The first application reviewed involved a proposed garage intended to house a collection of classic cars from the late 1960s and early 1970s. The applicant, Mr. Kavi, outlined the purpose of the structure, which would also accommodate bicycles and feature a work sink. The architect, Mr. Alen, presented a detailed design, which included vehicle lifts to maximize space. These lifts became a point of contention as the board debated whether the setup would result in a garage with the capacity of three or four cars. Concerns were raised about the building coverage, the necessity of including a sink and heating, and the potential requirement for variances.

The height of the garage and the use of the existing walls were also discussed, as was an addition shown on the plans. The applicant clarified that the loft area would be unfinished, aside from sheetrock, tape, and paint. The current blacktop driveway was slated to be replaced with pervious pavers, and although there was a debate over the need for a dry well to ensure proper drainage, the applicant committed to addressing any flooding issues.

Noise was a central issue, with the board inquiring about the sound levels from the classic cars, the lifts within the garage, and the placement of air conditioning condensers and a generator. Despite these concerns, the board demonstrated support for the project. After a review, the board unanimously approved the application, with one member requesting to see the car collection as a condition for their vote.

The second application highlighted during the meeting was for the expansion of a family’s home at 415 9th Avenue. The proposed addition included enlarging the kitchen and adding a family room, which would extend the kitchen to within 3 feet of the property line to accommodate windows. The homeowner emphasized the desire to improve the functionality of the kitchen and enhance their enjoyment of the property. In an effort to reduce impervious coverage, the homeowner proposed removing some paving and adding grass strips to the driveway.

The board paid close attention to the calculation of impervious coverage, particularly regarding the addition of the grass strips, and whether they should be counted as impervious. The applicant assured the board that there would be no storage in the attic over the addition and that the gutters would integrate with the existing drainage system.

The homeowner’s efforts to communicate with neighbors and the absence of objections from the community were noted by the board. The application was seen as a positive step towards improving both the property and the neighborhood. After discussing standard conditions, the board gave its unanimous approval.

The meeting also saw the introduction of a proposal for an addition to the first applicant’s home, which would involve removing an enclosed porch to create a larger kitchen and add a family room. The need to address lot coverage, building principal coverage, and side setback violations was emphasized. The architect and the applicant worked to clarify discrepancies in the numbers provided for building coverage and driveway width. The board was focused on ensuring that the addition complied with setback and window regulations. After providing their testimony and affirming their commitment to meet the conditions, the application was approved.

The meeting progressed with procedural announcements, which included postponement of two applications and confirmation of the meeting’s status as a duly organized special session. The board then moved into executive session to address other matters, concluding the public portion of the meeting.