The meeting began with a decision regarding a project extension for an applicant identified as Mohan, represented by Nand Wadwa. The applicant requested more time to start a home improvement project because of personal circumstances, including a child’s college application process.

Following this, the board examined a conditional use variance application from the Gruber Family Trust, represented by Frederick Zeli. This case involved a request to allow the continued use of an apartment above a detached garage in the R7 residential zone, where ordinances typically require accessory apartments to be inside the primary residence. John Gruber testified, confirming that the property, purchased in June 2023, was rented out while his son occupied the garage apartment. The board scrutinized the unique circumstances, debating whether the variance aligned with the ordinance’s intent, which aims to avoid creating two-family rental situations.

The board expressed concerns about setting precedents and the implications of non-compliance with zoning laws. A member highlighted the absence of a true hardship, contrasting the current investment approach with cases involving genuine family necessity. The board also discussed whether the variance should apply solely to the current owners or future ones, fearing similar requests for non-related occupants. To address these issues, a proposed condition was discussed: if the apartment becomes unoccupied or if occupants are no longer family, the variance would terminate.

The meeting also included a discussion on a proposed fence for a corner lot. The applicants sought a variance to build a five-foot black aluminum fence for child safety, exceeding the four-foot front yard limit. The board reviewed photos showing the fence’s planned placement behind trees to avoid visual obstruction. While some members were concerned about setting a precedent, others suggested adding conditions like a time limit or re-evaluation upon ownership change. Ultimately, the board agreed to table the decision, giving time to refine conditions and gather additional input from neighbors.

Additionally, the board reviewed an application from Hector Pera and Elizabeth Sila, seeking variances for a home addition. The applicants aimed to modernize their 1958 split-level home, requiring setbacks due to existing non-conformances. A covered walkway connecting the garage to the house also necessitated variance adjustments. The board planner explained that the garage’s existing location and new connection subjected it to the same setback rules as the principal building. The board raised concerns about lot coverage due to an unusually placed public sidewalk on private property. The applicants assured no trees would be removed, planning to enhance landscaping along Stockar Drive.