Tanero presented his case for the garages, intended for parking and workspace, emphasizing the need for vehicle maneuvering space and the desire to maintain the property’s symmetry. The proposed height of the garages was a particular point of contention, with the applicant justifying this by the need for working on cars within the garages and the intention to match the existing house’s design.

Board members engaged with the applicant in a thorough analysis of the variances, considering the visual impact on the neighborhood and the property itself. They reviewed the Municipal Land Use Code to determine if the application could promote a desirable visual environment. The board noted the differences between D1 and D2 variances, the latter being applicable to the case, with its specific proof requirements and potential need for expert opinions.

The property’s configuration as a duplex with a single sewer line but separate water and gas services, and its unique address division was discussed, with the board considering the historical context of the property in their deliberations. The applicant assured the board that the addition of the garages would not alter the property’s appearance and that the existing drainage system would be updated to prevent any flooding risks due to the new structures.

One notable issues raised was the visibility of the cars with the new garages and the potential for the space to be converted into living areas, which could alter the property’s single-family home appearance. The applicant’s assurances about the garages’ aesthetic fit with the neighborhood and the property’s overall design were weighed against concerns about long-term impacts, such as increased neighborhood density and the risk of the property being rented out, leading to more vehicles and congestion.

The board members also considered the environmental commission’s comments, highlighting concerns about potential congestion and clutter. These concerns extended to the environmental impact, with discussions on the preservation of trees and the nearby pond. The potential impact on water flow and drainage was also a key topic, as the applicant explained the integration of the garages into the existing drainage system.

The debate further delved into the property’s non-conformity in terms of lot size, the impact of more structures on an already small space, and the potential for future subdivision. The board members showed sensitivity to the concerns of neighboring property owners, acknowledging the proximity of the proposed garages to adjacent homes and the need to consider the unique characteristics of each property.

In the end, the board voted on the proposed variances, with some members expressing reservations about the project’s implications for the neighborhood. Following the vote, the board moved into an executive session before adjourning the public meeting.