15:20The most notable discussion revolved around Rebecca McCarthy’s request for a variance concerning a fence located on her property on Carlton Avenue. McCarthy had repositioned the fence three years ago to improve safety for her grandchildren, moving it behind a tree to prevent them from accidentally running into the street. She presented her case by emphasizing that the fence did not obstruct visibility for pedestrians or drivers and stated that it blended well with the neighborhood’s aesthetics. McCarthy assured the board that she had received no complaints from neighbors, and she expressed willingness to remove the fence if required for public works access.

25:32A board member noted that the fence did not interfere with the sight triangle at the intersection, which is often a concern in zoning matters. The board deliberated on a compromise. This would allow the fence to remain while ensuring McCarthy would be responsible for its removal if public works needed access. The public portion of the meeting revealed no objections, signaling community support for McCarthy’s request. The board unanimously approved the application with the memorandum condition, emphasizing the balance between individual needs and community regulations.

05:05Another application discussed was from Mr. Garcia Raina regarding his property on West Fourth Street. Raina expressed dissatisfaction with a previous resolution concerning his fence, which he claimed left a triangular area of his yard inaccessible and compromised his privacy. He presented visuals to the board, illustrating his desire for the fence to run parallel to the street, which would allow for better landscaping and use of his yard. After Raina’s presentation, a board member highlighted that the proposed adjustment would not affect the site triangle, an aspect in zoning decisions. The board agreed to grant the relief Raina sought, allowing the fence to be realigned as desired.

10:18The final application involved Carlos Serrano, introduced by his wife, Gerald Gim Bonia. They sought a variance due to a contractor’s error, which resulted in a fence being installed 5 feet beyond the approved setback line. The board reviewed the situation, noting the need for a landscape buffer to visually mitigate the fence’s impact. Gerald agreed to this condition, and following a brief discussion, the board approved the application with this stipulation.