Simpsons' proposed expansion and 16x38 pool at 96 Valley Road draws neighbor objections; board asks applicants to revise plans and return

The Zoning Board of Appeals heard a presentation and public objections on a multi-part renovation at 96 Valley Road that would add a family room, mudroom, second-floor additions and a 16-by-38-foot pool and require multiple zoning variances. The board did not vote; members directed the applicant to revise drawings and return at the next meeting.

Architect Herbert Feuerstein described the project as additions to accommodate a family with five children, including a first-floor family room and mudroom, a second-floor addition above an earlier 2008 addition, expanded attic/storage area affecting floor-area ratio, and a pool and enlarged paved area in the rear yard. Feuerstein said the lot is irregularly shaped, rises about 20 feet from street to rear, and contains ledge that constrains excavation and pool siting. He said prior approvals included a 2009 variance related to pool equipment that was not acted on because the previous project was abandoned.

Neighbours Oswald S. Lewis and Annette Spahn Lewis, of 37 Oxford Road, spoke in opposition to aspects of the project. They said they support the family's need for additional living space but objected to the scale of the pool and site changes, which they said increase impervious surface (they cited 48% versus a 45% limit in the transcript) and risk increased runoff and flooding to their property. They asked the board to deny the pool-related variances.

Board members and staff questioned whether some variances could be eliminated by moving pool equipment closer to the house (the applicant said doing so would eliminate one or two variances) and by reducing the pool footprint, rotating the pool, using permeable pavers, or trimming other additions. Members noted the high number of requested variances (initially seven) and told the applicant that approval of five or more variances is unlikely; several members encouraged the applicant to reduce variances before returning.

The applicant was instructed to revise drawings, reduce impervious coverage where feasible, consider relocating pool equipment, evaluate permeable paving, and reassess attic/FAR calculations; the applicant agreed to return to the ZBA at the September 2 meeting with revised plans. No vote was taken at this meeting.