May 6, 2026 Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes

- Ms. Apte noted that one of the problems in the letter was that the board needs to see floor plans, especially for the conversion of the current building into two units, as well as the new building that's going to come. PROFESSIONAL QUESTIONS - Ms. McGovern asked the zoning official, Ms. Gary-Adams, whether front-yard parking was permissible. Ms. Gary-Adams explained that parking areas must remain at least 5 feet from side property lines. Parking cannot occupy more than 30% of the front yard. - Ms. McGovern questioned whether a 50-foot-wide lot could realistically accommodate the required parking. © It was estimated that the proposed two-family dwelling would require four parking spaces, which appeared difficult to fit within the ordinance's limitations. GENERAL DISCUSSION - Several possible solutions regarding parking were discussed: 0 Parking in the rear of the property © Acommon driveway o Returning for a parking variance if necessary - Chairman Bagoff noted that a common driveway would require: o A permanent easement. © Ongoing maintenance obligations that would remain in effect if ownership changed. - Mr. Perez indicated there was space in the rear, but the board emphasized that more detailed plans would be necessary before evaluating the proposal. - Board members agreed that the applicant should provide: © A plot plan showing driveway locations ©. Parking layouts © Vehicle circulation - Mr. Trembulak argued that preparing complete architectural plans at this stage would be an unnecessary expense because the application concerned subdivision approval. - Ms. Apte asked who determines whether two nearby houses are "substantially similar," as prohibited by the ordinance. © She characterized the standard as subjective. - The board explained that: © The ordinance requires meaningful architectural differences beyond simply changing colors or creating a mirror-image design. © Differences could include porches, window arrangements, rooflines, and other architectural features. - Chairman Bagoff discussed separating the application into phases: o Approving the subdivision and conversion of the existing home first. © Leaving the new dwelling on the vacant lot to be reviewed later with complete building plans. - They explained that if the future house could not meet parking or other zoning requirements, the applicant would need to return for additional

lot to be reviewed later with complete building plans. - They explained that if the future house could not meet parking or other zoning requirements, the applicant would need to return for additional variances. - Another option discussed was approving only: © The subdivision. © The variance to convert the existing single-family home into a two-family dwelling.