The meeting’s most intriguing point concerned the residential development proposal by Main Street Creations LLC. The application, represented by William Asin, drew attention due to the property’s unusual attributes, including steep slopes and bedrock, and its design, which included a full-size indoor basketball court. The architect, Paul Ashworth, detailed a floor plan that comprised two bedrooms and significant athletic facilities, raising questions among board attendees regarding the true nature of the building.

Board discussions centered on whether the building was to be categorized as a single-family residence or a professional sports training facility. A professional planner and licensed landscape architect, Jason Dunn, presented the property’s layout, emphasizing its isolated nature and the need for a Highlands exemption. Board attendees scrutinized the architectural plans, seeking clarity on the details of the top floor layout, including bedroom features and the HVAC system’s placement. The applicant clarified the intended private use by a professional athlete and reassured that the septic system would be treated as if for a two-bedroom single-family home.

Additionally, the board debated the potential community impact, including traffic and noise, and discussed the need for the property to comply with building codes appropriate for its classification. Concerns were also raised about the absence of typical residential amenities, such as a laundry room, and the property’s adherence to setback requirements. The board requested further information and documentation to ensure compliance with zoning regulations.

Another notable issue involved a privacy fence dispute between neighbors. The applicants, Nancy Novus and Cara Johnson, sought to extend their fence to six feet for increased privacy, citing issues with surveillance, security, and property encroachment. The board deliberated on the specifics of the fence extension and the positioning relative to utility lines. A motion was made to approve a six-foot high privacy fence extending 20 feet from the foundation with conditions aligned with the board engineer’s report. However, during the discussions, questions arose concerning the driveway’s status and the fence’s impact on the adjoining property. An objector presented a survey report, sparking debate over whether the driveway was shared or exclusive to one property. The objector also raised the specter of torturous interference, though the board steered the conversation towards technical zoning considerations.

The board also confronted a proposal for a property on Main Street, which included installing hydroponic indoor gardens, orchards, cows, and chickens, contingent upon agricultural board approval. Board attendees and public members expressed concerns about the renderings meeting safety standards and the potential for the property’s future development into something other than a single-family residence. A resolution was proposed to be drafted for the next meeting to address these variances and concerns, prompting the board to motion for approval at a later date.