The most notable topic was the application by Marvel Builders LLC seeking variances to construct a new two-family home on Delar Parkway. The plan involves demolishing an existing structure to build two townhomes, each approximately 2,300 square feet with two-car garages. The project required variances for front and rear yard setbacks, as the property is located in a CR zone where two-family dwellings are permitted uses.

Matt Flynn, the attorney for Marvel Builders, confirmed that proper notice had been provided as per municipal land use law. Architect William Duran detailed the design, noting the use of materials like stone and stucco, and a gray color scheme. The townhomes would feature a first-floor bedroom, three bedrooms upstairs, and a loft area intended for multi-purpose use, which would not be converted into an additional bedroom per the applicant’s agreement.

Board members engaged in discussions about the loft’s functionality and express concerns about the enforceability of its use restriction. The necessity of the variances was debated, with the planner expected to provide additional context about the neighborhood’s characteristics. Though the CR zone allows for two-family homes, the required setbacks necessitated some level of variance relief.

The hearing also emphasized the importance of neighborhood compatibility and compliance with zoning regulations while addressing the specific needs of the applicants. The board examined the implications of the variances being sought, considering both community impact and the applicants’ requirements for their proposed developments.

The environmental commission raised concerns about tree removal, leading to the stipulation that a tree survey would be provided as a condition of approval. The need for a professional engineer was debated, given that the application was for a two-family home and typically does not necessitate such expertise unless specific engineering-related issues arise. Property ownership was clarified with documentation confirming the owner’s consent for the application.

Planning expert Paul Richie provided testimony regarding the application, emphasizing the need for variances based on the lot’s unique dimensions. Richie argued that the proposed home would align with neighborhood characteristics and rectify existing non-conformities, particularly concerning side yard setbacks. With only 10.5% building coverage proposed compared to the 20% maximum allowed, Richie asserted that the project would maintain significant open space.

Photographs presented illustrated the poor condition of the existing property, further supporting the need for redevelopment. Richie referenced surrounding properties to demonstrate how the proposed building would relate to existing structures, maintaining that the configuration would not disrupt the neighborhood’s character. The discussion included consideration of whether the proposed project would negatively affect air, light, or open space, with Richie maintaining that the substantial setbacks and overall plan would preserve these factors.

The variances were framed within the context of exceptional circumstances leading to hardship and improving zoning standards. Richie stressed that the project would enhance the neighborhood through thoughtful infill development, balancing housing needs with community character preservation.

The meeting also addressed another notable application concerning a one-story addition and patio on Montrose Avenue by Carl Bambo Parry. Parry sought C variances for building coverage, impervious coverage, and a rear setback. Mr. Healey, the board’s professional, summarized the application, noting that the existing structure is a single-family split-level home located in an R10 zone. The proposal includes a 500-square-foot addition to the rear of the house, with the applicant requesting variances for a rear setback of 31 feet, impervious coverage at 39.94%, and building coverage at 26.44%.

Parry explained that the patio is essential to accommodate his elderly parents who struggle with mobility, emphasizing that removing the patio would undermine the purpose of the addition. The board members contemplated the implications of removing the existing concrete slab behind the shed, which serves as a storage area.

After a series of questions about the patio and rear yard setback, no members of the public came forward to comment. A motion was made to approve the application with the requested variances, which was seconded and unanimously approved by the board.