At the heart of the meeting’s agenda was the contention surrounding the property at 306th Avenue. The applicants sought modified approval for several deviations from the construction plans initially approved by the board. Represented by attorney Kevin Kennedy, the clients conveyed remorse for the changes and insisted that there was no intent to deceive the board or manipulate the system. This case drew attention as the deviations included alterations to the size of a hot tub, the creation of Juliet porches, window eliminations, and changes in the materials used for a roof deck.

The board’s examination into the deviations was careful. Specific changes were highlighted, like the size of the Juliet porches and the elimination of windows, which had not complied with the previously approved resolution. The applicants explained that some of the deviations arose from the necessity to meet building code requirements and directions from code officials. However, this argument was met with skepticism by the board, which pointed out that some decisions, such as the size of the hot tub and the juliet balconies, were within the applicants’ control.

The discussion on the Juliet balcony was particularly detailed, with board members questioning why alterations were made without seeking the required approvals. The homeowner explained that the balcony dimensions were modified to accommodate a storm door. However, the board remained unconvinced and pressed for clarifications on the decision-making process and the failure to adhere to the approved plans.

The meeting also saw debates over the property’s impervious coverage. The applicant maintained that the stormwater management system was implemented as per the approved plans, with downspouts connected to a basin under the driveway. Yet, questions were raised about the decision to use stone and artificial turf instead of natural vegetation, which the applicant defended citing maintenance and lifestyle considerations.

Another contentious point was the installation of street trees. The board had required planting three street trees as part of the prior approval, but discrepancies emerged during the discussion. Furthermore, the board scrutinized the elimination of porch railings and the installation of a surrounding metal fence, which the applicant justified due to space constraints and the need for a physical barrier.

The board also addressed a fence that was not in compliance with the approved plan, emphasizing the need for the fence to adhere to the setback, which was one foot from the property line. The applicant was asked to adjust the fence to comply with the setback or consider its removal.

The property owner’s knowledge of the changes came under the spotlight when they expressed unawareness of specific alterations, such as the size of the columns and the removal of railings. The board questioned the owner’s lack of awareness, given their role as the homeowner. Further, the owner addressed changes to the entrance doors, attributing them to supply chain issues, and admitted not realizing the need to seek additional variances for alterations.

The discussion extended to changes in the shed’s height and design elements, including the elimination of a spire and decorative panels. The property owner expressed willingness to make further modifications in line with the board’s concerns to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy (CO).

The board ultimately decided to adjourn the meeting to allow both parties to consider the issues raised and potentially make revisions to the plans. The next meeting was scheduled for May 21st, 2024, with the board extending the deadline for acting on the application.

In other business, the board appointed Avakian Incorporated as the new engineering firm and T&M as the conflict engineer. The application for a property on Bridge Street was carried to the meeting on June 11th, 2024, with new notice required. The board also welcomed new alternate member Natalie Pasini.