In a recent government meeting, concerns were raised regarding a proposed variance for a residential property that aims to add a second story. Board members expressed apprehension about the existing congestion on the lot, which they noted is already heavily populated with vehicles. One member highlighted that the addition of another story could exacerbate the situation, questioning whether the development would be beneficial for the neighborhood.

The property owners, who have lived in the home for 18 years, defended their request, stating that the additional space would enhance their living conditions as they age. They emphasized that the expansion would not increase the overall footprint of the building, as it would remain within the existing structure's boundaries. The owners clarified that their primary motivation is to improve their living comfort rather than to increase market value or rental potential.

Several board members acknowledged that the variance request is not substantial in terms of its impact on the neighborhood, particularly since the proposed addition would not encroach further into the setbacks than what is currently permitted. They noted that the property is adjacent to a school and that the existing two-story home nearby sets a precedent for the proposed changes.

The discussion also touched on enforcement issues related to the property, with some members suggesting that addressing these concerns could mitigate the negative perceptions surrounding the variance request. Ultimately, the board concluded that the proposed addition would not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood, paving the way for further consideration of the variance.