15:28The most notable focus of the meeting was the proposed alterations to the property on Denver Boulevard, owned by Sam Gangula. The project seeks to transform a vacant single-family home by adding a second level and expanding its footprint to accommodate a family of four. The request for variances was primarily due to the property’s dimensions, which are narrower than the zoning requirements but considerably deep, measuring 308 feet. This depth was highlighted as a mitigating factor for any negative impact the construction might have on surrounding properties.

27:04Gangula’s representative, Bernard Shy, explained that the current house’s footprint would mostly remain, with changes concentrated on extending the basement and adding a garage. A significant part of the discussion revolved around ensuring that alterations would not exceed removing more than 50% of the existing structure, which would trigger stricter zoning compliance requirements. The representative assured the board that the existing walls and foundation, particularly on the right side of the property, would be preserved to comply with zoning mandates. The left side would see more substantial modifications, including a 30-foot extension to the basement.

20:22The board members and the applicant’s expert witness, Mr. Fletcher, assessed the requested variances critically. Fletcher, a planner with prior experience testifying before the board, justified the variances by citing the C1 criteria, which considers hardship as a deciding factor. He argued that adhering strictly to zoning codes would impose undue hardship on the property owner due to the narrowness of the lot and the lack of available land for expansion.

24:17The discussion also covered the technical aspects of the proposal, with emphasis on sideyard setbacks. The proposed setbacks were a minimum of 6.6 feet on the right side and 10 feet on the left, totaling a combined 16.6 feet, which deviates from the 25-foot combined requirement in the RBB zone. While this variance was a point of contention, the board was ultimately convinced that the deep lot mitigated potential adverse impacts on neighboring properties.

31:44Public comments played a role in the meeting, with neighboring resident Christy Fan voicing concerns about the proximity of the homes and the potential for construction to exacerbate drainage issues. She specifically requested assurances that a proper drainage plan would be implemented to prevent rainwater runoff from affecting adjacent properties, an issue she noted had been problematic in previous constructions. The board assured attendees that any approved plans would be subject to an engineering review, addressing these concerns.

35:46After careful deliberation, the board voted on the application, approving it with the condition that Gangula adhere to maintaining at least 50% of the existing structure and comply with future engineering assessments. The decision was reached with one dissenting vote.

12:33Aside from the Gangula application, the meeting also addressed procedural matters, including the postponement of another case, Z172025, involving Suresh and Daram Modi, due to improper noticing. The board emphasized the importance of strict adherence to notification procedures.