At the forefront of the discussions was the application by 1134 Lafayette LLC, which required the board to consider variances and conditions for the project. The debates were particularly focused on the parking situation and the impact of adding a deck to the property. The drainage plan and its potential influence on neighborhood water issues were also scrutinized. Moreover, the board addressed compliance with historic district approval and affordable housing requirements. After thorough deliberation, the board made a motion to grant the variances and conditions for the project, emphasizing the need for a use variance that required five votes to pass. The motion was carried with all board members in agreement.

Another application involved a request for a variance related to the addition of a false roof over the window and front door of an affordable housing project. The board deliberated on the classification of the applicant’s witness as an expert or a witness and reviewed the exceptional practical difficulties and undue hardships cited by the applicant. The improvement was noted for its aesthetic appeal and conformity with the neighborhood’s character, as per the historical commission’s request. A resident raised concerns about the delay in the affordable housing project and the notification process for meetings. Although there was initially a debate about the resident’s eligibility to participate due to proximity, they were ultimately asked not to vote but were allowed to remain involved in the discussion. Furthermore, the board discussed the sidewalk replacement, which was deemed the county’s responsibility, with the applicant agreeing to coordinate with the county regarding any damages. The board concluded to deem the application incomplete because of a missing tax certification, which was later confirmed to have been provided.

The board also dealt with an application for a property on West Perry Street, where the owners sought to construct a deck over an existing one. The proposed expansion was evaluated regarding the site’s capacity, its impact on the zoning plan and surrounding area, and special reasons such as aesthetic improvement and safety. The property owner highlighted her connection to the community and the use of the property as owner-occupied units. Concerns were raised about the layout, potential for division between units, and water runoff due to the proposed deck roof. However, the discussion proceeded without significant disagreements.

An application for the property on New York Avenue involved the expansion of the existing residential structure to include an additional bedroom in the attic space, which was larger than initially anticipated. The board engaged in a discussion over whether this alteration required a variance, with some board members concerned that the addition deviated from the prior variance granted. The debate centered on the interpretation of zoning regulations and the potential implications for the property. The board ultimately passed a motion to grant the variance after deliberation on the matter.