12:33The focal point of the meeting was the application identified as 41-2024Z, concerning the planned expansion of a residence owned by Dr. Zir Hussein and Sarah Risby. The proposal detailed a 1,540 square foot addition that would be equally divided between two floors. The first floor was to include an expanded kitchen, a pantry, a coffee area, and a sunroom, while the second floor would feature a new bedroom suite with an en suite bathroom and walk-in closets. A new deck was also proposed to be constructed over the existing patio. However, the addition would require variances due to the proposed increase in the floor area ratio from the current 0.155 to 0.21.85, exceeding the maximum allowed of 0.17.

37:33Concerns arose regarding the property’s landscape area ratio and its encroachment on a conservation easement located at the property’s rear. The easement imposes restrictions on development, prohibiting alterations or constructions within its bounds. The board stressed the importance of adhering to these restrictions, emphasizing that no trees would be removed as part of the project.

The meeting revealed that the proposed addition would not extend beyond the existing footprint of the house, thus preventing any side yard setback violations. It was confirmed that the addition would not be visible from the street due to its placement directly behind the existing structure. The conservation easement was discussed extensively, with emphasis on its role in preserving the surrounding open space and ensuring compliance with environmental regulations. The proposal included measures to protect the easement, such as potentially installing conservation easement monument markers instead of a split rail fence, which might infringe on the proximity guidelines.

45:13Discussion also touched on technical aspects of the construction, such as the discharge of a sump pump associated with the addition. The board recommended ensuring that it discharges at least 15 feet from the building and does not direct water towards the street or neighboring properties. The discharge will be routed towards the conservation easement, and compliance with necessary construction standards was assured.

32:37Further inquiries were made into the existence and activity of a Homeowners Association (HOA) for the development. It was clarified that while an HOA does exist, it appears to be minimal with no significant rules or regulations affecting property modifications. The homeowners confirmed they were responsible for their properties, with no annual fees associated with the HOA. This raised questions about the HOA’s role in property maintenance and any potential impact on proposed modifications.

49:29During the meeting, an absence of the board’s planner and engineer was noted, leading to the consensus that further review was required. As a result, the board decided to reconvene on August 7, allowing time for professional input to be incorporated. The public portion of the meeting was opened; however, no members of the public attended to voice opinions or concerns regarding the application.