The application for a property on Prospect Avenue, presented by architect Thomas Beao on behalf of owners Jennifer and Richard Peepsack, drew discussion as the board deliberated on a proposed floor area ratio variance. The variance was sought to construct an enclosed porch, sauna, and fireplace on the second floor, which would increase the floor area ratio from 29.86% to 33.04%. This proposal was met with questions from board members about the distinctions between a porch and a room, as zoning codes exempt completely open porches from floor area calculations. The proposed structure was more enclosed, prompting further scrutiny.

The applicants described the structure as a “dream” addition, designed to enhance outdoor living with features like a screened porch and gas fireplace for year-round use. Despite the Peepsacks’ enthusiasm and Mr. Beao’s assertions that the structure would not bulk up the property, concerns were raised about its impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Beao argued that the design would improve usability without adversely affecting neighbors, citing temporary disruptions during construction as manageable in light of long-term benefits.

However, public comments revealed a stark division in opinion. Megan Levenson, a resident of nearby Patton Avenue, voiced concerns about setting a precedent by granting variances shortly after new construction, potentially undermining zoning restrictions meant to preserve neighborhood character. Arita Palinski, another neighbor, highlighted potential exacerbation of stormwater runoff issues and questioned the necessity of increasing square footage when the home already maximized its allowable area.

Further opposition came from the Coning family, whose privacy would be compromised by the proposed second-story terrace overlooking their backyard. They argued that the terrace, positioned approximately 14 feet above grade, would intrude on their visual and sound privacy, undermining claims of minimal neighborhood impact. Additional comments from other residents echoed these sentiments, underscoring fears of overdevelopment and the erosion of zoning laws designed to maintain the community’s integrity.

In response to these concerns, the board decided to continue the application to the next meeting, allowing the applicant time to potentially revise the proposal. The board emphasized the importance of submitting any amendments well before the meeting to facilitate review and discussion.

In contrast, the board swiftly moved through the application for a property on Carriage Way, where owners Sarus and Dory Agarwal sought a variance for a 374-square-foot family room addition. This request aimed to accommodate aging family members, and the design was presented as minimally invasive, visually buffered by surrounding wooded areas. The addition would maintain the house’s appearance from the street, with a focus on connecting the new space to existing family areas for functional improvement.

Board members scrutinized the plans and confirmed that the proposed increase in floor area ratio was modest, at about 1%. With no public opposition, the board found the addition aligned with neighborhood character and approved the application, acknowledging the public benefit of accommodating elderly parents.