One of the primary cases involved a homeowner represented by an architect, seeking approval for the construction of a new single-family residence on Briercliff Road. The application required variances for the front yard setback and floor area ratio due to an undersized lot and the desire for a finished attic in the new structure. The proposed four-bedroom house, complete with two and a half baths and a two-car garage, was designed to fit the evolving character of the neighborhood, which has been trending towards replacing older, smaller homes with larger, updated ones. During the meeting, board members inquired about the specifics of the home’s square footage and the intended use of the attic space, weighing the potential impact on the area’s character against the necessity for the variances. Despite concerns over the size of the house relative to the lot, the board moved forward with approving the application.

Another application that resonated with the board was a request to convert attic space into two additional bedrooms with dormers on the sides of the roof. The homeowner, identified as Mr. D, explained that the renovation would create separate rooms for the children and alleviate the issue of two older boys sharing a room. The board’s extensive discussion revolved around the addition of a stairway to the attic, the current floor area of the house, and the potential neighborhood impact. The application received the board’s vote of approval.

Along with a licensed architect, sought approval for a habitable floor ratio variance. The undersized lot and a growing family were cited as the main reasons for the proposed addition. The architect assured that the expansion would not lead to significant traffic increases, property devaluation, or drainage issues. After reviewing the provided site plans, surveys, and photographs, the board approved the application, recognizing the homeowner’s needs.

Additionally, a separate application for a rear addition seeking a similar variance was presented. The property owner and the architect outlined the proposed project, reiterating the lack of substantial detriment to the neighborhood regarding traffic, property value, and drainage. This application, too, was met with approval from the board after discussion and public queries.

During the meeting, another homeowner’s case for a new home construction was carefully considered by the board. The property owner, alongside a professional engineer and an architect, detailed the necessity for a larger home because of their expanding family. The proposed construction met the requirements for lot size and complied with stormwater regulations. However, the board members expressed reservations about the size of the proposed home. They advised the applicant to reconsider the plans and offered the possibility of rescheduling the discussion for a later date without the need for re-notification.