One of the most discussions centered on a request from a family residing on ASO Lane who sought variances to modify their home to better accommodate their daughter’s special genetic condition. The family presented a case. The property, located in the R4 zone, faced challenges due to existing structures like a tennis court, which impacted lot coverage calculations. The court, deemed essential for the daughter’s recreational needs, contributed to the necessity of a variance as the proposed lot coverage would exceed the allowable 35% limit, rising to 40%.

The board was sympathetic to the family’s unique circumstances, acknowledging the oversized lot and pre-existing tennis court as contributing factors to the request’s complexity. The sentiment was echoed by others, who emphasized the family’s needs and the proposal’s minimal negative impact on the neighborhood.

Another notable case involved a property renovation on Brookman Road. The applicant sought to address inconsistencies from previous meetings with a revised plan that included a two-story extension and modifications to front yard garages. The application required variances for exceeding maximum front yard coverage and floor area ratio limits. The proposed changes aimed to enhance the single-family residence while aligning with the residential character of the zone. The board scrutinized the application, with some members expressing skepticism over the necessity of the variances given that other homes in the area had been constructed without deviations from zoning requirements.

Additionally, the board considered a project on Canoe Road, presented by Joseph Dado. This property, unique in its positioning with neighbors only on the sides and backs, faced requests for variances related to side yard setbacks and floor area ratio. Dado explained that the proposal aimed to increase setbacks and reduce vehicular congestion. The board delved into questions about the massing effects of the new construction, though some members expressed concern over the scale of the proposed changes.

Among other applications, a proposal for a property on Long Hill Drive attracted attention for its focus on updating a 1961 split-level home. The homeowner, who had lived there since 1979, sought to modernize the structure by raising the roof pitch without significant expansions. This required four variances related to side yard setbacks. The board engaged in discussions about the technical aspects of the proposal, with members generally appreciating the effort to preserve and enhance the existing structure rather than opting for a complete teardown.