A homeowner’s request for a second-floor addition at 1510 3rd Avenue garnered attention due to the need for variances related to setback requirements and impervious lot coverage. The homeowner, Miss Hasapis, seeking to make her home more accessible for her retirement, presented her need for a second-floor bathroom to avoid the difficulty of using the only existing first-floor bathroom.

The architect, Mr. Passman, provided an overview of the proposed second-floor addition, detailing the structural changes to accommodate the homeowner’s needs. The addition’s design intended to maintain the existing roofline to preserve the property’s aesthetic integrity. The proposed placement of an AC compressor and the relocation of the Heating and Cooling furnace to the attic were also deliberated. The board members engaged with these points, considering the overall impact on the property and the adjacent neighborhood.

The discussion extended to the placement of windows and the practicality of the proposed changes, with board members inquiring about the implications of the variances on the neighborhood’s character. The board conducted a careful review of the architectural plans and technical specifications, eventually reaching a consensus on the project’s viability.

Another proposal, concerning a property on 103rd Avenue, was similarly scrutinized for a proposed extension. The board’s main point of debate centered on the design of the extension, particularly the roofline and window placement, due to zoning restrictions. The architect present addressed the board’s concerns, explaining the design challenges and justifying the practical need for the additional space.

Members of the board raised questions about the placement of an HVAC unit and its potential impact on neighbors, which the architect addressed by explaining the rationale behind the design choices. The addition of gutters and their potential impact on drainage was also a topic of discussion.

The board expressed understanding and appreciation for the challenges presented by the design and, after a thorough discussion, approved the project. The members acknowledged the thoughtful utilization of space and the design’s adherence to community standards. Public comment was invited, and no objections were raised, signaling community support for the project.

In both cases, the board’s decision to approve the projects was influenced by a combination of factors: the homeowners’ needs, the architectural designs’ sensitivity to the existing neighborhood character, and the adherence to zoning regulations.