The main focus of the meeting was the application concerning a property on Van Dyke. The property owners had installed a new fence without the necessary permits, prompting scrutiny from the board. The fence, combined with a retrofitted retaining wall, raised significant safety concerns due to its height, which totaled approximately 6 feet 6 inches. This height exceeded the allowable limits for structures within a “sight triangle,” intended to ensure visibility for drivers and pedestrians at intersections.

Timothy Klesie, an expert witness, highlighted the non-compliance of the fence with the city ordinance, which permits only 25% closure in such structures. The newly installed fence’s openness was approximately 50%, thereby obstructing visibility further. This design choice was criticized for potentially creating a “blind corner,” especially for oncoming vehicles, thereby increasing the risk of accidents.

Board members and residents engaged in a discussion on possible solutions to mitigate these visibility issues. Suggestions included repositioning the fence to create a clearer sightline and considering stop signs or curb painting to improve safety. One resident, Jesse Gala, emphasized the critical nature of the situation, pointing out that the intersection’s geometry and the fence’s height effectively created a visual barrier for drivers.

The board weighed the potential modifications to the fence design, with some members suggesting that the structure be pulled back 16 feet from the corner to comply with visibility regulations. The dialogue underscored the need to balance aesthetic improvements with safety.

Following discussions, the board moved to an executive session to deliberate further on the proposal. The motion to approve the modifications, including adjustments to the fence design to meet safety standards, received unanimous support from those present.

The meeting then shifted focus to another application concerning a property on Plain Street. The applicant sought variances for a second-story addition to a Cape Cod style home. The architect representing the applicant detailed the project’s intent to maintain existing non-conformities while adhering to required setbacks. The board expressed support for the application, acknowledging the thoughtfulness of the proposed renovations and their alignment with neighborhood aesthetics.

Another notable discussion involved a proposed development at Franklin Place, where the board examined modifications to an existing structure, including the addition of a screened porch. This project required multiple variances, including for floor area ratio and lot coverage. The applicants emphasized their efforts to engage with neighbors and reduce existing lot coverage to align with zoning regulations. An engineer and architect testified about stormwater management and the historical context of the property.

As the meeting concluded, the board addressed additional applications, including a residential expansion on Stony Hill Court, which involved variances for floor area ratio and side yard setbacks. The board members unanimously supported the proposal, recognizing the challenges posed by the lot’s topography and the applicants’ willingness to collaborate with neighbors.