The most newsworthy discussion centered on the variance request for 823 Northeast 107 Street, where the applicants sought permission to install a fence in their front yard. The homeowners cited safety concerns, including speeding vehicles and previous thefts, one involving the loss of $30,000 worth of implants intended for hospitals, as reasons for the fence. They argued that the absence of a fence compromised the safety and enjoyment of their property, particularly with young children and pets at risk. The applicants provided security footage of trespassers to support their case, stressing, “We don’t feel safe using our front yard or even driveway.” They claimed that a fence would enhance security and allow them to use their front yard without fear.

However, the board members expressed skepticism regarding the necessity of the fence for reasonable use of the property. They debated whether the lack of a front yard fence truly deprived the applicants of reasonable use, as they still had access to the side and rear yards. One board member questioned, “Do you really need to have to go all the way out to your property line in order to have reasonable use of your property?” Another member emphasized the need for an exceptional circumstance unique to the property to justify the variance, noting that similar homes along the busy street did not have such variances.

The discussion also touched on the types of fencing proposed, which included chain link, prompting concerns about compliance with existing regulations prohibiting such fences in front yards. The board highlighted the importance of adhering to the community’s aesthetic standards and codes. One board member reflected on personal experiences, “I have a two-year-old daughter… and my wife and I have the same concern,” yet acknowledged that the neighborhood is considered one of the safest in Miami County.

Ultimately, the board decided against recommending the variance. They advised the petitioners to represent their case to the Village Commission, which would make the final decision. The petitioners were encouraged to follow up with the Village Clerk for scheduling and maintain proactive communication regarding their application.

In other discussions, the board reviewed several residential design and construction proposals. A project involving an aluminum roof at 10917 Northeast 9th Avenue received approval after previously being tabled due to documentation concerns. The board also approved front porch alterations at 11929 Northeast 6th Avenue and a tile roof on Northeast 112 Street. However, a proposal for a metal roof on Northeast 117 Street was tabled due to missing documentation, highlighting the strict architectural requirements for such roofs in the village.

The meeting also covered a driveway application where a resident expressed concern about tripping hazards from gravel surfaces. The board reiterated that parking surfaces must comply with material standards, advising the resident to submit the necessary paperwork for a permit. The board maintained a supportive stance, encouraging the resident to proceed with the application process.

The board addressed several other property applications, including roof repairs that necessitated additional structural work on a carport due to wood damage. The board decided to expedite the review process for the repairs, allowing work to proceed with the understanding that formal approval would follow at a future meeting.