining a variance for a similar project in 1999. Dana Ross, another resident, criticized the lack of direct road access and questioned the feasibility of safely navigating the steep terrain, particularly during winter. Concerns about utilities, like the necessity for an injector pump system, were also discussed, with questions about how sewage would be managed given the elevation changes.

The board grappled with the implications of granting the variance, debating whether the lot’s historical status and unique layout warranted special consideration. One member argued that denying the variance could be seen as unfair, given the taxes paid on the lot, which was assessed at over $400,000. However, others worried about setting a precedent for similar non-conforming lots, potentially leading to a series of variances that could alter the neighborhood’s character.

Despite initial resistance, the board ultimately voted to approve the variance after a second vote, with conditions aimed at mitigating the development’s impact. These conditions included working with neighbors to preserve trees and ensure proper drainage and utility connections during construction.

Another focal point of the meeting was the proposed construction on Longfellow Road, where an applicant sought to add to a pre-existing non-conforming structure. The board scrutinized the updated plans. Satisfied with the applicant’s adherence to regulations, the board unanimously approved the project, determining it would not be more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing structure.

The meeting concluded with the approval of a new single-family dwelling on Harwood Road. The applicant’s representative presented plans to replace an existing structure, seeking relief due to insufficient lot area and frontage. The board appreciated the thorough presentation and confirmed that the proposed building height was within acceptable limits. The project was approved unanimously, allowing construction to proceed.