The application from Carmelo and Kong Vasquez for an above-ground pool on Park Avenue triggered a review by the board. The applicants sought a variance for their lot coverage, proposing just above the allowed 25% at 26.2%, and for improved lot coverage, with a proposal of 37% over the permissible 35%. They planned to install a 12 by 20 above ground pool in their tiered backyard, which required the removal of part of their existing deck and concrete. This action was intended to balance out the lot coverage resulting from the pool installation, which, after the removals, would stand at approximately 35.8%. The proposed changes fell under a new ordinance providing credits for deck and pool configurations, which brought the improved lot coverage down to roughly 35.6%.

Board professionals determined that the application should be approved based on the balancing out of the proposed changes. During the review, there was a discussion surrounding specific code sections, particularly regarding the driveway and detached garage, leading to clarification that the reduction of impervious coverage from the front of the house to the detached garage would not be factored into the coverage calculation. The application was approved without significant objections, with the board acknowledging the minor variances and the project’s improvements to the property.

The second application under scrutiny was for a property development on Dorchester Road. The applicants proposed a two-story addition, a one-story addition, a front covered porch, a patio, and an expansion of their driveway. The architect underscored the pre-existing non-conforming conditions of the property, namely its undersized lot and narrowness, and presented variances for lot coverage at 1.2% and improved lot coverage at 2%. The professionals and board members examined the proposed plans, raising concerns about stormwater management and the need for proper water percolation. An emphasis was placed on the materials used for the patio and the necessity of an accurate AS-Built calculation for building height.

The discussion also broached topics like the location of air conditioning units, the possibility of relocating a shed, and safety considerations for a proposed basement addition, including the need for an alternate means of egress. After a deliberate review, the board voted to approve the application, stipulating conditions from the engineering report and requesting a letter regarding the intended use of the basement space. Throughout the deliberations, some board members voiced concerns over safety considerations that were incorporated into the decision-making process.

The meeting went beyond individual property applications and touched upon broader issues affecting local land use. A discussion about zoning ordinance regarding parking requirements arose, focusing on the requirement for a variance due to insufficient parking spaces. The dimensions of the driveway and garage were debated, with questions raised about counting the garage as a third parking space and the implications for grading and engineering plans. These conversations highlighted the complexities of land use regulations and the board’s efforts to reconcile them with the practical needs of residents.