The discussion around the historic property’s subdivision was a focal point of the meeting. The applicant’s attorney presented a case highlighting the changed circumstances since the original variance and deed restriction were put in place. The historic main home, coupled with the second dwelling initially intended as an accessory unit but now functioning as a rental, presented a unique situation where the deed restriction seemed to no longer serve its original purpose. The applicant stressed the commitment to the preservation of the historic home and the desire to focus resources on its maintenance.

Furthermore, the board considered the applicant’s plan to make no physical changes to the property other than necessary maintenance, which would allow the neighborhood character to remain unchanged. Legal complexities were deliberated, with the applicant’s attorney and the board’s planner discussing case law and legal precedents that might apply to lifting the deed restriction. The planner emphasized that the proposed subdivision would result in two lots with conforming uses and would not impact the neighbors or the public.

The board debated the implications of the proposed subdivision on the public welfare, the character of the property, and the overall efficiency of maintaining the two properties. The applicant argued that dividing the lot would convert a non-conforming use into two conforming uses, which is in line with the borough’s planning policies and would contribute to the preservation of the streetscape. The historical significance of the property, the impact on the neighborhood, and the intention behind the original condition were also thoroughly discussed.

In addition to the historic property case, the meeting addressed other variance requests. A couple sought a bulk variance to add a second story to their existing home, explaining the structural and aesthetic reasons supporting their request. The board considered the compliance with zoning regulations and emphasized the necessity of proper water drainage. This matter was concluded with no public comments and the board closed the hearing to deliberate on the criteria for granting the variance.

Another property owner applied for a bulk variance to construct a new garage, presenting details about the project, including the size and location. The board raised questions regarding compliance with setback requirements and potential impacts on neighboring properties. Again, no public comments were made, and the board closed the hearing to deliberate on the requested variance.

The board also approved an application by Crescendo Ventures LLC seeking certification for a Triplex property at 121 7th Avenue. The LLC’s attorney provided evidence suggesting the property had functioned as a Triplex since 1959. After reviewing the documentation and discussion, the board granted the application.

Further, the board considered a bulk variance request for an addition to a single-family dwelling on West High Street. The applicant agreed to board suggestions to maintain the existing lot coverage and ensure proper water management.

Lastly, the board approved a duplex certification for a property owned by Michael Mccardi. Despite concerns about the validity of an affidavit provided due to a lack of notarization, the board was persuaded by the comprehensive documentation and the property’s physical structure.