The meeting’s most debated topic involved the application for a C1 variance on Dempsey Avenue. The applicants, Henerbon Mukerjee and Nidi Agarwal, sought to expand their driveway and vestibule, arguing that the current driveway width was insufficient for safe and convenient parking, especially during winter. The existing driveway exceeded the allowed width of 22 feet, with the applicants proposing an increase to 23 feet. The vestibule expansion aimed to address safety hazards such as water pooling and pest intrusion, including reports of snakes in the area.

During the discussion, board members expressed divergent opinions on the driveway expansion. One member raised concerns about the fairness of allowing a wider driveway when many properties in the area had single-car driveways requiring stacking vehicles. They argued that approving such a variance could set a precedent, questioning how future similar requests could be denied. Conversely, another member highlighted the historical context, noting that the narrowness of the street and winter parking challenges justified the variance, as modern living conditions often necessitate wider driveways for multiple vehicles.

Public comments provided additional insights, with neighbor Paul Raider from 32 Kyler Road supporting the application. Raider noted that the proposed vestibule would enhance the property’s appearance and that a larger driveway would allow for safer parking, particularly during snowplow operations. Despite Raider’s support, the board ultimately decided to approve the vestibule modification but not the driveway expansion, with a split decision reflecting the varied opinions among members.

In another discussion, the board addressed concerns regarding a garage addition on Hillside Road, owned by 15 Hillside Road LLC. The applicant sought variances for constructing a second-floor addition and a detached one-car garage. Neighbors raised concerns about potential water drainage issues exacerbated by the proposed garage, which would be positioned just three feet from the property line.

A resident voiced worries about increased runoff, emphasizing past drainage issues that had impacted his property. He expressed skepticism about verbal assurances from the applicant, urging the board to ensure that drainage concerns were addressed in a revised site plan. Another neighbor echoed similar concerns, pointing out that the existing concrete driveway failed to divert water adequately, leading to runoff problems.

The board engaged in a thorough analysis of the proposal, with members highlighting the necessity of a comprehensive drainage plan. They expressed doubt about proceeding without a formal engineering evaluation. The applicant, Mr. Lee, acknowledged the concerns and expressed willingness to work on a drainage plan that would prevent water from affecting neighboring properties.

Ultimately, the board decided to postpone the decision on the application until an engineering plan could be prepared and reviewed. This decision underscored the importance of transparency and collaboration in resolving drainage issues, with the board encouraging the applicant to work closely with the municipal engineer and neighbors to devise an acceptable plan.