The most notable issue involved a proposed new home at Wiens Road, where the applicants sought a variance to exceed the allowable habitable floor area. The applicants presented their case, explaining that their existing home was built close to the side lot line, leaving ample space for construction on the left side. They argued that their lot size of 20,000 square feet should allow for a larger home than the 3,220 square feet permitted by the R4 zoning district. The proposed home would be 3,798 square feet, which the applicants believed would fit well within the neighborhood’s context.

However, several residents voiced strong opposition to the variance. A resident from 9 Claremont Avenue questioned the square footage calculations and whether the garage’s area was included in the total proposed size. They also raised concerns about the impervious surface area and the necessity of the variance, pointing out that other homeowners had successfully renovated within the established limits.

Another resident from 18 Wiens Road expressed concerns about the comparison of the proposed home to neighboring properties. The applicant’s representatives assured the board and the public that all necessary assessments regarding stormwater management and environmental impacts would be addressed in consultation with the engineering department.

Richard Heler, a resident from 11 Claremont Avenue, opposed the variance, stating that the proposed home would be the largest in the neighborhood, potentially setting a precedent for future developments and altering the community’s character. He emphasized that the neighborhood primarily consists of starter homes and raised issues about potential property values and drainage problems exacerbated by the new construction.

Ray Lou, another resident, echoed these sentiments, stating that the proposed home’s scale was excessive for the neighborhood, which mainly consists of ranch-style dwellings. Concerns about existing water drainage issues were also highlighted by multiple residents, who feared that the new construction could worsen the situation.

The board members expressed appreciation for the community’s respectful tone during the discussions and agreed that the proposal might not meet the necessary standards for approval. They emphasized the importance of adhering to established zoning ordinances unless significant hardships could be demonstrated. The board suggested that the applicants consider reducing the size and massing of the building to better align with neighborhood character. The applicants were informed they could return with updated plans without needing further notice if they decided to move forward without the variance.

In another significant decision, the board unanimously approved a variance for a raised deck on Byron Place, requested by Dominic Solazo. Solazo explained that the 20 by 6-foot deck required a 17-foot variance from the required 35-foot front side corner lot yard setback due to the unique configuration of his corner lot. He argued that the deck’s location would have minimal impact on the streetscape and would be compatible with the neighborhood’s character. After a brief deliberation, the board granted the variance, allowing Solazo to proceed with the construction.

The board also reviewed an application from Radak Builders LLC to demolish existing improvements on a property on Swan Road and construct a new single-family residence, which required a variance for the habitable floor area ratio. Architectural expert Iman Cedra provided testimony on the proposed design, detailing the layout and emphasizing that the new residence would align with the neighborhood’s character. Despite efforts to eliminate other variances, the need for the floor area ratio variance remained a point of discussion. The board deliberated on the implications of granting the variance and sought further motions to reach a conclusion.

Another notable application involved a proposed addition to a residential property on Dogwood Terrace. The applicant sought several variances related to front and side yard setbacks and habitable floor area ratio due to the small lot size. The proposed modifications included an open front porch, a second-story addition, and a rear yard deck. The board members engaged in detailed examinations of the proposed setbacks and architectural plans, ultimately approving the requested variances after thorough deliberations.