The case reet took center stage at the meeting when owner Mr. Yer sought approval to reconstruct a detached residential garage. The aim was to create three off-street parking spaces for the tenants of the three-family house. The architect, Mr. Shas, presented the project, noting that the existing structure had an unusable roof. The proposal involved extending the front of the garage while keeping within the footprint of the original walls. However, this plan required variances for the structure’s size and setbacks on the side and rear yards.

During the discussion, board members expressed concerns about whether the design should include three separate garages for privacy and security reasons, rather than one large space. The architect explained that the existing masonry walls were to be reused to maintain consistency with the existing footprint. A examination of the proposal was conducted, with the board members and applicant addressing concerns regarding the garage’s size, layout, and the specific needs of the tenants.

The technical aspects of the project were scrutinized, including the adequacy of the footings and the proposed lot coverage, which led to a debate about the zoning ordinance’s interpretation concerning driveway improvements. Specific attention was given to the design and materials for the garage’s exterior, with queries about whether it would feature siding or shingles.

Further debates arose around the structural integrity of the floor slab, retention of the masonry walls, and the possibility of installing a lift to accommodate two cars. The board also discussed the shared driveway’s impact on lot coverage and the potential changes or repairs. There were concerns about the capacity and allocation of parking spaces, and the implications for the existing driveway and shared space.

The discussion extended to the intended use of the structure, questioning the provision of utilities and the likelihood of the garage spaces being leased independently. While no public comments were raised during the meeting, board members had varying opinions on the application. Some supported the provision of covered and secure parking, while others were concerned about the structure’s potential use for storage and the necessity for clear partitions to avoid tenant conflicts.