Among the topics was the preliminary review of a new construction project on Northeast 117 Street. This proposal involved demolishing an existing structure to make way for a new build, stirring a conversation about the specifics of lot coverage and setback requirements. The board scrutinized the calculations of the lot’s coverage, which must not exceed 50% of the 10,875 square foot property. The representatives acknowledged discrepancies in their initial presentation and agreed to provide updated figures, particularly with respect to driveway and parking areas. Discussions also emphasized the importance of accounting for all impervious surfaces in the total calculations.

Setback requirements for the project were another significant topic. The board confirmed that the front setback was compliant at 30 feet, but questions were raised about the placement of the septic system, which must meet both local and county regulations. A request for a tree survey was made to assess the impact of construction on existing foliage, especially concerning any mature trees that might be affected.

The discussion turned to the second-floor design, which faced scrutiny over its compliance with the maximum linear footage allowed. The board raised concerns about potential privacy issues, especially with windows overlooking neighboring properties. Suggestions were made to incorporate architectural screening elements to minimize visibility from the planned roof terrace. The overall height of the structure was another point of contention, as it must comply with the maximum height restriction of 28 feet. The representative was reminded to consider all architectural elements, such as railings and screening, when calculating the total height.

A similar discourse surrounded the project on Northeast 118 Street, where the board emphasized adherence to setback regulations. The plans presented showed a non-compliant 12-foot setback for the second floor, which needed to be adjusted to meet the required 15 feet. Privacy concerns were again a focal point, with specific attention paid to a balcony on the master bedroom. Suggestions included adding vertical screening or adjusting the balcony design to mitigate privacy issues for neighboring properties.

The board’s deliberations were not limited to setbacks and privacy. A proposed roofing project required the submission of photographs and documentation to demonstrate compliance with existing code, particularly concerning the roofing overhang and pitch. This highlighted the complexities involved in community roofing standards, with different requirements for various materials, including tile and metal roofs.

In other matters, the board denied an application for a five-foot chain link fence in a front yard on Northeast 107 Street, citing code prohibitions against such structures. A driveway application on Northeast 117 Street was also discussed, with the board expressing concerns over the accuracy of the provided measurements. The applicant was encouraged to resolve these discrepancies for future consideration.

Additionally, the meeting addressed a pool remodel application on Griffin Boulevard, which required detailed documentation to ensure compliance with coverage regulations. The board approved a proposal for the installation of impact windows and doors on another Griffin Boulevard property without debate.

Finally, the board discussed the issuance of paint permits for residential properties, noting a directive from the building official that such permits should not be issued. This touched on broader questions about color approvals for shutters and fascia, as well as restrictions on roofing materials.