The board addressed a revote for application LUV 2316, concerning a single-family dwelling on an undersized lot at 116 4th Avenue. The necessity for a revote stemmed from the ineligibility of a member who had participated in the previous vote. Jeffrey B. Berman, the attorney for the applicant, highlighted the need to rectify the procedural deficiency from the earlier hearing. The board discussed and confirmed the eligibility of board members to vote after listening to the previous hearing’s recording. A debate regarding the eligibility of a member who had listened to the testimony before being sworn in ensued, with the appointment date ultimately being deemed critical for eligibility. Despite this, the board did not conclude the revote, opting to continue the discussion at a future meeting.

Furthermore, the board approved a building application with three conditions after robust dialogue. Notably, a condition included the removal of the third upper balcony, which was discussed to ensure compliance with the town’s master plan and to address concerns about the potential increase in density and change to the town’s character. The approval was seen by some as an enhancement.

The board also explored an appeal concerning a permit for work at 613 4th Avenue. The appellant’s attorney, Tennen McGee, argued that the work might defy the borough’s ordinance on upper porches. McGee proposed a compromise to modify the zoning permit, restricting the second-floor porch to a non-usable architectural feature. The board decided to adjourn the matter to the next meeting, considering lifting the stop-work order subject to an amended zoning permit.

Another topic of deliberation was the denial of a permit for the construction of a second-floor dormer at 503 5th Avenue. Applicant Peter Doi presented the structural necessity of the dormer due to issues with the existing roof trusses. While the board reviewed testimonies on the structural concerns and the impact on the non-conforming structure, a final decision was deferred to a subsequent meeting.

The meeting also addressed a request for additional living and storage space at a property without expanding its footprint. A structural engineer outlined the need to repair and elevate the roof, causing no change to the property’s setback dimensions. Despite the assertion that the changes necessitated no variances, the board engaged in a debate over the interpretation of setback regulations. Several members suggested minor adjustments to the addition to potentially eliminate the need for a variance. Public comments included support for the zoning officer’s original decision. Ultimately, the board voted to deny the appeal, with some members voicing their frustration over the variance requirements and the challenges of adhering to setback regulations.