0:09The variance application for the second-floor deck on Fifth Avenue, owned by Christopher Viola, dominated the meeting. Viola, represented by attorney Mr. Carris, sought a D2 variance, arguing that the addition was minor and should be considered insubstantial. The property, pre-existing as a three-family home, is legally non-conforming under the current zoning ordinance. Carris presented the case that under a recently passed ordinance, an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) could be added to a two-family home without a variance. However, the board was divided on whether the proposed deck expansion intensified the non-conforming use, given the property’s classification and historical zoning decisions.

The application debate highlighted discrepancies in permits and inspections. Viola testified that although the initial renovations received approval, a zoning permit explicitly prohibited a second-floor deck. Despite this, the deck and railings were added during a subsequent Certificate of Occupancy in 2020, creating confusion about compliance with zoning regulations. A board planner, Donna Miller, and professional planner Catherine Gregory provided insights into the zoning changes and the criteria for granting a D2 variance. Gregory argued that the proposed deck would not impair the zoning plan’s intent, emphasizing the renovation’s aesthetic benefits and alignment with neighborhood structures.

32:29The board’s discussions delved into the legal and zoning implications of the proposed deck. Questions arose about the property’s setback requirements, with the applicant asserting compliance with the bulk table regulations and referencing legal precedents to support their case. Concerns about the modern interpretation of historic character and the impact on community design standards were also raised, with board members scrutinizing the metal railing choice differing from the neighborhood’s wooden railings.

47:04The board members expressed differing views on whether the deck would lead to an intensification of use. Some members argued that the second-floor deck’s proximity to neighboring properties increased noise and privacy issues. Others contended that the deck’s presence, while expanding a non-conforming use, would not alter the neighborhood’s character. The applicant contended that the deck provided crucial outdoor space, particularly valued during the pandemic, and noted the absence of neighbor complaints as indicative of minimal impact.

A split vote revealed the board’s divided stance on the application. Some members supported the proposal, appreciating the property’s improvements and alignment with neighborhood aesthetics. Others opposed it, citing concerns about intensified use and non-conformance with zoning regulations. The meeting concluded without a definitive resolution.