One item on the agenda was a variance request to reduce the required setback for a parking area surface from three feet to zero for approximately 16 linear feet along the north property line of a residential property. The variance was deemed necessary due to changes in the original construction plans and the narrow street which necessitated a shared driveway for both properties. After a detailed staff analysis and a public hearing, the board members moved to approve the variance with a condition allowing staff to authorize a two-foot leeway in the variance if required. This measure was aimed at preventing the need for the applicant to reapply for a further variance in the future. The board’s decision took into account the unique circumstances of the property and the precedent of a similar variance approved for the adjacent property.

The second variance involved a request to permit the installation of pool equipment in the southwest corner of a residential lot rather than adjacent to the principal structure. The applicant’s representative explained that the existing structure’s configuration and the means of egress made it impractical to place the pool equipment next to the home. The board’s discussion focused on the potential impact on neighboring properties and sound buffering requirements. The building official contributed by clarifying the code requirements for pool equipment installation. The board ultimately approved the variance without conditions, having considered the unique circumstances of the property, the practical challenges in equipment placement, and the lack of objections from neighboring property owners.

During the meeting, the board also addressed concerns regarding the operation of a parking lot at Pirate Square. It was noted that the property might have not applied for the necessary special exceptions. The matter was being handled by code enforcement, with the anticipation of a notice and possible penalties. This led to a broader conversation about the board’s involvement in projects like Treasure Bay, where certain activities were exempted under the code and did not require board oversight. The board expressed a need for clarification on its duties and exemptions and requested the city attorney to provide detailed information on the same.

The responsibility of the board and the city in relation to variances and code enforcement was also a topic of debate. There was a call for a clear delineation of responsibilities between the city and applicants in advancing these cases.