Carlos Andres detailed his vision of transforming his backyard into an open concept terrace with a remodeled pool. He presented letters of support from neighbors, including those directly adjacent to his property. Andres underscored his family’s long-standing connection to the community and emphasized the proposed project’s potential to enhance neighborhood character. Nonetheless, the staff had recommended denial of the variance requests, citing significant departures from code requirements.

A primary point of contention was the accessory building, proposed to be 428 square feet, exceeding the 150 square feet allowed. Andres argued for the necessity of the additional space to maintain aesthetic continuity with neighboring properties that had similar structures. He discussed prior approvals for a gazebo and noted the removal of a wooden dock, which he claimed had improved drainage on the property. The board engaged in a examination of the drainage implications of the proposed changes, with Andres providing photographic evidence to support his assertions.

Furthermore, the board scrutinized the existing structures on Andres’s property, including fences and pavers, for which no permits were found. Andres acknowledged the lack of permits, explaining that these features were present when he purchased the property.

Another topic on the agenda was proposed updates to parking regulations, particularly concerning electric vehicles (EVs). The board discussed aligning town codes with county requirements, mandating that developments with ten or more parking spaces allocate 20% for EVs, including at least one charging station. There was debate over the practical implications of these regulations, such as whether EV parking should be closer to building entrances or positioned farther away for fire safety reasons.

The meeting also addressed the necessity of signage for parking designated for families with small children, a new requirement under consideration. The board noted that while the town must not adopt regulations less strict than the county’s, there was room for interpretation regarding existing parking lots and their compliance with the new mandates.

Further discussions revolved around modifications to accessory structure regulations. The board proposed reducing the required distance between accessory buildings and the main residence from six feet to three feet. There was acknowledgment that the current regulations were inconsistent and that adjustments were necessary to accommodate unique property layouts, particularly in areas like West Lakes where lots are irregularly shaped.