Eric Chavez, the owner of the property at 61 (address per meeting record), won conditional approval from the Kenilworth Planning Board for a side addition that attaches his detached garage to the house, adds a bedroom above, expands the master bathroom and closets, and creates a covered front porch.

The board’s decision followed detailed testimony from Chavez and technical review by the board’s planner and engineer. Chavez told the board he wants to attach the garage, provide an additional bedroom "to be prepared" for a growing household and keep the exterior siding and color palette consistent with neighboring homes. Planner and engineering staff reviewed dimensional data and concluded the project reduces on-site impervious cover (by removing the garage and some rear hardscape) but creates a tighter side-yard setback and a constrained driveway width on the south side of the home.

The board adopted a package of conditions intended to address parking, setback and public-safety concerns. Those conditions, included in the approval, require: widening the driveway to an 18-foot usable width on the submitter’s property plus a one-foot offset from the neighbor (the board described this as 18 feet plus a one-foot setback), removing an existing pool and pergola from the rear yard, not using the basement area as a bedroom unless the owner returns to the board, re-siding the house to ensure the addition matches the existing façade, and that the applicant contact the utility (public service) about the nearby pole and provide evidence of contact. The board said driveway work required by condition must be completed before issuance of a certificate of occupancy or final sign-off.

Board members pressed on parking calculations. The plan showed 14.85 feet from the southerly edge of the existing dwelling to the property line, which would be tight for two side-by-side standard 9-by-18-foot parking spaces. Board engineers said a parking variance would be needed if the driveway stays as drawn; the board instead made widening the driveway a condition so a parking variance would not be required. The chair summarized that the tradeoff—less impervious surface and a better-functioning front porch—made the one-foot side-yard variance acceptable in this case, provided the driveway condition was met.

During testimony, Chavez offered photographs of nearby homes to demonstrate consistency with block character. The board asked Chavez to produce copies of those photos for the record. The planner and board consultant confirmed the pool, pergola and associated paved areas would be removed, which reduced runoff and impervious coverage.

"The basement not to be used as a bedroom" was stated as an explicit condition in the board’s resolution, reflecting the board’s finding that the basement area does not meet building-code egress requirements for a legal bedroom. The approval also requires Chavez to provide evidence of contact with the utility company if he pursues any pole relocation; moving the pole was not made a mandatory condition because the board recognized utility relocation can be time-consuming and outside municipal control.

The motion to approve was made by Mayor Karlovich and seconded by Mister Grimaldi; a roll-call vote of the members present approved the application. The board closed the matter with holiday greetings to the applicant and adjourned.

The board’s approval is a conditional site-specific variance/major-minor application approval; any failure to meet conditions (for example, not widening the driveway prior to final sign-off) could require the applicant to return to the board.

What happens next: the applicant must satisfy the listed conditions (driveway widening, removal of the pool/pergola, re-siding and documentation of utility contact) and obtain building permits and a final certificate of occupancy before the board’s conditions are considered satisfied.