The first major discussion revolved around an application submitted by Nashanti Yagi, who was represented by attorney Robert Poke, for constructing a single-family home on an undersized lot on Fair View Avenue. The lot did not meet the standard size required for such development, prompting the need for variances. The architect, Mark Sedota, detailed the design of the proposed house, which aimed to blend with the surrounding older colonial-style homes. The house was designed to feature a modern farmhouse aesthetic with a footprint of approximately 800 square feet. Sedota emphasized the project’s compatibility with the historical character of the area.

Sedota also addressed technical aspects, including setbacks and drainage systems, assuring the board that potential issues would be managed effectively. Despite personal challenges such as health issues and a recent family bereavement, Sedota continued with his testimony, receiving condolences from the board. The board members inquired about design specifics, such as window types and siding materials, and Sedota provided detailed responses.

Another agenda item was the proposal related to a different lot on Fairview Avenue and South Gaston, a site which had been vacant since the early 1970s. Engineer Craig Styers described the project, which involved building a two-bedroom house on a 2,500-square-foot lot, smaller than the 6,000 square feet required in the R3 residential zone. Styers explained the need for multiple variances, including those for lot width, frontage, and impervious coverage, due to the constrained dimensions of the property.

He discussed the existing driveway’s utilization for parking and addressed tree planting under utility lines, preferring to pay a fee in lieu of impractical plantings. The board members raised questions about drainage and paving, to which Styers provided potential solutions, such as directing water flow away from sidewalks.

Carl Peters, a planner, offered further insight into the historical context of the lot and argued for a C1 variance due to the property’s exceptional shape and size. He claimed that the proposed development would support planning objectives and align with the borough’s master plan, promoting modest housing and enhancing community vibrancy. Peters emphasized that the proposed house, though slightly larger than the neighborhood median, would maintain the historical context and provide much-needed housing diversity.

The applicant, Nishant Thiagi, added to the discussion by confirming utility provisions and agreeing to cover the cost of street tree planting. The board inquired about construction methods, with Thiagi affirming the use of stick-built techniques for quality assurance. Concerns about potential environmental contamination from previous land uses were raised, but Thiagi assured the board that no visible contamination had been detected.

As deliberations continued, board members expressed support for both projects, reflecting on the importance of introducing modest housing options into the community. They highlighted the potential of these developments to revitalize neglected areas and provide starter homes for new residents. The board moved to close the public portion of the meeting, and a vote was taken, resulting in unanimous approval of the applications. The meeting concluded with plans to meet again in early July to finalize resolutions and coordinate with the applicants.