The case on Pass Way revolved around property owner Brandon Tekkenberg’s request to retain and expand the existing driveway, a move necessitated by the zoning code’s prohibition of driveway access from main thoroughfares. The property lies within a Community Redevelopment District (CRDA), which heavily influences its development limitations. The board was presented with staff recommendations that supported the variance, citing safety concerns if the alleyway were to be used as the primary access point due to its narrowness and lack of circulation options.

A representative for the applicant emphasized the necessity of the variance, noting the property’s unique constraints. The discussion included the Historic Preservation Board’s input, which advised maintaining the original language of the driveway request and proposed a three-foot-wide landscaping buffer fence or wall at the property’s southern border. Nonetheless, the preservation board’s recommendations were met with resistance from Tekkenberg and his supporters, who argued these conditions could devalue the property and were impractical.

Out of 53 emails received, 36 supported the request, while 9 opposed it. Many local business owners, including those from Seahorse, Paradiso, and La Tortuga, backed Tekkenberg, stressing the economic value and practical necessity of the driveway’s retention. Concerns were also raised about the forfeiture of parking passes, with varying opinions on whether all or just two should be surrendered upon redevelopment.

The board’s deliberations were also influenced by the property’s zoning history, which saw a change in 2018 from Residential Office to CRDA, prohibiting residential construction. Despite the debate, the motion to approve the variance passed unanimously, with conditions for buffering and landscaping to mitigate potential impacts on neighboring properties.

Another notable agenda item involved a variance request for a six-foot fence at a residential property on Passagirl Way. The applicant sought relief from setback restrictions due to the property’s classification as a through lot, which requires compliance with setback rules on both frontages. The board explored the implications of the requested height for privacy and security, particularly given the presence of a pool. Public opposition centered on the potential impact on neighborhood aesthetics and safety, with suggestions to use vegetation instead of a wall. After thorough discussion, the board denied the variance request, citing insufficient evidence of practical difficulty.

The meeting also addressed a variance request from Scott and Katie Sullivan concerning their property on West Vina Delmare Boulevard. They sought approval for tie poles to secure their sailboat amidst heavy water traffic and wake concerns. The board approved this request after considering the presented safety concerns, despite neighbors’ apprehensions about property value impacts and dock usability.