At the heart of the meeting was the debate over a variance request for the installation of a pool in the front yard and a patio deck at the rear of a property at 11022 Avenue. The attorney representing the homeowner, John Le Antonio, outlined the unique layout of the lot, which positioned the principal dwelling at the rear, rendering any additional structure in the front yard. The attorney and Le Antonio detailed the proposed project, emphasizing their intention to comply with all zoning regulations and fencing requirements. They also clarified that there would be no additional patio surrounding the pool, except for the necessary pool coping.

Board members and the property owner engaged in a conversation regarding the property’s features, with the property owner confirming his willingness to comply with the board’s requirements. The attorney presented photographs to illustrate the current conditions and the proposed changes, while the property owner described the planned maintenance of the vegetation to ensure privacy.

Public concerns focused on the potential impact of the pool’s mechanical equipment on neighboring properties. An engineer provided a comprehensive testimony addressing the design of the pool, including aspects such as size, depth, and material, as well as the drainage plan and placement of the pool’s mechanical systems. The board scrutinized the distance between the equipment and neighboring homes, noise issues, and safety precautions. After much deliberation, a motion to approve the application was made, with the aforementioned conditions reflecting the concerns raised during the discussion.

In another case, the board addressed an application for a property on Avenue 22, which is situated in an R1 single-family zone. The applicant’s representative explained the need for a variance relief for the front yard setback due to the replacement of the sewer lateral during renovations. A debate ensued regarding a porch installed without prior variance relief or a permit. Despite the representative’s assertion that the porch made the property more conforming and was essential for access, skepticism persisted among board members about the necessity of a variance.

The board also discussed the lack of the property owner’s presence and documentation during a debate over a variance request related to another house renovation. A demolition had led to the requirement for a variance, but the absence of the property owner stalled the process, as the board sought a comprehensive understanding of the situation. A follow-up meeting was tentatively scheduled to allow the property owner to provide testimony and necessary paperwork.

Furthermore, a rescheduled hearing for a property located at 11022 Avenue was set for June 25th, 2024. The applicant’s attorney requested a variance for a pool and a rear patio deck, emphasizing the intention to meet code requirements. Board members and the property owner discussed the layout and intended pool location, considering compliance with zoning regulations.