The board grappled with the interpretation of a zoning code section related to the buildable area on the second floor of a property. The primary issue was whether the second level could extend to the property line, specifically considering the 30-foot depth allowance for the interior side buildable area.

Debate ensued regarding the application of setback regulations, which are critical to preserving space between structures and property lines. The conversation highlighted the importance of distinguishing between front, rear, and side setbacks based on a property’s address. Clarification was sought on the language in the zoning code, particularly the term “interior side Lot line,” which had been a source of confusion. The board emphasized that the language pertaining to the Second Story buildable area applies strictly to the side setback, not the rear setback.

The potential hardship posed by these requirements to properties with limited space, such as corner lots, was a focal point. The board examined how these regulations might impede the ability of homeowners to fully utilize their properties. Discussions also touched on design requirements aimed at preventing extensive blank walls and enhancing the aesthetic integration of new structures into the community. Attention was given to the regulation for articulation of wall planes to reduce visibility into neighboring homes.

Further complicating matters was the discussion about balconies potentially encroaching into the setback area. The board looked at regulations in other municipalities for guidance on this issue. Suggestions were made for possible adjustments to property designs to meet the green space requirement and ensure compliance with driveway size regulations. Board members provided feedback on several design elements, including the placement of balconies and the use of second-story space above garages.

The board also deliberated on practical matters, such as the three-meeting process for reviewing new construction proposals, the submission of construction drawings, and ensuring that final construction plans comply with the village building code before approval. The conversation included the possibility of flipping a house design to maximize yard space and the allowances for fencing in front yards, especially on corner lots.

In a specific case regarding a property considering the addition of a pool and a secondary garage, the board engaged in a robust exchange over the layout. They suggested rotating the pool and adjusting the house placement to better comply with the codes.

Another topic was a driveway proposal for a specific address. The board scrutinized the design and materials of the proposed driveway, offering recommendations to align with the aesthetic and functional requirements of the area. The property owner was counseled on the submission and review process for driveway proposals.

Other items of note included the discussion of a dark bronze roof, which led to approval, and a gravel driveway application that was tabled due to missing details. A wooden fence proposal, subject to debate over its design and compliance with non-climbable requirements, was eventually approved with some dissent. The board also reviewed a walk-in closet addition, which was denied for not meeting setback requirements, and tabled a swimming pool application for further clarification on dimensions.