The meeting commenced with the board’s deliberation over a use variance application from Marked with Beauty LLC, seeking approval to offer permanent makeup services on Brinley Avenue. The applicant presented compelling arguments, with the board attorney verifying the legitimacy of the application notice. Megan, the applicant, clarified the distinction between permanent makeup and traditional tattooing, emphasizing the use of pigments over tattoo inks. She underscored her compliance with health regulations, including state cosmetology licensing and health inspections, necessary due to the procedures’ association with bloodborne pathogens. The board members were satisfied with these assurances, noting the technical nature of the variance due to the existing zoning ordinance’s limitations.

Expert testimony from Alison, a professional planner, supported the application by likening the business to a beauty shop rather than a tattoo parlor. Alison pointed out that the proposed services aligned with the zone’s intended use, and no bulk variances were needed as the business would not alter the property. She concluded that the variance would not negatively impact public health or safety. Following this testimony, the board unanimously approved the variance, allowing Megan to expand her business offerings.

Next, the board considered a proposal for a second-floor addition on Park Place Avenue, driven by space constraints faced by the property owner, Arlet Matt. The small lot required a side yard setback variance, which the board scrutinized alongside concerns about airflow, light obstruction, and structural integrity. Nevertheless, the board found the proposed modifications modest and ultimately approved the application, contingent on conditions such as stormwater management.

The meeting then shifted to a detailed evaluation of a new development proposal for a property on Newark Avenue, which involved the demolition of an existing structure and the construction of a two-story building. The project required multiple variances for building coverage, setbacks, and height. The board engaged in thorough discussions about the property’s undersized nature and the proposed building’s alignment with neighborhood standards. Witnesses, including an engineer and a planner, provided testimony emphasizing the project’s benefits, such as improved energy efficiency through a passive house design and the addition of parking spaces.

Public comments revealed a mixed reception to the Newark Avenue proposal, with some residents praising the environmentally friendly features and potential neighborhood enhancement, while others raised concerns about the project’s scale and its variance requests. The board was tasked with balancing these community perspectives against zoning compliance, recognizing the complexities of adapting pre-zoning neighborhood conditions to modern standards.