A significant portion of the meeting focused on the subdivision proposal by 1600 Holbrook LLC, which aimed to split an existing corner lot into two new lots, labeled 1.01 and 1.02. The existing lot, measuring 9,000 square feet, is smaller than the minimum required 10,000 square feet for the zone. The proposal sought to create a 7,000 square foot and a 16,000 square foot lot, necessitating several bulk variances, particularly regarding setbacks. The applicant proposed a front yard setback of 24.2 feet for a new covered porch and a rear yard setback of 4.5 feet for lot 1.02, where 5 feet is required.

Concerns about wetlands were addressed during the meeting, with professionals clarifying that while the area was historically identified as containing wetlands, it has since been fully developed. The board was assured that the site itself did not contain wetlands, and no Letter of Interpretation was necessary. A representative confidently stated, “we’re all confident that there is no Wetlands here.” This conclusion was based on the current developed nature of the area and the absence of wetlands on the site itself.

The board also delved into how the proposed lots would integrate with the existing community. One board member suggested that approximately 80% of the surrounding lots are 100 by 100 feet, implying that the new development would not be entirely out of character. However, concerns were raised about maintaining the neighborhood’s architectural style. A board member highlighted the potential risk of “mcmansions” overwhelming the existing homes, stressing the importance of new constructions remaining in context with the neighborhood.

The legal intricacies of the variance application were scrutinized, particularly the issue of self-created hardship. It was clarified that if the subdivision was approved, the applicant could not claim a hardship variance for an undersized lot in the future. The applicant’s attorney confirmed this, emphasizing the need to focus on the land’s characteristics to ensure community benefits. Although the board recognized its lack of formal design standards, there was a consensus on encouraging the applicant to align with the neighborhood’s character.

Public comments highlighted community support for the builder, with residents expressing satisfaction with the builder’s previous projects. One resident pointed out discrepancies in the application documentation, specifically regarding dimensions and setbacks. He sought confirmation that the proposed distance of 7.4 feet referred to the existing house, which the board confirmed. Another resident supported the application but sought clarity on the side yard and rear yard setbacks, particularly concerned with ensuring that the new house would conform except for the side yard setback, which would remain non-conforming due to existing conditions.

Following public comments, the board moved to approve the application, subject to conditions that included compliance with technical engineering memoranda and the relocation of a non-conforming shed to ensure conformity on the proposed lot. The motion was approved after a roll call vote. The meeting concluded with holiday wishes and a motion to adjourn.