In addition to the frontage controversy, the board addressed several variance requests concerning property expansions. Two separate applications for property expansions involved nonconforming status due to setbacks and lot size, with the applicants seeking to add rooms and garages to their current structures. The board closely examined the impact of these proposed additions on the nonconformities, engaging with technical details such as deck dimensions and setback requirements. For instance, the board debated whether a proposed deck extended beyond the required side setback, as an architect justified the overhang by its arbitrary length and intent to encompass an existing chimney.

They contemplated reducing the front yard setback from 40 feet to no closer than 35 feet for one property’s deck, eventually voting in favor of the variance relief. Additionally, another property on Three Kingsley Road sought a variance for a proposed addition that would encroach on the side yard setback but remain within the allowable increase in nonconforming area. Without raising questions, the board voted in favor of this variance relief as well.

The meeting also delved into the Island Brook development project, where the board reviewed the final plan set and a proposed phasing plan. Concerns were raised over technical aspects such as emergency vehicle access, water main looping, and stormwater management. A revised proposal aimed to address these concerns by relocating recreational areas and altering the layout, but the board requested further details before proceeding. A resident’s letter requested the preservation of trees for privacy, prompting the board to ensure that buffers between properties would be maintained. The discussion on this project was continued to a meeting in September to allow for further plan refinement and coordination with the peer review process.

Another issue addressed was the extension of permits. The board discussed the potential for extending all permits as part of a housing production package, with an intention to set a September hearing date. However, due to some confusion, the discussion was deferred to the August 21st meeting. Issues with an application not being fully advertised as required came up, clarifying that the responsibility for sending out hearing notices fell on the board, and the applicant would need to resolve the issue.

In a separate discussion, the board sought clarification on the legality of a property owner paving a right of way without permits. Additionally, the board touched upon internal matters regarding future leadership roles.