19:10The proposed modifications on Park Avenue by applicants Michael Maul and Donna Marino were a central focus. The plan involves constructing a two-story garage and addition, which had been revised to address previous board concerns. The applicant’s engineer detailed the changes, noting the elimination of a rear deck and patio to comply with riparian zone regulations near Randy Brook, reducing the property’s impervious coverage from 39.2% to 35%. The garage was also repositioned closer to the street to increase distance from the floodplain, with the second-story addition’s floor area reduced by 1.9%.

Board members questioned the positioning of the generator and air conditioning units, particularly regarding flood elevation requirements. Concerns were raised about the generator’s location in the front yard, with members emphasizing noise and aesthetic implications. The board explored relocating the generator to minimize its impact, considering residential noise regulations of 50 dB at night and 65 dB during the day, and discussed potential variances required for such a move.

The proposal also prompted debate over the generator’s operational noise, especially during warmer months when windows might be open. The board emphasized relocating the generator out of the front setback, balancing noise mitigation against potential variances.

1:27:00Another topic was the proposed development on an undersized lot, encompassing a house with approximately 4,000 square feet of living space. Board members scrutinized the total square footage as excessive for an 11,000 square foot lot, with some members concerned about setting precedents for future applications. The board debated the necessity and implications of expanding the garage from 360 to 800 square feet, with mixed opinions on its size and impact on the neighborhood.

Environmental considerations were paramount, with discussions on the property’s proximity to a stream and its classification as an undersized lot. The applicant’s representative argued that these hardships justified the requested variances under the C2 criteria, claiming the project would ultimately enhance safety and welfare by moving structures away from flood areas. The proposal aligns with the municipality’s master plan.

1:02:47The board also examined the architectural modifications, focusing on height specifications and potential flood hazards. They clarified that the proposed construction would comply with zoning ordinances, albeit with necessary variances for certain elements. The board’s dialogue highlighted the need for transparency in proposed changes and the importance of balancing development with community standards.

0:04The meeting further addressed the procedural aspect of the board’s decision-making process, noting the importance of a fully constituted board for proper evaluation of variances. As the meeting concluded, a motion was made to continue discussions at the next session on March 19. Public comments were brief, with no significant input, and the board moved to a closed session for further confidential discussions.