02:42A primary point of debate involved a variance application submitted by Steven and Mary Silver for their property on South Lancaster Avenue. The Silvers were seeking C variance relief to construct a single-family home that exceeds the maximum allowed height for the eaves and the percentage of the third floor relative to the second floor. Their attorney, Kevin Bast, argued that the proposed design would deviate from “cookie-cutter” constructions, offering a unique architectural style that would enhance the neighborhood without being intrusive. The architect, Daniel Augustino, emphasized that the design complied with flood and height regulations and aimed to bring existing non-conformities into compliance. Visual aids were used during the presentation to demonstrate that the new structure would reduce massing and maintain views for adjacent properties.

14:10The board engaged in a discussion about the design’s impact on the streetscape, with Augustino arguing that the proposed variances were a result of intentional design choices aimed at adding architectural diversity to the street. The discussion centered around balancing individual design preferences against community standards, with arguments presented that the proposed structure would not negatively influence the street’s character or surrounding properties.

43:13Public testimony included support from a resident, Adam Green, who described the Silvers as long-standing community members contributing positively to the neighborhood. Green emphasized that the proposed structure was aesthetically striking and should be viewed as a gift to the community. Board member Michael Richmond admitted initial concerns but found the presentation compelling and the design modest, ultimately commending the architectural work and noting the project’s enhancement of outdoor living spaces.

01:14:06In contrast, another discussion involved an application from Michael and Mandy Dorfman, requesting a variance for a third-floor rear deck on their property at North Brunswick Drive. This proposal faced opposition from neighbors concerned about privacy infringement. Resident Joe Sandoli expressed discomfort with the notion of being overlooked by the deck, arguing that it could lead to privacy issues. The board ultimately voted against the variance, citing a lack of compelling justification from the applicants and prioritizing neighbor concerns.

01:19:43Meanwhile, the board also reviewed a proposal involving Sonia Beex for a property on Ventnor Avenue, seeking D variance relief for residential use in a commercial zone and C variance relief for lot width and side yard setbacks. The representatives argued that the property, historically residential despite its commercial zoning, should continue as such, given the undersized lot and flood-damaged condition. Precedential cases were cited to support the argument. The board deliberated over the implications of the existing structure and its potential expansion, considering the necessity for both positive and negative criteria to be established.

Lastly, the meeting addressed a proposal for property at the corner of Jerome Avenue and Veter Avenue, currently zoned for commercial use. The discussion focused on the potential to revert part of the lot back to its original residential zoning designation due to challenges in sustaining a viable commercial presence. Despite improvements made by the current owner, the residential units above the commercial space were problematic, and the proposal involved creating single-family lots conforming to S25 criteria. Concerns were raised regarding parking and the implications of changing the zoning. The board suggested that the developers refine their proposal and return with a revised plan addressing these concerns.