The most significant topic of the meeting revolved around Calendar 41, an application from a resident on Allen Drive seeking variances to construct a fence and regrade the property. The applicant’s representative, a licensed architect, explained the need for the variances due to the challenging nature of the corner lot, which lacked a traditional backyard. The proposal included a two-foot-high wall and a four-foot-high open fence to create a safer, more usable outdoor space for children. The architect emphasized the safety concerns, stating, “It’s just to stop my kids from running into the street.”

Board members scrutinized the visibility of the proposed fence, given its placement behind existing trees planted by the homeowner. The architect clarified that the fence was intended to keep children safe without impacting the visual appeal of the property.

The board also debated the adequacy of public notification about the variance requests. A member raised concerns about additional variances potentially required but not included in the initial notice. This led to a discussion on the “catch-all provision” that allows applicants to seek further variances during the hearing.

Safety implications, particularly traffic dynamics on the cul-de-sac, were a focal point. One board member highlighted the risk posed by cars turning in the area, given the steep incline and limited visibility. The architect acknowledged these concerns, reiterating the fence’s role in mitigating risks associated with children running into the street.

As the dialogue progressed, attention shifted to the fence’s visual impact and the proposed site grading adjustments. The board sought to ensure that approving the variances would not compromise the neighborhood’s character or safety. Ultimately, the application was approved, with the board aiming to balance safety, aesthetic, and community standards.

Another notable discussion involved an application for a property near 104 Farley. The proposal included adding a new bedroom over an existing family room and constructing a one-story addition. The applicant detailed the complexities of the existing conditions, including the property’s contours and the challenges posed by its corner lot configuration. The existing front yard setback was 40.7 feet, with the new addition proposed at 40.9 feet, necessitating a variance due to the average setback requirement of 44.5 feet in the area.

The applicant argued that the proposed addition would not be visually intrusive, stating, “I’ve been trying really hard to make a case that isn’t visible from the street.” The board engaged in a analysis of the setback requirements, noting discrepancies between existing and proposed measurements. The applicant emphasized that the building height remained below the allowable limit and that the changes aimed to enhance the property’s visual appeal while complying with zoning regulations.

The discussion also covered a covered porch and a grill area, with concerns about side yard setbacks and visual impact. The board deliberated on whether reducing the porch size could address setback concerns, but the applicant expressed hesitation, noting that the current design was intended to maintain the streetscape’s coherence.

In another segment of the meeting, the board addressed the approval of a fence application in a front yard, with the applicant emphasizing the safety risks posed by children running into the street. The board discussed alternative solutions, such as using trees to create a sense of enclosure without a fence. The applicant acknowledged the viability of this approach, and the board agreed to proceed with the remaining aspects of the application, focusing on building additions while dropping the fence proposal.

The meeting also included a discussion on a property located on a corner lot in an R4 Zone. The applicant highlighted challenges posed by the lot’s dimensions and the non-conforming front setback. The board debated the placement of new structures in relation to setbacks and the potential for crowding neighboring properties. Despite concerns, the consensus leaned towards supporting the application, with members acknowledging that the lot’s size could support the additions without overdevelopment.

Finally, the board addressed routine procedures, including the approval of previous meeting minutes and the memorialization of past applications. Discussions included clarifying conditions in approval resolutions, such as landscaping requirements and tree heights for screening purposes.