The focal point of the meeting was the application concerning 6 Mark Street. The property owner, E. Caparino, plans to sell the site to Christopher Donnier, who aims to demolish the current structure and construct a new three-bedroom, two-story house. The board’s discussion centered around compliance with zoning requirements, given the property’s status as a corner lot and the need for variances due to existing conditions. The board scrutinized the proposal to maintain the existing foundation and basement while rebuilding the house to include a new interior layout.

Board members focused on the variances required for the project, particularly the front yard setback, currently at 19.12 feet, short of the 20-foot requirement. Additionally, the side yard setback was noted at 14.15 feet, with the rear yard around 40 feet. The proposal also detailed a minor increase in maximum building coverage from 23.32% to 25.12% due to the porch inclusion, alongside a slight rise in maximum lot coverage from 53.29% to 53.54%. The board deemed these increases minor, especially considering the removal of an existing shed, which would reduce overall coverage. The applicant’s attorney stressed that these variances addressed pre-existing conditions, as the property is currently in disrepair.

The board also addressed the implications of demolishing the house, which necessitated the variances, while ensuring that the existing garage and driveway would remain unchanged. This aspect provided reassurance to board members concerned about preserving the property’s character. With no public opposition, the application for the rebuild was unanimously approved by the board.

The meeting then shifted focus to various fence variance applications across the borough. One notable application involved Mr. Patel’s property on Carney, where he sought approval for a six-foot PVC fence. Patel requested a variance to reduce the side yard setback from the ordinance-required ten feet to three feet, providing detailed engineering drawings to support his proposal. Board members sought clarity on the fence’s alignment and its relation to neighboring properties. Patel assured the board that his back neighbor also intended to apply for a similar variance. Following examination and no public comments, Patel’s application was approved.

Another application discussed involved a property on Andrew Jessie Street, where the applicant sought to install a fence without infringing on sight triangle requirements. The board ensured the fence would be positioned within the applicant’s property, maintaining a three-foot distance from the property line. After confirming compliance with zoning regulations and receiving no public opposition, this application was also approved.

A further fence application for a property on Melrose Avenue was examined. The applicant, a recent move-in, requested a variance for a fence extending into the property with a three or four-foot offset from the property line. Board members discussed the alignment with neighboring properties, leading to an adjustment in the proposed distance to meet zoning requirements. The application aimed to enhance shared yard space with a neighbor, and after clarifications and no public comments, it was approved.