22:37The most notable discussion centered on Michelle Campbell’s proposal for building a six-foot fence around her property at four Fielding Place. Campbell was seeking a variance for a rear yard setback and the fence height, with the rear yard requiring a minimum of 60 feet and her plan proposing 46.42 feet. The fence variance was necessary because the current zoning laws permit a maximum height of four feet for a front yard fence, while Campbell’s plan called for a six-foot structure. During the meeting, Campbell, who has owned the property since 1997, explained her need for a taller fence due to her inground pool and the presence of large dogs that required secure containment. She argued that a four-foot fence would be insufficient for safety and security.

28:47Board members expressed concerns about the proposed fence disrupting the uniformity of the neighborhood, particularly as there were no similar fences on the street. One member suggested that the fence should be limited to the front of the driveway to maintain the neighborhood’s visual consistency. Campbell countered this suggestion by emphasizing that placing the fence behind the driveway would reduce her usable yard space. She noted that other properties in the area have undergone similar modifications.

34:23Despite these concerns, the board approved Campbell’s application with a majority vote, with only one member dissenting due to the fence height issue. The decision underscored a tension between property owners’ desires to modify their homes for personal reasons and the board’s responsibility to uphold zoning laws that maintain neighborhood character.

10:22Another notable topic discussed was the case involving Hannif Popal’s application for bulk variances to construct a new single-family dwelling on Charles Street. The applicant sought variances due to non-compliant setbacks, proposing a front yard setback of 13.10 feet versus the required 25 feet, and a side yard setback of 3.46 feet instead of the six feet required. Popal explained that his project involved constructing a 600-square-foot ranch on a pre-existing non-conforming lot. However, upon demolition, it was discovered that the foundation lacked necessary footings for the planned two-story structure, necessitating a revision of his plans.

20:22During the discussion, board members sought clarity on setback regulations and the implications of demolishing over 50% of the original structure, which resulted in the loss of prior non-conformity and the need to comply with current zoning requirements. The applicant expressed frustration over the unexpected delays and financial costs incurred due to the need for a variance. After a discussion, the board agreed to defer the case to allow the applicant to consult further with his architect and return with the necessary documentation. The case was rescheduled for June 17, 2025.

07:27Additionally, the board addressed a procedural issue with the Lake Home Renovations project on Gan Place, which was not heard due to improper notice. This case will require rescheduling to ensure proper notification compliance.

40:01The meeting concluded with a closed session to discuss ongoing litigation related to the Aliwali notice of appeal. The board unanimously approved a motion to authorize spending up to $5,000 for related legal expenses.