The primary agenda item was the review of zoning ordinance 2024-D27C, designed to ensure consistency with the master plan. The ordinance proposed increasing the minimum lot size for duplexes from 6,000 to 10,000 square feet. Board members expressed concerns about existing duplexes potentially becoming non-conforming under the new requirements, particularly if owners sought to make additions or rebuild after a complete loss. It was clarified that existing duplexes would remain conforming as long as they were in zones permitting duplexes, despite not meeting the new bulk requirement. However, if a duplex were to be rebuilt after a total loss, it would have to comply with the new regulations, raising concerns about insufficient notification to current duplex owners and the possible impact on property owners, especially following disasters like Hurricane Sandy.

Legal interpretations were sought regarding the ordinance’s implications on existing properties and expansions. Members debated whether the changes were necessary, pointing out that the master plan did not advocate for adjustments to the duplex lot size but merely noted existing zoning. Attention was drawn to the definition of “building” within the ordinance, encompassing various structures including unheated garages and sheds, which could impact floor area ratio calculations. Concerns about counting non-habitable spaces in these calculations led to a suggestion that the board issue a letter to the governing body outlining these concerns.

The discussion also touched on the feasibility of allowing both detached garages and sheds on the same lot, with some members questioning the rationale. It was suggested that allowing additional stories on garages for storage could optimize land use. The board’s role was emphasized as reviewing the ordinance for consistency with the master plan rather than adopting it. Despite concerns about the potential impact on taxpayers and the real estate market, it was reiterated that such considerations were outside the board’s purview. The board ultimately decided to recommend the passage of the ordinance with exceptions concerning floor area ratio and definitions related to duplexes and impervious lot coverage.

The meeting then addressed an application concerning a variance request for side yard setback and building coverage related to the expansion of an existing deck. The applicant aimed to legalize a 63-square-foot deck expansion to reconfigure stairs encroaching on an adjacent property. The expansion had not been previously approved, and there was an outstanding violation notice for constructing the deck without a permit. The applicant explained that the original deck steps were too close to the neighboring property, forcing them to walk onto the neighbor’s lot to access their own rear space. The proposed changes aimed to provide safe access without encroaching on the neighbor’s property.

Testimony from the property owner highlighted the challenges faced due to the layout and existing conditions of the property. The owner acknowledged a misunderstanding regarding the need for permits for the construction work completed and recounted the timeline of purchasing the property and undertaking repairs.

The board also discussed a property dispute involving a deck and its compliance with property lines. The applicant proposed relocating the deck six inches back to resolve the issue. The dialogue transitioned to the structural integrity of the deck, with modifications mentioned to maintain the deck’s support while complying with the proposed retraction. The need for clear and transparent communication with neighbors was emphasized, considering prior tensions and misunderstandings.

Further, the board reviewed a application concerning a property on Iroy Avenue, involving the construction of an elevator addition that would encroach on the side yard setback. The existing side yard setback was noted to be 11 feet, while the proposed elevator addition would reduce it to 6.3 feet. Despite the encroachment, the overall building coverage remained within permitted limits. The neighbor supported the application, and the board ultimately approved it with a 6-3 vote, despite concerns about parking variances.