05:05One item at the meeting was the detailed examination of case number 25-3-1P concerning Timothy Honchin’s property on Oak Avenue. The applicant proposed a substantial addition to the existing three-bedroom home. The representative, Mr. Burns, presented the plan, emphasizing that despite the addition, the project would adhere to existing setbacks, maintaining compliance with local regulations. The existing lot coverage was a key consideration, originally at 37%, but the applicants had reduced it by 10% since acquiring the property.

13:07The property’s corner lot status complicated setback requirements for both the front and side yards. Mr. Burns clarified that the proposed second-story addition would adhere to a 27-foot setback from Oak Avenue, technically meeting regulatory standards. He assured the board that the addition would not expand beyond current setbacks and emphasized the positive impact it would have on the property’s value and the neighborhood’s appearance.

23:32The board’s engineer inquired about potential nonconformities related to the setbacks and sought clarification on whether the proposed changes would exacerbate existing issues. Mr. Burns confirmed that the garage would be rehabilitated without altering its footprint. A detailed review of the design confirmed that the front porch would not project beyond its original location.

19:47The board also addressed a neighboring property issue where a shed encroached over the property line, acknowledged as an honest mistake due to a boundary misinterpretation. Throughout the discussion, Mr. Burns reiterated that the renovations would align with the neighborhood’s existing aesthetic and not result in substantial detriment to surrounding properties or the zoning plan.

28:24As the meeting opened to public comment, community members were invited to express their views. The board engaged with the public. Following the discussion, the board approved the application, allowing the project to proceed.

In another discussion, the board addressed a bulk variance application for a second-story addition. The applicant’s representative outlined pre-existing non-conformities, particularly regarding maximum lot coverage and required setbacks. The applicant had managed a 10% reduction in lot coverage, though it still exceeded the 30% ordinance requirement. Variances were also required for sideyard and front setbacks, with the front setback to Glennside Avenue recorded at 18 feet instead of the mandated 19.9 feet. These pre-existing conditions were presented as hardships in meeting the required setbacks.

26:12During public comment, an individual expressed concern about the variance request but did not provide further details. A board member shared personal insights into the challenges of corner lot properties, highlighting the balance of positive and negative criteria in variance decisions. The board voted unanimously to approve the variance, advising the applicant of the risk of proceeding before the appeal period ended.

32:04The meeting also addressed case number 25-3-2P involving Steven Barespie at 11:01 Sycamore Street. A deficiency in the public notice was identified, as one neighbor had not received proper notification. The board emphasized the legal implications of proceeding without adequate notice, which could lead to appeals or lawsuits. Despite the applicant’s efforts to address the notice issue, including going door-to-door, the lack of a signed affidavit necessitated the case’s postponement.

The board set a new hearing date for April 17, 2025, for the Barespie case.