The crux of the meeting centered on the installation of a 12 by 12 plastic rubber PVC material for a sport court. The debate was intense, with the board and public raising questions about the material’s color, potential runoff, and drainage implications. A concern from the board was the need to manage stormwater runoff from the new impervious surface. They requested a comprehensive stormwater management plan, which would need to be reviewed and approved by the board engineer before proceeding.

Furthermore, the discussion addressed the court’s usability and maintenance, comparing it to existing sports facilities in the area. The public voiced concerns about noise from the court and the need for a stormwater plan that would effectively handle the runoff. The board was determined to ensure that the color of the court would be a dark, neutral tone to minimize visibility and to blend in with the neighborhood’s aesthetic.

The board heard from a witness who provided details about the sport court, including the design and the proposed landscaping to shield the court from view. The material choice, grading plan, and the dry well for roof runoff were also topics of discussion. The applicant’s engineer presented a revised plan, which included moving the court away from the neighbor’s property line, reducing its size, and eliminating the lighting plan to address concerns from the neighbors.

The applicant also presented a landscape improvement plan and photographs of the proposed location, attempting to show that the court would be minimally visible due to the property’s natural topography. Neighbors raised issues regarding water problems and the court’s color. One neighbor was particularly concerned about the visibility of the court from their home and the proposed fencing around it. The discussion reached a consensus on several provisions, including moving the court further from the neighbors, no additional lighting, and a reduction in court size. Landscaping was agreed upon to provide visual screening, and the agreement stipulated that the neighbors would not oppose or appeal the board’s decision as long as it was consistent with the agreement.

The discussion also veered into the future use of the court. While the board did not place any restrictions on activities beyond basketball, the applicants had already agreed not to include pickleball or other sports. The issue of informing future owners of neighboring properties about the agreement was noted, with the board emphasizing that the resolution of approval would be a public record.

Another item on the agenda was the application for a variance request for a property on Woodland Avenue. The applicant sought to install fencing and a driveway gate for security reasons, citing multiple incidents of trespassing and invasion of privacy. The board was shown surveillance footage of an individual taking photos on the property. The board deliberated on the effectiveness of the proposed fence height and the impact on the neighborhood, eventually approving the variance due to the unique circumstances presented.

In a less contentious case, a representative proposed the addition of a deck to their property. The board members inquired about the existing conditions and sought clarification on issues like stormwater mitigation and tree removal. The representative provided details about the deck height and photographs to illustrate their plans. The potential removal of the rest of the patio was debated due to cost implications.

The meeting also included the presentation of plans for a property on Woodland Avenue and a proposed project on Beekman Street. Representatives for these cases were asked to state the number of witnesses and the duration of their testimony, which was expected to be 30 minutes or less.

The public was invited to ask questions but was reminded to refrain from making statements during this phase.