The board’s deliberations on the property at 301 8th Avenue were particularly detailed, centering on whether a roof deck required a D2 variance. The property, a seven-unit condominium in the R2 residential zone, involved a bifurcated application primarily concerned with the interpretation of existing ordinances. The applicant’s representative, Mr. Carris, argued that the roof deck, which existed prior to a 2002 zoning compliance certificate, should not be considered an expansion of nonconforming use due to the addition of decking and railings. The debate revolved around whether the ordinance requiring 30% of the lot area as open space was applicable, with Carris presenting evidence that the current open space was less than required.

Elaine Leani, a unit owner, testified about her experience with the roof deck, confirming its historical use for sunbathing and the absence of railings. Her testimony sought to affirm that the deck’s use had remained unchanged, supporting Carris’s stance against the need for a variance. However, the board’s inquiry raised questions about safety concerns linked to the lack of railings, focusing on whether this element influenced the interpretation of the ordinance.

Another unit owner, Karen May, provided further testimony, describing the roof’s surface as an EPDM membrane rather than a traditional deck material. May explained that while she had not observed recreational use of the roof deck at the time of her purchase, plans were in place to enhance its safety by adding railings and improving the surface. Her account underscored the technicalities involved in defining the space as a deck versus a roof, further complicating the zoning interpretation.

The board also scrutinized the broader implications of the ordinance, which mandates 30% open space for multifamily residences. Debate arose over whether the ordinance allowed for the addition of outdoor space to non-conforming properties without a variance. One participant questioned if this interpretation could override existing laws and emphasized the need for a formal legal interpretation. This discussion highlighted potential conflicts between the ordinance and existing regulations on non-conforming uses, raising concerns about the ordinance’s impact on properties lacking the required open space.

The board’s conversation extended to the procedural aspects of the deck renovation, with questions about the Homeowners Association’s approval and whether plans had been submitted for city approval. The representative confirmed HOA approval but clarified that construction plans had not been submitted to the city, adding another layer of complexity to the approval process.

The debate underscored the need for careful interpretation of zoning ordinances to avoid unintended consequences for property owners and the community.

As the meeting progressed, the board acknowledged the need for further review and clarification of the zoning ordinance’s implications. A motion was made to table the resolution concerning 807 Somerfield Avenue to allow for refinement of its language and to ensure it did not inadvertently set a precedent affecting future applications.