A significant portion of the meeting was devoted to the variance application for a pool at 11619 Northeast 6 Avenue. The application, with a complex history of denials dating back to November 2022, requested relief from setback requirements. The board noted that despite modifications to the pool’s proposed placement, it remained within the side front setback, prompting the current review.

The absence of the applicants at the meeting was highlighted, as board members expressed that their presence could have provided clarity on their request. The application lacked detailed dimensions, creating confusion about the exact relief requested. Despite this absence, the board discussed the merits of the application based on its recorded history and existing documentation. One board member acknowledged special circumstances on the property, such as a driveway, septic tank, and drain field, which purportedly limited the pool’s placement options. However, another member argued that the property, measuring 21,000 square feet—substantially larger than typical lots in the area—had ample space for a pool without requiring a variance.

The board deliberated on whether the variance was necessary to preserve the applicant’s substantial property rights. The applicants contended that storm damage had rendered their outdoor recreation area unusable, making the pool essential for property enjoyment. However, the board determined that alternative locations were available that would comply with setback regulations.

Concerns were also raised regarding potential impacts on public welfare or neighboring properties. Some members believed the pool’s distance from neighboring houses and shielding by tall hedges mitigated any negative effects. Nonetheless, the board concluded that the application did not meet key variance criteria. It was noted that points one, two, and four of the variance requirements were unmet, leading to a decision not to recommend the variance application to the Village commission.

The board emphasized the need for clearer application procedures. This discussion highlighted ongoing challenges in balancing property owner desires with community regulations.

Another notable topic was the proposal to convert a detached garage at 11948 Northeast 9th Avenue into living spaces. The board scrutinized the plans, focusing on whether the intended use complied with zoning codes prohibiting dwellings within accessory structures. The builder clarified that the space was intended for the owner, who works from home, and not for separate habitation. To ensure compliance, the board suggested labeling the space as an office or playroom and possibly connecting it to the main building. This item was tabled pending further clarification on the intended use and necessary adjustments to the plans.

Discussion also centered on a demolition project at 11501 Northeast 10th Avenue. The board explored issues related to splitting the property and adhering to setback requirements. They stressed the importance of clear future construction intent to avoid creating non-conforming structures.

The board also reviewed a new construction project on Northeast 119th Street. The proposal aimed to adhere to elevation and building restrictions, but concerns arose over potential overages in lot coverage. Representatives were urged to adjust their plans to comply with limitations, including accounting for non-pervious surfaces. The board emphasized the importance of integrating varied architectural elements to prevent a monolithic appearance.

The meeting concluded with procedural matters and the approval of several fence installations, including an aluminum fence at 11308 Northeast 9th Avenue.