The most noteworthy discussion centered around case BOA 24-100 Z85, involving Robin and Johnny Cotton’s request for variances at their property on 823rd Avenue North. The Cottons sought to exceed the lot coverage limit of 35% by requesting 52% to accommodate an additional room without a garage or carport, as well as a minor side yard setback adjustment. Their representative, Jill Cner, explained that the proposed room would serve as an accessible space for Mrs. Cotton’s elderly father, who had recently turned 100. Cner emphasized that the addition would stay within the home’s existing footprint, and the couple had support from their neighbors due to their past collaborative renovations.

A board member noted the existing lot coverage was already at 49%, which had not been previously approved, highlighting the house’s age, dating back to the 1950s, as a factor predating current ordinances. The board faced limitations in considering health concerns as reasons for variances, but acknowledged the property size made the request appear reasonable. After discussions and a public hearing with no objections, the board approved the variance request, citing the property’s unique circumstances.

The board also deliberated on case BOA 24-1 Z86, where Adam Wolf requested a slight increase in lot coverage from 40% to 42% for a swimming pool and additional driveway space at his newly purchased 10138 Avenue North property. The Fire Marshal’s requirements for more driveway space due to the lot’s peculiar shape necessitated this request. Wolf confirmed neighbor approval, and the board noted that, if the property were a standard lot, the coverage would be 39%, not excessive by typical standards. Despite drainage concerns, the board approved the variance, recognizing the fire code compliance challenges.

In another case, BOA 24-100 Z88, the board faced debate over requested variances for setbacks at 27 32nd Avenue South, Lot B. The applicant sought to reduce the front yard setback from 25 feet to 16 feet and adjust side yard setbacks from 10 feet to 7.5 feet. Although neighbors did not oppose these changes, a board member questioned the substantial nature of the exceptions and whether they constituted a self-created hardship. Despite these concerns, the board ultimately approved the variance request, noting the dimensions had been evident at the time of purchase.

The meeting addressed additional cases but resulted in postponements, including BOA 24-100 089, for a property on Avenue North, where neighbors voiced a desire for more visual information. The board agreed to postpone these discussions to a future meeting in February 2025.