The primary focus of the meeting was a proposed construction project on Park Lane, where the applicant sought to address earlier concerns by revising plans to eliminate some variances, particularly those related to the floor area ratio (FAR). The board scrutinized the project’s impact on the streetscape, given its location on one of the smallest lots in the zone, which was further complicated by its corner position. A board member expressed concern about the visibility of the house from high traffic areas, including a nearby school and park, and emphasized the need to reduce the FAR below the proposed 31% to mitigate the visual impact. There was a consensus among board members that the neighborhood’s transition from ranch-style homes to two-story houses necessitated a balance to maintain community character.

Another point of contention involved the proposed addition to a historically significant cottage on 28B GESP Avenue. The property, an undersized lot featuring a 1930-era cottage, sought an increase in floor area ratio from 34% to 39% and slight increases in lot coverage. The board considered the historical context of the neighborhood, acknowledging the shift from ranch homes to modern designs, while emphasizing the need for new constructions to harmonize with the existing character. A licensed professional planner defended the proposal, arguing that the corner lot’s unique attributes and lack of immediate neighboring properties alleviated concerns about light and open space.

Drainage issues emerged as a critical concern, particularly for properties requesting variances related to lot coverage. One application sparked a discussion about potential water issues, with board members stressing the importance of an improved drainage plan. Suggestions included the installation of a dry well to manage runoff effectively. However, board members remained cautious, proposing that additional topographical data and potentially a supplemental stormwater recharge system be considered to ensure neighborhood conditions were not adversely affected.

The meeting also addressed a shed on a property, debating its dimensions and placement. Although some board members favored keeping the shed in its current location, they emphasized the necessity of verifying its compliance with zoning boundaries. The board ultimately proposed allowing the shed to remain while granting a variance for impervious coverage, contingent on the installation of a new drainage system or the removal of some impervious surfaces to achieve compliance.

The complex interplay between modern housing demands, historic preservation, and environmental considerations highlighted the ongoing challenges faced by the Fair Haven Zoning Board in balancing development with community values.