Madden, who moved into the house in 2020, filed the application seeking to expand his dwelling due to the lack of a basement or garage. He and his wife, both of whom work from home, were seeking additional space for a growing family and work needs. The plan includes an added bedroom, bathroom, and expansion of the family room and home office.

Board members engaged in discussions with Madden, probing into the specifics of his plan. The board questioned the necessity of the variances, particularly focusing on whether Madden’s architect could have designed the extension in a way that would not require setback variances. Madden explained that the house was not perfectly situated within the lot, creating unavoidable challenges for the expansion.

The proposed construction had not met several standards, including maximum building coverage and front and rear yard setbacks. However, the board found the circumstances surrounding the property’s layout to be unfortunate and not attributable to Madden. The property’s peculiar orientation made it difficult to adhere strictly to the zoning regulations.

During the public portion of the meeting, no objections were raised against Madden’s application, and the board unanimously approved it. Board members expressed their sympathy for the difficulties imposed by the house’s positioning and praised Madden’s plans as a good use of the property.

The approval of Madden’s application was the focus of a meeting that also saw the rescheduling of three cases and the adoption of multiple resolutions.