0:00The most discussion revolved around Ethan Zang’s request for variance relief at his property on Lagoon Drive. Zang, a local dentist, proposed a circular driveway with two curb cuts to enhance safety and ease of access. His representative highlighted the heavy traffic on Lagoon Drive and the potential dangers of backing out into the street, particularly during summer. The proposal aimed to prevent cars from reversing into the busy intersection, a concern echoed by residents who argued that the current setup was unsafe.

The board’s planner suggested amending the curb cut widths to comply with zoning regulations, which would involve reducing the proposed width to the standard 20 feet. The debate centered on whether the circular driveway aligned with neighborhood patterns, with some board members expressing concerns about the proximity to the intersection and potential safety risks.

15:01Another debate involved a similar application by M Sim Capital GP LLC for a property on Andover Avenue. This case also sought variance relief for an oversized curb cut, necessary for a redesigned single-family home. The representative argued that the existing parking regulations, which limit street parking during certain hours, would mitigate the impact on neighborhood parking. The board grappled with balancing individual property needs against the community’s character, ultimately emphasizing the importance of adhering to zoning laws while ensuring safety.

33:12Mr. Blackman’s testimony regarding a property on White Horse Pike introduced further complexities. The proposal involved shifting an existing curb cut to align with a new garage, widening it from 24 to 27 feet. While Blackman argued this change would improve vehicle circulation, board members questioned the necessity of exceeding the standard 18-foot width.

50:10Additionally, the board deliberated on a proposed new construction on a vacant lot, focusing on variances for front yard setbacks. The house’s size relative to the lot sparked concerns, with board members suggesting that the design was too large and recommending reductions in the number of bedrooms or bathrooms. The applicant maintained the importance of the house’s size while the board proposed adjustments to meet setback requirements. The application was approved with conditions.