One item at the meeting was undoubtedly the debate over the variance request for a property on Chesapeake Drive, where the applicants sought to reduce side yard setbacks to construct a new single-family home. The property, situated in the non-conforming R-100 single-family residential district, was platted in 1925, resulting in dimensions that do not align with current zoning laws. Seeking a reduction from ten feet to eight feet for side yard setbacks, the applicants aimed for a total side yard of 16 feet, which staff noted was less non-conforming than the existing structure.

A point of contention arose when Craig Lund, the owner of the adjacent property, raised concerns regarding the property line as delineated in the applicant’s survey. Lund suggested that the survey results were under dispute, potentially affecting the board’s deliberation. He stated, “These blocks are outside,” referring to conflicting survey results that could impact the variance request. The board considered the implications of these discrepancies, understanding that they could affect the proximity of the proposed home to Lund’s property.

The city attorney addressed these concerns by emphasizing that any errors in property line determinations could ultimately be resolved in court. The attorney explained that the variance approval would be based on the competent and substantial evidence presented. If the survey turned out to be incorrect, the applicant might need to return for further approvals. This clarification highlighted the legal complexities that sometimes accompany property development and zoning decisions.

The applicant responded by assuring the board of the survey’s accuracy, having hired a reputable company that conducted multiple surveys to ensure precision. They expressed willingness to adjust plans, including reducing the size of the proposed structure, to accommodate any necessary changes. This flexibility was reiterated with, “If that means we make it smaller, whatever we need to do to make it work,” indicating their intention to maintain good relations with neighbors and adhere to zoning requirements.

The board, after a thorough discussion, voted unanimously to approve the variance request, concluding that the application met the necessary requirements based on the evidence provided.

In another significant agenda item, the board considered a variance request for a property on North Rose Avenue, where applicants sought to construct a 600 square foot detached garage with an accessory dwelling unit (ADU). The proposal included reducing the required rear yard setback from 20 feet to five feet. The property, located in a historic district, had already received a certificate of appropriateness from the Heritage Preservation Board.

The city’s interim planning director, Ali Keen, explained that while the Land Development Code allows for reduced setbacks for detached garages under 300 square feet, the proposed garage exceeded this size, necessitating a variance. Board members engaged in a detailed examination of the proposal, seeking clarification on distinctions between an ADU and a detached garage and the implications for the neighborhood. Questions also focused on the square footage calculations and whether additional variances might be needed if the structure exceeded the 600 square foot limit.

The board approved the five-foot rear setback variance with the condition that the footprint would not exceed 600 square feet.

Finally, the board addressed a variance request from 1514 Riverside Drive, where applicants aimed to enclose an existing second-story deck. The property, also non-conforming due to its 1925 platting, required a variance to meet side yard setback requirements. Without any objections from neighbors and considering the property’s constraints, the board approved the request unanimously.