The meeting’s most significant topic revolved around Mr. Fior’s property on Grand Avenue. The installation of a lattice to increase privacy from a nearby newly constructed building became a focal point. Mr. Fior explained that the lattice was necessary due to the proximity of the neighboring house, which he compared to a “watchtower,” and the associated light spillage that compromised his backyard experience. He expressed that the lattice was not part of his original plans but became crucial after his privacy was diminished by the new construction.

Challenges with the lattice installation included its impact on airflow from a condenser unit, preventing its full completion. Despite this, Mr. Fior remained willing to work with the board to resolve these issues, emphasizing the need to maintain a semblance of privacy and security in his limited outdoor space. His situation was compounded by the property’s unique layout—a former commercial building with spatial constraints that heightened the impact of the neighboring development.

Public commentary played a role in the board’s decision. Neighbors, Marilyn and Michael Bernie, expressed their support for the lattice, highlighting its potential to enhance privacy for both parties involved. They conveyed their desire for a peaceful coexistence, acknowledging that the lattice would serve as a visual barrier between the properties. Despite initial compliance issues, the Bernies demonstrated understanding and advocated for the lattice’s completion.

The board deliberated on the implications of requiring Mr. Fior to remove the lattice. Members acknowledged the unusual nature of this case, where a design exception could benefit all parties involved. The board decided that allowing the lattice to remain and be completed was in the best interest of fostering good neighborly relations and preserving privacy, leading to a unanimous vote in favor of Mr. Fior’s application.

In another significant case, the board considered an application by Dr. Kaggel and Lane Kaggel for a garage addition on Sunset Avenue. The proposal included variances for sideyard, front setback, and building coverage, alongside a design exception. The Kaggels, represented by architect Jonathan Wolf, argued that the variances were necessary to maintain the aesthetic integrity of their home and to ensure the garage did not block kitchen windows or disrupt the existing flow of the property.

Board members challenged the necessity of these variances. The discussion revealed a divergence in opinions, with some members advocating for strict adherence to zoning laws, while the applicants emphasized the importance of harmonizing the new structure with the existing home and neighborhood character.

The board also discussed the potential for reducing the number of required variances by considering a one-car garage design.

As the meeting progressed, the board addressed the scheduling of future applications, including the Kaggels’ proposal, which was carried over to January 27, 2026. This decision allowed the applicants additional time to revise their plans and potentially reduce the number of variances required, streamlining the approval process.