The De Rosas’ application was a focal point of the evening as they sought multiple variances to proceed with their renovation plans for their residence on Old Farmhouse Road. The applicants aimed to expand their dining room and redesign the front porch, with the assistance of their attorney and architect, Brian Johnson. Key issues addressed included the lot’s existing non-conformities, such as a shed that exceeded the allowable size and was too close to the property line, a generator installed in the front yard, and a swimming pool that did not meet setback requirements due to the lot’s unique shape.

The board scrutinized the variances requested, particularly the lot coverage, which stood at 22.7%, above the 20% permitted by ordinance. The shed, at 190 square feet, far exceeded the 100 square feet allowed and was positioned only 2.1 feet from the property line, rather than the required 10 feet. The swimming pool’s setbacks were also non-compliant, with only 12 and 15 feet available where 20 feet were mandated. The board engaged in discussions, examining photographs and diagrams submitted by the applicants to understand the existing conditions and the proposed changes.

The architect presented the renovation plans, emphasizing the need to expand the home to better accommodate family gatherings. The proposed changes included extending the building by four feet and adding a covered porch, all designed to stay within the front yard setback. The board sought assurances that the changes would not exacerbate existing non-compliance issues, and the architect provided detailed explanations about adjustments to the roofline and drainage to mitigate any potential problems.

Another discussion involved Anthony D’Amato’s application for constructing a new single-family home on Council Place. The property, undersized, required variances for lot coverage, front yard, and rear yard setbacks. D’Amato’s proposal included a modest dwelling that aimed to enhance the neighborhood, but the lot’s dimensions, less than half of the required size, necessitated careful review by the board. The proposed lot coverage was 24.46%, exceeding the 20% allowed, while the front and rear yard setbacks also required relief from zoning requirements.

The board considered the historical context of the lot, previously part of an adjoining property’s backyard, with only a concrete pad remaining from any prior structure. The absence of public objections and the availability of necessary utilities were noted, and the applicant’s representatives confirmed the site would be developed in compliance with current standards, despite the lot’s size challenges.

The discussions included considerations of aesthetics, drainage, and the preservation of natural buffers to enhance privacy and minimize visual intrusion from new structures.