The ongoing debate over the application for a property on Manhattan Avenue dominated the council meeting. The issue arose from recent changes in the property’s driveway width, which led to a violation of the town’s impervious coverage regulations. Initially set at 35 percent, the coverage of the property was found to exceed this limit, recorded at 35.9 percent, a figure that became more problematic following a revision of the master plan, which further reduced the permissible coverage to 33 percent. This discrepancy necessitated the tabling of the application until the next meeting, allowing for a review with the presence of the town engineer.

Compounding the matter, the project had already been completed prior to seeking approval, leading to concerns over the zoning approval process. A council member highlighted that the property’s shed did not comply with setback requirements, being only 7.8 feet from the side yard and 3 feet from the backyard, instead of the mandated 10 and 15 feet, respectively. This oversight raised questions about the sufficiency of the zoning officer’s oversight and the accuracy of the application process. The council discussed whether the applicant could be grandfathered into the previous impervious coverage regulation of 35 percent, given the minor difference between 35.9 and 35 percent, but it was ultimately decided that the application required reevaluation.

Discussions also touched on the categorization of structures on the property, such as distinguishing between a “shed” and a “cabana,” which had implications for compliance with zoning regulations. The council deliberated on whether the cabana should be classified as an accessory structure, which would affect the overall impervious coverage assessment. Additionally, recent changes in zoning regulations had reduced the allowable size for sheds from 100 square feet to 80 square feet, prompting concerns about the reasonableness of such restrictions given the varying sizes of properties in the area.

The council underscored the importance of accurately classifying materials used in the driveway, such as flagstone, in determining whether they should be considered impervious. The need to determine whether a hardship was being created by these variances was emphasized, particularly given that the work had already been completed. A council member remarked on the difficulties of managing projects when changes occur unexpectedly, especially when switching engineers mid-project, noting the complexity and potential for oversight in such situations.

In a separate resolution, the council approved the live streaming and internet video storage of zoning board meetings until the end of the year. This decision was reached following a motion and a roll call vote. The council also briefly discussed upcoming meetings and potential applications, indicating a busier agenda for the next month, with possibly more than one item to address.

Communication with the mayor and council about letters previously sent out was also mentioned. The letters concerned fee analysis in comparison to neighboring towns and a new ordinance addressing demolition. The council’s reception to these proposals seemed favorable.