The most notable issue revolved around the application by Emerald Jade LLC concerning property on Myrtle Avenue. The application sought approval for two HVAC units and a shed situated within the required side yard setbacks. The HVAC units were located 8.5 feet from the side yard boundary, violating the 10-foot setback rule, while the shed was placed 7.5 feet from the same boundary. The board scrutinized these encroachments, expressing concerns about setting a precedent for future deviations from zoning laws.

Amit, the general contractor for the property, explained that the placement of the HVAC units was altered due to pool equipment constraints. The units were initially planned to be in a different location, but the need to accommodate pool equipment led to their current positioning. During the discussion, it was revealed that the HVAC contractor relocated the units without proper adherence to the original plans. This prompted questions about oversight during the construction process and the lack of adherence to the approved architectural plans.

Concerns about precedent were voiced by board members, who noted the potential for this case to influence future applications if the variances were granted. A board member emphasized that allowing such deviations could create “chaos” in zoning compliance, as builders might leverage this decision to justify further non-compliance. The board’s deliberation highlighted the importance of maintaining the integrity of zoning laws to preserve the quiet enjoyment of neighboring properties and ensure orderly development.

The shed’s placement was also debated, with the board noting it should not have been placed in its current location. While considered less critical than the HVAC units, it still represented a failure to follow zoning guidelines. The discussion acknowledged the complexities involved in coordinating construction elements like pool equipment and HVAC systems, but emphasized the necessity for compliance with zoning regulations.

Public comments included opposition from a neighbor, Roger Boyce, who argued that the homeowner and builder were circumventing regulations by seeking forgiveness for prior violations instead of adhering to zoning standards. Boyce’s testimony emphasized concerns about undermining the integrity of zoning laws and setting a negative precedent for future developments.

Ultimately, the board decided to deny the variances, emphasizing that the shed could be relocated to a compliant location on the property without needing a variance.

In other matters, the board heard an application from Michelle Lonza regarding a portico constructed without a permit on Bound Road. The portico’s placement required a front yard setback variance, as it extended into the yard beyond zoning allowances. The board discussed the non-conforming nature of the existing conditions and the implications of granting the variance. After deliberation, the board approved the variance, noting the portico’s alignment with the existing structure and lack of further encroachment.

Additionally, several cases were carried over to the November meeting, including applications from IAT Services LLC and individuals Abraham and Margaret Mosery. A future case involving Sammy Haar was discussed, with the board requesting re-notice due to new variances being submitted.