The application for a property on Dunl Street was presented by attorney Carlton Chromemer, who sought a variance for the renovation of a single-family home with an irregular shape and sloped topography. Architect J. Passman outlined plans to modernize the house, which included raising the second-floor walls to eight feet and expanding the structure to incorporate a larger kitchen and great room. The renovation would also convert an inadequate garage into a writing studio, with a new designated parking space adjacent to the house. Discussions detailed the property’s unique characteristics, which included it being landlocked and lacking a paved street, complicating compliance with zoning standards.

Board members inquired about the history and current use of the garage. It was confirmed that the homeowner did not park in the garage due to its small size, often resorting to street parking instead. The proposal included relocating on-site parking to maintain functionality while enhancing the property’s charm with views of a nearby lake. Questions arose about the driveway’s condition and its encroachment into a right-of-way, but it was clarified that the driveway’s placement was typical for residential properties and did not infringe upon the street.

Additional discussions focused on stormwater runoff management due to the property’s proximity to the lake, with concerns about increased impervious coverage. It was suggested that gutters and downspouts could be installed to manage runoff more effectively, possibly using a trench and pipe system to mitigate drainage into the lake.

The board acknowledged the challenges involved in improving the property and expressed appreciation for the applicant’s efforts. A motion to vote in favor of the application was passed, with stipulations to collaborate with the board engineer on drainage solutions and ensure all necessary agency approvals were obtained before proceeding with construction.

In a separate and equally complex discussion, the board addressed the interpretation of a roof deck’s status on another property. Some members argued that the lack of railings suggested the area could not be classified as a deck, while others maintained that the door’s presence implied a functional aspect of the roof space.

The conversation delved into whether the roof deck had been abandoned, given its lack of use and safety features. Legal precedents were cited, emphasizing that non-use does not equate to abandonment unless there is intent to abandon the property. The master deed’s role in defining the roof deck was debated, with some viewing it as substantial evidence of intent, despite the absence of physical realization.

The board further explored zoning and construction permits issued over the years, including a 2005 permit that allowed for a roof deck and a 2012 permit for roof replacement. Discrepancies in permit history contributed to differing interpretations of the roof deck’s existence, with some members suggesting that a variance application would be more appropriate to address the necessary criteria.

Ultimately, a motion was proposed to interpret the roof deck as existing without requiring a variance for renovations, provided modifications complied with community design standards. The board passed the motion with a majority vote, though some dissenting opinions remained.