The board first deliberated on a continued request from the Bogs Family December 17, 2019 Trust, which involved a variance for a 10-foot reduction from the required 20-foot front setback and an expansion of an accessory structure beyond the permitted size. The applicant returned with revised plans, featuring a detached garage that addressed previous concerns. The proposed layout included a garage with two bays, additional storage space, and a covered veranda. The applicant emphasized the necessity of the additional storage due to aging and difficulty accessing attic space. They assured the board that their neighbor had no objections and highlighted that the surrounding land included non-buildable areas and waterways, minimizing any potential adverse effects on the neighborhood.

Board members questioned the applicant about any previous code enforcement issues, to which the applicant confirmed there were none. The discussions focused on whether the variance would uphold the zoning code’s intent and the broader impact on the community. The board applied their established criteria for evaluating variances.

After reviewing the six hardship questions applicable to the variance request, the board moved to approve the application. The approval included a stipulation for a 30-day waiting period before permit approval to allow for any potential challenges.

The second agenda item addressed a variance request from Anita Jean Melmont. Melmont sought an additional 604 square feet beyond the allowable size for an accessory structure in her RU-1-9 single-family residential zone. The issue stemmed from her misunderstanding of square footage calculation, resulting in a two-story garage exceeding permitted dimensions. Melmont clarified that the second floor was intended for storage and emphasized that her neighbors did not oppose the construction.

The board examined whether the structure was indeed a garage and verified that utilities had not yet been connected pending variance approval. The applicant explained the construction process, noting the addition of a concrete pad to elevate the structure, which was built swiftly but halted until the variance’s resolution. The board confirmed that Melmont was not creating a new condition but seeking to rectify an existing one.

Following a discussion, the board unanimously approved Melmont’s variance request. The approval was contingent upon meeting all six hardship criteria.