The meeting kicked off with a critical examination of Susan Ley’s proposal for her property on Ocean Park Avenue, which included a patio, hot tub, and walkway. The lot, undersized and already exceeding zoning limits, prompted a thorough debate over setback and coverage variances. Ley’s attorney argued for the removal of a rear deck to facilitate the new patio and hot tub, emphasizing a reduction in impervious coverage from 87.5% to 79.62%. The board scrutinized the practical implications of the variances, balancing existing property conditions with zoning laws designed to maintain community standards.

A point of contention was the garage, described as being more akin to a storage shed due to its impractical access for vehicles. Discussions revolved around whether to redefine it formally as an accessory structure that could potentially store smaller vehicles like motorcycles. The board members considered the definition of a garage, the placement of the patio, and the implications of porous pavers on impervious coverage.

The meeting also included a review of Jonathan Kabus and Sandra Chang’s application, which proposed the demolition of three single-family homes to construct a two-and-a-half-story dwelling on a 50 by 100-foot lot. This plan aimed to reduce the number of bedrooms and included features such as a garage, covered porch, and patio, all requiring multiple variances. The board examined issues such as side and rear yard setbacks and building coverage. The applicants’ intention to create a conforming driveway for off-street parking was noted as an improvement over the current lack of such provisions.

Sandra Chang’s personal narrative about her family’s historical connection to the property added a human element to the application. However, the board expressed concerns about the numerous variances requested and the feasibility of constructing a compliant structure without them. Public comments and revised architectural plans were also presented, offering further insights into the project’s potential impact on the neighborhood.

The proposed changes were evaluated for their potential benefits, such as improved aesthetics and reduced impervious coverage, against the backdrop of maintaining community standards.