The central focus of the meeting was the hearing for PZ 0524, in which Mr. Cortez presented his case for a covered patio. The project, which had been downsized to meet the 30% lot coverage requirement, faced scrutiny from the board regarding the rear yard setback, impervious coverage, and stormwater management. Mr. Cortez clarified the dimensions and design of the patio, emphasizing his efforts to contain water on the property and manage stormwater. The debate also centered on the size and location of the structure, the enclosed porch, and the ventless linear fireplace’s proximity to the property line. The board explored whether the fireplace presented any issues with smoke and emissions, and discussed solutions to privacy concerns raised by neighbors.

The drainage system for the proposed structure was another point of debate, with discussions about the specific water drainage route from the new covered roof. The contractor outlined the elements of the stormwater management plan, including the use of gutters, catch basins, underground piping, and a stormwater management system. The adequacy of the submitted site plan was questioned, and the need for professional architectural and engineering plans was emphasized. The board also deliberated on the lot size, setbacks, and the necessity to demonstrate hardships for the variance sought. These discussions touched upon the broader purposes of municipal zoning laws, such as promoting public health, safety, and general welfare, securing safety from disasters, ensuring adequate space for various uses, and fostering a desirable visual environment.

Further, the board engaged in discussions regarding the various purposes of municipal planning, including the preservation of historic sites, promotion of renewable energy resources, and prevention of urban sprawl. The classification of the variance application as either a C1 or C2 variance was debated, with considerations given to the size and safety of the proposed structure, water drainage issues, and the potential for future enclosure of the structure.

In response to the issues raised, the board decided to adjourn the matter for a month to allow for the acquisition and review of updated architectural plans and survey by the engineer. This led to a broader discussion on improving the application completeness review process. The board considered reverting to an earlier procedure where the application documents would be reviewed prior to the meeting, assigning the responsibility to professionals to ensure all requirements are met beforehand. Concerns were raised about the costs to the applicant and the potential slowdown in the process. The clarity and conciseness of the checklist for application requirements were debated, and the attorney present clarified the board’s authority to prescribe forms for applications.

A subcommittee was formed to review and recommend improvements to the checklist, and a motion was passed to change the process of completeness determination. The board also discussed a recently passed fence ordinance and its application to a pending fence application, considering whether to contact the resident involved.