The most notable discussion centered around the property on Stockton Avenue, owned by Allan and Amanda Fiser. The applicants sought to transform their two-family dwelling into a single-family home, necessitating variances due to existing non-conformities. The property, located in the RS district, required changes in bulk standards that did not stem from exterior alterations but from pre-existing conditions. The need for variances was driven by differences in lot coverage and side yard setbacks required for single-family homes, which the current structure did not meet.

The proposal aimed to address these issues by reducing lot coverage from 61% to 58.8% through the use of pervious pavers, albeit still exceeding the 45% requirement for single-family homes. The applicants also planned to enhance parking provisions, eliminating the need for a parking variance by creating an additional parking space. An agreement was mentioned regarding a driveway encroachment onto a neighboring property, with an easement to be formalized as part of the approval conditions.

Christina Amy, a licensed architect, provided testimony on the planned changes, particularly the removal of an exterior stair to streamline access and comply with single-family standards. The board emphasized the conversion’s alignment with the zoning plan’s intent, noting its reduced density and historical preservation elements as key justifications for the variances.

The board also reviewed an application for the property on Maryland Avenue, where the owners sought to expand their home due to family growth. This proposal involved variance relief related to lot coverage discrepancies discovered during the application process. The outdoor shower, installed by the previous owners, exceeded the approved lot coverage, necessitating a variance to rectify the oversight. The board debated the merits of removing the shower but ultimately supported the applicants’ plan to retain it while implementing improved drainage solutions.

Variances were sought to legalize existing non-conformities, particularly concerning the outdoor shower’s attachment to an accessory structure. The board concluded that the proposed improvements would benefit the neighborhood by mitigating runoff issues without negatively impacting adjacent properties. The application received unanimous approval, contingent on compliance with conditions outlined by the board engineer and relevant commissions.

A third application involved Timothy and Elizabeth Fall, who requested approval to convert attic space into an office on Lafayette Street, Unit B. The conversion aimed to address the couple’s work-from-home needs without altering the property’s exterior, except for adding a window. While the expansion would slightly increase the floor area ratio, it remained within allowable limits, negating the need for additional variances.

The board deliberated on parking implications, given the potential for the new office space to function as a bedroom. Despite concerns, it was determined that the change would not increase parking requirements, as the overall impact on site density and layout was minimal. The board’s cautious approach to classifying usable spaces ensured that future ownership or use changes would not inadvertently affect parking compliance.