One notable issue discussed was the application requiring D variance relief for a non-conforming two-family dwelling in the C1 Zone. The applicant presented revised architectural plans, an updated property survey, and a site plan that delineated parking spaces.

The application’s architect presented the revisions, which included the maintenance of a window well, removal of a circular staircase, and the addition of a proposed kitchen on the second floor. Despite the board’s inquiry about the feasibility of adding two more parking spaces, the applicant’s team insisted that the steep grades of the site limited the possibility for more parking and thus sought a variance. The board’s scrutiny extended to the accuracy of the plans, as they debated whether to vote on the current plans or require revisions first. The architect was tasked with revising the plans to ensure they accurately depicted the property’s conditions.

Another topic was the discussion regarding the property conversion project, where the applicant sought to transform a commercial building into two residential units with a professional office. The representative of the applicant provided a testimony detailing the project’s compliance with the positive and negative criteria for granting a variance. The board debated the property’s suitability for the proposed use and its impact on the neighborhood, emphasizing the importance of accurate plans before making a decision.

The board also deliberated on a proposal for exterior improvements at a specific location, including the removal of a metal canopy and the preservation of the concrete patio. The nature of the business and the site’s use were discussed, with the applicant committing to no construction equipment storage on site. The debate further included parking space requirements, with differing interpretations of zoning regulations causing a detailed examination of the proposed use of the space and the calculation of required parking spaces.

In addition, parking requirements for new developments were a recurring theme. The board engaged in debates over the number of parking spaces needed for residential units and the commercial office spaces. Conflicting interpretations of zoning regulations and technicalities of space calculations were central to these discussions. The applicant’s request for a variance for additional parking spaces due to steep grades was a point of contention, highlighting the challenges of accommodating parking in the C1 Zone.

The board also addressed an application for a proposed pool house, pergola, and outdoor kitchen. Revisions to the plans included a new permeable paver walkway for emergency access, though questions about emergency access at the property’s rear remained. The applicant agreed to make engineering adjustments to resolve these concerns.

The plansning testimony provided by Caroline Ryder from tnm Associates discussed variances for a property used as a residence since the 1900s, despite being located in a commercial zone. Ryder argued that the variances were justified based on the property’s suitability and the absence of substantial detriment to the public good. The board’s professional, seeking clarification on the lot coverage variance, agreed that the property’s split zoning nature necessitated the use variance.

The board’s discussions also touched upon a previous approval for signage on Kinderkamack Road. There was deliberation about whether the applicant needed to return for additional relief or if the issue could be addressed administratively with the construction official’s involvement.