The primary focus of the meeting was the application submitted by a resident, referred to as Mr. Z, for the installation of an in-ground swimming pool at 2602 80 Buchanan Avenue. The proposal faced scrutiny due to its non-conformance with several zoning regulations, notably a six-foot side yard setback where a ten-foot setback is typically required. The complexities arose from the property’s two-level design, which necessitated adjustments to existing structures, including the removal of a staircase, to accommodate the pool.

Mr. Z presented two different sketches illustrating the proposed pool placement, with one showing compliance with the ten-foot setback and the other requesting a variance for a six-foot setback. The board members focused on the patio’s proposed layout surrounding the pool, emphasizing the need for clarity on how far it would extend and its impact on neighboring properties. Mr. Z proposed a blue stone patio encompassing the pool, maintaining a six-foot distance from the left property line with larger distances at the rear and right.

Adjustmentsttention was given to drainage concerns, a critical aspect given the property’s elevation challenges and the presence of a retaining wall designed to manage water runoff. The applicant underscored the wall’s role in preventing water from affecting neighboring properties, but communication gaps with the zoning officer were noted, particularly regarding photographs that depicted the property’s layout and the wall’s function. Mr. Z assured the board that the drainage system would prevent runoff from impacting adjacent properties, stating emphatically, “It’s not going to happen.”

During their deliberations, board members inquired about the patio’s potential impact on neighboring views, with assurances that the retaining wall would provide necessary privacy. The proposed pool and patio exceeded the maximum allowable coverage of 45%, reaching 58%, though adjustments were anticipated to reduce this to approximately 53%. Despite these complexities, clarity on the variance request and compliance with zoning laws remained a priority for the board.

The meeting transitioned to other agenda items, including resolutions for applications related to Epic Church and Lesto Properties. The resolutions underwent review, discussions, and roll calls to finalize decisions. Attendance of board members from previous meetings was addressed to ensure quorum and valid voting on resolutions, particularly for one concerning 26 Adam Boulevard.

Concluding the meeting, the board approved the minutes from the previous December 10 session, reflecting unanimous support through a roll call vote. Expressions of optimism for the new year were shared, with gratitude extended among members for their collaborative efforts and hopes for a productive 2026.