A significant case involved the expansion of a non-conforming use. The applicant sought a D2 expansion of a pre-existing use and two C variances. The application was met with a positive response from the board after the applicant’s representative addressed concerns about the impact on the surrounding area, such as water collection and lighting. The board discussed waivers and conditions, requiring lot consolidation and compliance with lighting requirements, before voting in favor of the application.

Another application that garnered the board’s approval was for the construction of a 40×30 pole barn intended for personal car and motorcycle storage on Morganville Road. The applicant presented a revised plan that reduced the height and eliminated the second floor of the building, which assuaged previous concerns from the board. No public comments were raised, and the board granted a C variance for the square footage and height of the accessory building.

Residential property variance requests were also a focal point of the meeting. Carol and Cassidy Baker sought a use and a bulk variance for their property on Amboy Road in Manan. The application proposed a rear porch addition and an increase in the floor area ratio of the single-family home. The lot’s odd shape, which resulted in existing nonconformities in the side yards and rear yard, was a key factor in the board’s consideration. After discussions with the board’s professional planner and architect regarding setback inconsistencies and the need for a landscape area ratio variance, the applicants were advised to submit revised plans addressing engineering comments and seek the necessary variance to prevent future complications.

The meeting also addressed a request for a variance to construct a two-family home with the stipulation that the basement not be used as a separate living space for rent or other consideration. An issue emerged when an architect attempted to testify as a planner, which prompted the board to adjourn the meeting to allow the applicants time to work on compliance issues and arrange for the necessary testimony from a planner.

Further discussions included variances for properties that presented unique challenges due to their size or shape. One such case was a property with a pre-existing cluster development in an R5 Zone, where the applicant sought approval for an existing structure that did not meet side yard and rear yard requirements. Another case involved a variance request for the construction of an 18×20 detached garage, referred to as a shed, with a reduced setback due to the lot’s unusual shape and the need to maintain usable yard space for children.

Privacy and safety concerns led to the approval of a 6-foot vinyl privacy fence in the front yard of a property, where normally only a 4-foot open fence was permitted. The board took into account the homeowner’s need for privacy and the visual impact on the neighborhood before granting the variance.

In addition to these matters, the board also approved a driveway expansion and the legitimization of a 16×16 sunroom that had been constructed without permits. Furthermore, variances were granted for the installation of a new shed on a property that required reduced setback from the property line.