0:04The meeting opened with deliberations on the case involving a variance request by a builder at 202 33rd Avenue South. The builder aimed to clarify setbacks, as a prior meeting had resulted in a mix-up due to a clerical error. The applicant sought a five-foot easterly side yard setback for the primary structure and a zero-foot setback for a patio slab, as opposed to the standard ten-foot minimum. This variance was essential to align with previously approved adjustments that had inadvertently been documented in reverse. The revised request primarily focused on the patio slab, intended to be at grade and composed of permeable pavers. The board members engaged in a dialouge to comprehend the implications of the variance and the specifics of the easterly property line.

12:55The discussion intensified when Maria Doran, representing interests in the property, addressed concerns over the board’s December decision to adjust the setbacks, which inadvertently placed the proposed structure within an easement. Doran explained that the December directive to shift plans five feet east seemed viable initially but later was revealed to cross property boundaries. This revelation prompted a review by Public Works, which then approved a revised setback of four and a half feet. Doran emphasized the necessity of keeping construction strictly within property lines to avoid potential disruptions if Public Works needed to access the easement for utilities. Despite the setback confusion, Doran remained committed to resolving these discrepancies.

A point of contention arose in a correspondence from Diane Hunter, a neighboring property owner. Hunter expressed concerns that the proposed construction would encroach closer to her property, threatening privacy and increasing noise levels. She worried that the proximity might allow visibility into her home. Steve Williams, speaking for the Hunters, supported the board’s December adjustments to maintain a ten-foot buffer, easing these privacy concerns. He stressed the importance of updating the variance site plan to reflect these adjustments accurately. Doran responded to Hunter’s concerns, clarifying that the revised plans maintained the agreed setbacks and did not bring the structure any closer to the Hunters’ property.

As the board deliberated, they addressed the complexities of the variance request, acknowledging the property’s limited size and the challenges this posed to development. After careful consideration, the board moved to approve the variance application, determining it met the necessary criteria and recognizing the applicant’s efforts to address the board’s concerns. The motion passed unanimously, providing the applicant with the clarity needed to proceed with construction.