The application for a property on Silver Spring Road was introduced by Ken and John, along with representatives from AHM Architects. The applicants emphasized the necessity of expanding their split-level home, originally built in 1950, to accommodate a growing family. Key changes proposed included the addition of a primary bedroom, bathroom, and work-from-home space. The architect, Douglas Miller, detailed that the lot size was smaller than required for the R5 zone, leading to requests for variances on building coverage and side yard setbacks.

Miller argued that the variances were essential due to the narrow lot and existing conditions. He addressed inquiries from the board regarding the need for these adjustments and explained that reducing the footprint would compromise the functionality of the proposed new spaces. A planner provided further context, comparing the current home size of 2,100 square feet to the neighborhood average of 2,821 square feet, indicating that the proposed expansion to approximately 2,752 square feet would be in harmony with surrounding properties.

During the discussion, board members examined whether the design could be adjusted to minimize the need for variances. However, the planner and architect reiterated the challenges posed by the lot’s dimensions and the existing non-conformities, concluding that the proposed modifications were necessary to create a livable home. Following a review, the board approved the application, recognizing the hardships faced by the homeowners due to the undersized nature of the property.

Moreover, another discussion involved a proposed deck expansion on Myrtle. Despite the property being oversized, the application required a building coverage variance. The architect presented the need for the variance to enhance the deck’s usability, particularly for family members and visitors. The board scrutinized the increase in building coverage from 28.1% to 28.9%, against a permitted 23%, and explored alternatives to comply with zoning laws without compromising functionality.

This proposal sparked debate among board members, with some expressing concerns about expanding a non-conforming structure and the potential self-imposed nature of the hardship. The board decided to pause the case, allowing the applicant time to confer with their client before resuming discussions.

Another noteworthy case involved a property on Avenue, where the owner sought to update a deteriorating structure but faced unforeseen complications due to a stormwater pipe running through the property. This discovery, made during informal inquiries at the building department, presented significant challenges to the planned improvements. The board and the applicant navigated technicalities regarding the required variance for a front setback, considering the historical context of the stormwater line.

A procedural issue arose when a homeowner representing an LLC applied for a variance without professional testimony, which the board deemed essential for such applications. The board emphasized the importance of having an architect or engineer present to provide credible testimony and support the application with signed and sealed plans. This matter was carried forward to a future meeting, with the board advising the homeowner to bring the necessary professionals to facilitate the process.

Additionally, the board reviewed a proposal for improvements to a residential property involving a cabana, pool, and covered patio. The discussion focused on the building and lot coverage variances required for the oversized lot. The design team presented a revised plan to minimize variances while ensuring aesthetic cohesion with the existing landscape and structures. Concerns about light pollution and noise were addressed through landscaping and the strategic placement of the pool equipment.

The board also considered an application for a screened porch addition on Arthur Road. The proposal aimed to modernize the patio and provide functional outdoor space, though it required a variance due to the corner lot’s unique challenges and existing building coverage. The board debated the implications of the addition, balancing the need for family space against zoning compliance.