The Riveras’ attorney, Michael Sty, presented the case for demolishing the existing, deteriorating structure and constructing a new, approximately 3,000-square-foot home. The current property, located on an undersized lot of 11,000 square feet, deviates from the R40A zoning district’s typical requirements. The Riveras requested variances for a reduced front yard setback of 18.4 feet, increased lot coverage, and adjusted side yard setbacks, citing the lot’s unique, elongated shape as a hardship necessitating these deviations.

During the meeting, Jennifer Rivera provided visual evidence of the property’s current state. These images, along with architectural plans for the new home, were submitted as exhibits. The project engineer further elaborated on the design challenges posed by the narrow lot and explained the necessity of a detached garage, which aligns with local ordinances.

A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to the positioning of the septic system, a critical factor influencing the layout of the proposed development. The system required precise placement to comply with setback regulations, ultimately leading to a decision to position it at the rear of the property. This choice, while ensuring regulatory compliance, also affected the placement of the house and garage, limiting space and necessitating the requested front yard setback variance.

Community concerns were voiced about the house’s proximity to the street and its potential to disrupt neighborhood aesthetics. One resident described the proposed setback as a “peculiar structure,” likening it to a “tall wall” that could obstruct views and pose safety risks when backing out of driveways. The existing structure’s setback of 50 feet contrasted sharply with the proposed 18.4 feet, raising questions about consistency with neighboring homes. Discussions on site triangles and driveway visibility highlighted the broader community implications of the proposed design.

Another resident echoed these safety concerns, citing frequent obstructions from neighboring vehicles when exiting their driveway. They emphasized the potential danger posed by the new home’s height and proximity, advocating for a setback more in line with existing neighborhood standards.

The board considered these public comments alongside the technical aspects of the proposal. A suggestion was made to refine the proposal to better align with community concerns, emphasizing visual compatibility with adjacent homes.

In a collaborative effort to balance the applicants’ desires with community standards, the council decided to postpone the application until May 7, allowing time for potential modifications to the plans. This decision included scheduling a site visit on April 5 to gather further insights and ensure a review.