The primary focus of the meeting was the application for a property on Baran Avenue, presented by Mr. Roy and Mrs. Bose, who sought to add 686 square feet to their existing 714-square-foot home. The proposed addition aimed to create a three-bedroom, three-bath unit from the current two-bedroom, one-bath dwelling, addressing living needs prompted by a family member’s medical condition. The addition included an in-law suite and a family room on the first floor, with an extended primary bedroom and bathroom on the second floor.

Concerns arose regarding the accuracy of submitted plans, particularly inconsistencies in setback measurements. The board noted discrepancies in the southern side yard figures and the absence of a certified survey, complicating the evaluation of the proposed changes. A member underscored the necessity of certified documentation to ensure compliance with zoning laws and accurate depiction of the property’s boundaries. The lack of an official survey meant that if actual measurements differed, the applicant might need to return for further approvals.

The architectural drawings were criticized for their lack of clarity, with board members expressing frustration over the confusing presentation. Specific issues included the depiction of the front yard setback, which appeared misleading and required further clarification. The applicant clarified that the current front yard setback to the front of the enclosed porch was 13 feet 4 inches, but proposed changes could alter the perception of the house’s distance from the street.

Concerns about the addition’s impact on neighborhood aesthetics and privacy were voiced during the public comment session. Mary Condo, a long-standing resident, emphasized the historical charm of the neighborhood, noting that many homes were built around a century ago and were of a smaller size. Condo expressed apprehension about the trend of expanding houses, urging the board to consider a plan for neighborhood preservation before approving new developments. She highlighted the high real estate prices in the area, referencing a nearby one-bedroom house sale for $560,000, and stressed the importance of maintaining the neighborhood’s character.

Privacy issues were particularly prominent, with Condo and other speakers pointing out the potential for the proposed addition’s windows to overlook private spaces of neighboring homes. The suggestion was made to shift the bulk of the addition to the side of the property with an open yard to enhance privacy for all parties involved. The need for accurate landscaping portrayals was also emphasized, as current renderings did not reflect the close proximity of homes.

Beyond privacy and aesthetic concerns, the discussion touched on the proposed home’s architectural details. The board advised incorporating design elements consistent with the existing house, such as matching overhangs to prevent a design mismatch. The applicant was encouraged to add a window to a first-floor bathroom to improve the visual appeal of the front facade, which appeared flat and uninviting. The potential for a roof extension over the doorway was raised to provide shelter and enhance aesthetics, though the applicant expressed caution due to zoning variance implications.

A suggestion to defer the application until more input could be gathered from an absent neighbor was considered, reflecting lingering concerns about the proposal. One board member noted the unresolved issues with the immediately adjacent neighbor.

Despite the various concerns, the board showed a willingness to work with the applicant to resolve issues. There was an acknowledgment of the efforts made to preserve the existing character of the house. One member suggested imposing deed restrictions to prevent the addition from being rented to non-family members, although it was ultimately deemed unnecessary given the design and planned usage.

The board moved towards a motion to approve the application, with conditions including maintaining setbacks and ensuring the construction did not further encroach on property lines. The motion passed with several members supporting, concluding the public comments and moving towards adjournment. Attendees were reminded of an upcoming planning board meeting to address broader community zoning issues.