The variance request centered around the existing structure, which was built in 1933 and currently sits closer to the property line than the zoning code permits. The applicant explained that the proposed design would minimize the impact on the property by constructing the new garage further from the north property line than the existing non-compliant structure. However, the proposed design still did not meet the five-foot setback requirement. The applicant argued that adhering to the setback would pose practical difficulties, including the risk of damaging valuable old-growth pine trees.

Board members engaged in discussions about the implications of the proposed variance, focusing on the historical context of the property and the unique circumstances presented by the existing trees. One board member highlighted the unusual nature of the case, noting that the regulations did not seem to account for the specific situation of the property. Another member emphasized the importance of preserving the trees, which were not fully considered in the written application materials but were deemed significant enough to warrant an exception to the zoning code.

The applicant also addressed concerns that the demolition of the existing garage would expose parts of the house structure. They assured the board that the design included measures to maintain the house’s structural integrity, such as pulling back the new construction to meet the three-foot requirement and stuccoing the exposed areas.

The board’s deliberations revealed differing opinions about the focus of their findings. While some members proposed including impacts on the trees, constructability issues, and loss of light as part of the variance’s justification, others argued that the findings should concentrate solely on the property itself. Ultimately, the board voted in favor of granting the variance, primarily on the grounds of protecting the old-growth trees.

The board’s decision to approve the variance was met with a general consensus that the unique circumstances of the case justified an exception to the zoning regulations. The approval highlighted the challenges of balancing adherence to zoning codes with the need to accommodate unique property features, such as historically significant structures and natural elements.

In addition to the Park Avenue variance, the board discussed other procedural matters, including an update on an appeal regarding a previously denied side yard setback at a different location. The board was informed that this appeal would be brought before them in the near future. Discussions also included updates on the status of new board members, with several applications under review and interviews being scheduled.