The most debated topic of the evening was the application concerning 22 Parkside Drive. Elizabeth Kim presented a report from the Historic Preservation Reviews Commission for the construction of a contemporary five-bedroom home that required a variance due to insufficient lot frontage. The property, with only 49.95 feet of frontage against a required 150 feet, was previously approved for a pool, but a revised ordinance now prohibited pools in the front yard, necessitating a new variance.

Multiple neighbors voiced strong opposition, raising concerns about the impact on the historic Battlefield Park area. One neighbor emphasized the loss of mature trees on the lot, which had been “clearcut,” contrary to the applicant’s claims that certain trees would be retained. They noted the misrepresentation in the application documents and the significant deviation of the proposed 4,700 square-foot house from the typical 2,000 to 2,500 square-foot homes in the area, excluding the historic Drumthwacket. The neighbor questioned the necessity of the three parking spaces, in addition to a two-car garage, and the design’s compatibility with the neighborhood’s historic nature.

Another resident echoed these sentiments, warning that granting variances could lead to further deviations from zoning regulations. The applicant’s representative countered by noting that under current zoning laws, a house up to 6,500 square feet could be constructed, emphasizing that the proposed one-story, 16-foot-tall structure was a sensitive approach to the site. They also clarified that the historic buildings on the property would not be used as garages, maintaining the neighborhood’s character.

The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) unanimously supported the revised application but recommended several conditions, including the use of LED lighting, ensuring new fencing is not connected to historic structures, and placing all utility lines underground. The applicant committed to addressing these recommendations, including submitting a landscape design to mitigate the visual impact of parking areas.

In executive session, the board discussed the frontage and pool variances in detail. Despite the concerns raised, a motion was made to approve the variances, contingent on the applicant’s compliance with the HPC’s recommendations and the preservation of the historic character of the existing structures. The motion passed following a roll call vote.

Another item on the agenda was the application for a property on Lafayette Road, where Carolyn and Thomas Scriven sought a C1 or C2 variance to construct a motor court garage and an accessory dwelling unit (ADU). The proposal included consolidating their existing property with an adjacent vacant lot and constructing a three-car motor court garage, which required multiple variances. These included exceeding the roof height limit, proposing a two-story structure, and including habitable space on the second floor, all of which deviated from the ordinance requirements.

The Scrivens’ representatives argued that the design was intended to harmonize with the main house and accommodate the needs of aging parents. The design team highlighted their efforts to integrate the new structures with the existing architecture of the 1920s home, maintaining the character of the neighborhood while providing necessary accessibility features.

Public comments were generally supportive, with neighbors praising the design and its benefits to the community. The board ultimately approved the project, excluding the variance for habitable space over the motor court, which was deemed non-compliant with zoning regulations.

The meeting also addressed the application for a property on Stony Brook Lane, where the property owners sought a C1 variance to construct a swimming pool and related equipment within the front yard setback. The presentation detailed the property’s topographical challenges, including a steep grade change, and the efforts to preserve mature trees and manage runoff with a rain garden. The board discussed alternative locations for the pool, the proposed cabana, and the fencing plan. Technical difficulties delayed the proceedings, leading to a continuation of the discussion to the next meeting.