The meeting’s focal point was the application for a 240-square-foot deck at the rear of a single-family home on Leighton Avenue. The applicant detailed their intent to construct an uncovered and unenclosed deck from treated lumber, addressing the board’s queries about its integration with the existing property. The proposal aimed to enhance the home’s usability, covering an area currently occupied by grass, without affecting the existing off-street parking capabilities.

Significant discussion arose around the deck’s potential impact on parking and pedestrian access. Board members questioned the applicant regarding the availability of clearance space once the deck was constructed, particularly concerning the narrow sidewalk and driveway configuration. The applicant reassured the board that the deck, extending eight feet out, would not impede the ability to park vehicles or walk behind them. They elaborated on their parking habits, noting an atypical arrangement to prevent damage from falling branches during inclement weather, which did not reflect normal circumstances.

Neighbor feedback was another critical consideration. The applicant reported that roughly half of the neighbors had responded to inquiries about the project, with none expressing opposition. This was interpreted as a relief that the application was for a modest deck, rather than a larger construction project.

The board deliberated on conditions for the deck’s approval, emphasizing that it must not encroach on existing setbacks. The applicant expressed a desire for the deck to extend beyond the current structure for more usable space, prompting board members to recommend aligning the deck with the existing home to mitigate setback concerns. Additionally, the importance of maintaining landscaping for privacy and security was underscored, with the applicant agreeing to trim foliage as needed but encouraged to preserve as much as possible.

The board took into account the applicant’s assurances that the deck would not lead to the loss of parking spaces. The applicant confirmed that the driveway configuration would remain unchanged and that the parking space would be preserved. To ensure privacy, the board suggested additional buffering or landscaping, with the applicant agreeing to comply with these landscaping requirements.

In a move to expedite the process, the board discussed issuing permits prior to the formal adoption of a resolution, given the minor nature of the application and lack of significant objections. This expedited approach received support, with board members recognizing that it would not present any harm under the circumstances. A motion to approve the application was made, with the issuance of permits contingent upon meeting all conditions. The board members voiced their support, and the application was approved with several affirmations during the roll call.

As the meeting concluded, there was mention of a potential upcoming meeting on November 20, though its occurrence depended on the status of other applications. The board expressed interest in quickly drafting a resolution to facilitate the issuance of permits for the applicant.