The meeting’s most debated topic was the proposed renovation and expansion of a residential property on Riverside Drive. The applicants, Melissa Freedman Steel and Michael Steel, sought to revitalize their family home, which has been unoccupied for over four years, to accommodate their young family. This proposal included several bulk variance requests tied to the existing garage configuration, which was deemed inadequate for modern family needs. The existing garage protruded seven feet in front of the primary facade, violating neighborhood residential design standards requiring a 16-foot setback. The proposed design included a new motorcourt garage oriented towards the interior of the lot.

During the discussion, the board examined variances for the garage’s front yard setback, wall length, and driveway width. The applicants argued that the new design would eliminate existing non-conformity and comply with bulk standards, although it required variances such as a reduced front yard setback from the required 56 feet to 50 feet, a shorter wall length than the minimum standard, and a wider driveway than allowed. The applicants emphasized their commitment to preserving neighborhood character while updating the property to meet their family’s needs. They engaged with neighbors to garner support for the renovation plans.

The proposal sparked concerns from neighboring residents, particularly Sylvana Nazaro Clark, who expressed support for the applicants but voiced apprehensions about the project’s potential impact on her family’s property. She highlighted concerns about shadows and views from their home, emphasizing the importance of considering the project’s implications on her father’s property. The board acknowledged these concerns, noting the emotional significance for the Nazaro family, and engaged in a dialogue about potential solutions, such as landscaping to restore or enhance the view from neighboring properties.

The board deliberated over the proposed variances, discussing the balance between the needs of the applicants and the concerns of neighboring families. Some members expressed support for the application. Ultimately, the board approved the application with conditions, including requirements for landscaping and the elimination of a driveway turnaround area.

In another significant case, the board considered the renovation of a property on Park Place, owned by LLY Properties LLC. The applicant, Eileen Bitterly, sought a floor area ratio variance to expand the attic and construct two dormers. The property, non-compliant with multiple zoning requirements, including lot depth and setbacks, required various variance reliefs. The proposal included demolishing the existing gable roof and replacing it with a Gambrel roof while expanding the attic to create a master suite. The applicant aimed to convert the property from a multi-rental unit into a single-family home, reducing the number of bedrooms from six to four and decreasing the property’s intensity of use.

Kevin Moore, representing the applicant, introduced architect Jason Vio, who presented the proposed renovations. Vio described the existing conditions and proposed changes, emphasizing the aim to reduce impervious coverage by replacing much of the hardscaping with grass. The proposal intended to maintain the property’s existing footprint while enhancing its exterior and interior quality.

The board raised questions about shared parking with a neighboring home and the potential for a historic review, given the property’s location in a suggested historic district.

Public comments during the meeting included concerns about demolition permits and environmental safety, particularly regarding asbestos handling. A resident, Mr. Hyde, questioned the transparency of the demolition process and the potential for future rental uses of the property. The applicant’s representative assured that all permits were obtained, and the conversion to a single-family home aimed to reduce occupancy intensity.