The homeowner’s proposal was to construct a 12.5 by 24-foot addition to the northeast side of the existing home. During the discussion, concerns were raised about the available parking spaces, as only 15 feet were allocated for two vehicles. The homeowner’s representative explained that several factors, including existing backyard features and layout constraints, made it challenging to place the addition elsewhere.

The board’s deliberation focused on the parking issue, with the ward counselor clarifying that the neighborhood has 24/7 resident-only parking, and it was assumed residents would continue to use street parking. The homeowner agreed to the board’s condition to include only one parking space in the lot, with the understanding that a second vehicle could be parked on the street. Upon agreement, the board proceeded to approve the variance, subject to the aforementioned conditions, including the necessity for the homeowner to update the plans to meet the minimum parking requirements for one vehicle.

Additionally, the meeting addressed a request for a continuance from a developer seeking a variance for minimum parking requirements for a proposed 25-unit apartment building on Salem Street. The request was made due to a missed legal advertisement, and the matter was continued to a special meeting set for June 18.

Another application discussed was for a property on Beach Road, where the appellant sought to convert a single-family dwelling into a two-family dwelling. However, due to the absence of the applicant, the board decided to continue this item as well.