The meeting, which excluded routine procedures, commenced with a postponed deck application, quickly shifting to more matters. The first significant issue addressed was a fabric canopy structure installed by Robert W., 6 feet from the property line and zero feet from the dwelling, where 10 feet and 3 feet were the standard requirements, respectively. Robert W. installed the canopy to provide shade for his backyard pool. The board assessed the construction details of the canopy, its temporary nature, and the financial implications of any potential alterations. With no public opposition, the board approved the variances, recognizing the financial hardship that changes to the structure would impose on the homeowner.

Attention then turned to John Deor’s application concerning his property on Brookside Avenue. Deor sought to resurface and expand his driveway, which was partly to address water accumulation issues and to provide space for a shed and a car cover. Unaware of the permitting requirements, Deor supported his case with 21 photos showing the property’s condition and the rationale behind the driveway expansion. The board engaged in a detailed assessment of the variance requests, including setbacks and landscape area ratio deficiencies. There was a debate on whether some variances should instead be classified as design waivers. The board inquired about the driveway’s water drainage and its impact on the neighboring property. The discussion on this application concluded without a resolution, with future deliberations anticipated.

The board also considered an application from another homeowner who sought to legitimize their driveway and pavers, which had previously caused injuries due to tire tracks and mud. Acknowledging the safety improvements and the absence of negative impacts on neighboring properties, the board approved the necessary design waivers.

Timothy Herut Tannan presented his case for variances related to the rehabilitation and expansion of an existing single-family dwelling, which was his childhood home. Tannan faced challenges in aligning proposed changes with the existing structure because the house was built on a crooked property. The board discussed the proposed plans, the garage’s status, and the neighborhood’s layout. After a thorough deliberation, they concluded the variances were justified due to the existing irregularities and the applicant’s efforts to conform to zoning regulations.

A homeowner from 71 Applebe Avenue inquired about submitting plans to the building department before the approval of the resolution for a home rehab and addition project. The board advised waiting for the resolution and proceeded to approve the project. Subsequently, the board addressed a proposal for a garage construction on Morganville Road. The applicant aimed to protect vehicles and lawn equipment from weather damage. The board requested more detailed architectural plans due to concerns about the garage’s height and the number of stories.

A proposed accessory building on Morganville Road sparked debate due to its size exceeding permitted dimensions and its resemblance to a residential structure. The two-story building raised questions about its potential use as a living space or for commercial activities. The applicant was advised to seek a continuance to address the board’s concerns with revised plans.