One notable matter involved the Ryan application for a property on River Road. Initially approved for renovation, it now requires complete demolition due to safety and code issues. This development necessitated a new application for variances, despite the plan’s adherence to the previously approved design, including size, style, and location, while addressing the lot’s non-conforming characteristics. The board acknowledged the urgency of the matter, given the applicants’ need to proceed quickly, and discussed the architectural plans in detail, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the neighborhood’s visual integrity. The proposed new home includes a small addition to the first floor and a two-story addition to the rear, maintaining the front’s appearance for streetscape continuity. The board expressed understanding and support, given the unforeseen circumstances necessitating the change from renovation to new construction.

Another topic was the proposal from Nelson Enterprises to construct a new single-family home on Fair Haven Road, following the destruction of a two-family structure by fire. The applicant seeks a variance for exceeding the maximum floor area ratio, proposing a 2,930 square-foot home in a zone permitting only 2,200 square feet. While the property is oversized for the R5 zoning district, concerns were raised about the proposed home’s size compared to surrounding structures, alongside its potential impact on neighborhood aesthetics. The board examined various exhibits, including architectural plans that aimed to reflect a Jersey Shore style. The board deliberated on whether the design and size would fit within the neighborhood context, considering the historical size of the previous structure and the new proposal’s compliance with existing setbacks.

The meeting also touched upon a property within the north 5 zone where an increase in allowable building size is permitted for oversized lots. The debate centered around the applicant’s request for additional habitable space in the form of a finished basement and attic, which do not count against the allowable footprint. Concerns were voiced over the proposed house’s size, especially in comparison to a low-slung neighboring house that enhances the visibility of the property. The board discussed whether the request met the necessary “hardship” criteria under zoning laws and the potential for reducing the house size to better align with the neighborhood’s character.

The conversation around the architectural plans for a proposed house on Third Street highlighted the challenges of designing within zoning constraints. The house’s length and the overall dimensions were scrutinized, with suggestions for design adjustments to mitigate its visual impact. The board considered the existing sanitary and storm pipes on the property. A design waiver was discussed regarding the driveway width, justified with RSIS standards, and public comments raised concerns over environmental sustainability and the removal of vegetation.