The application for the North View Avenue property, owned by William Barry, sought variances to construct a second-story addition on a small lot. Architect J. Michael Petri presented the plan, arguing that the addition was necessary due to the constraints of the undersized lot and aligned with similar modifications made by neighboring properties. The proposed addition, measuring just 38 square feet, aimed to provide a new bathroom and small bedroom while maintaining minimal impact on the surrounding area. Petri emphasized that the addition would not be visible from the street and would harmonize with the existing structure.

The board members engaged in a discussion about the application’s merits, with some expressing concerns about the proximity to the neighboring property. However, it was confirmed that the neighbor had no objections. The absence of a closet in the new bedroom was noted, with plans to use an armoire instead, aligning with current building codes that do not require a closet for a room to be classified as a bedroom. The small dimensions of the addition prompted comparisons to ceiling tile sizes, illustrating its modest scale.

Ultimately, the board members voiced support for the project, recognizing the challenges of expanding homes on small lots and acknowledging the design presented. Conditions were attached to the approval, including the requirement that siding and roofing materials match the existing home. The motion to approve was passed unanimously.

In contrast, the proposal for the property on Grey Street, presented by Kristen Hull and Earl Brown, involved significant structural changes and raised concerns about neighborhood compatibility. This application proposed multiple variances, including an increased building width, reduced side yard setback, and additional parking space. The architect, Terrence Harist, explained that the renovations were aimed at accommodating the family’s needs, including the creation of a sensory therapy room for their child with specific health concerns. The board discussed the impact of the proposed design, which included modern elements such as large windows and Hardy board siding, diverging from the traditional aesthetic of the neighborhood.

Concerns were raised about the potential precedent the project might set for future developments, with board members questioning whether the modern design would harmonize with the existing architectural landscape. The inclusion of a sensory therapy room was highlighted as an aspect of the design, with the family emphasizing its importance for their child’s well-being. Despite these personal considerations, the board scrutinized the project’s compliance with zoning regulations and its potential impact on the neighborhood’s character.

The proposal’s potential to increase lot coverage and introduce new parking configurations was also debated. The board sought assurances regarding stormwater management, with plans for a dry well to handle water runoff and prevent flooding. The discussion revealed a tension between the family’s needs and the board’s responsibility to uphold community standards, with board members expressing a desire for further review to ensure compliance with all relevant codes.