The Beoms’ variance application, which sought permission to maintain a dock and boat lift that extended over the property line into the waterway, sparked debate. Letters of support from neighboring property owners were submitted. However, Mr. Guthrie opposed the application, arguing that the variance would restrict his ability to navigate his boat due to his physical limitations, including a disability and multiple back surgeries. He claimed the variance would reduce his navigational space to only 25 feet, hindering his ability to safely maneuver his boat, which measures 22 feet plus an additional two feet for an outboard motor.

Mr. Guthrie’s opposition was based on his assertion that the Beoms had moved his fence without permission and built a seawall on his property. He further alleged that the proposed variance would negatively affect his property value and violate building regulations designed to protect property owners. The board listened to testimonies from both parties, with Mr. Guthrie emphasizing that the Beoms’ dock modifications encroached on his property rights and posed a navigational hazard.

A significant portion of the meeting involved the presentation of measurements and the use of visual aids. Mr. Beom, representing the Beoms, claimed the distance between the pilings was 42 feet, contradicting Mr. Guthrie’s assertion of a 25-foot clearance. This discrepancy in measurements was a focal point of the debate, highlighting the complex nature of the property lines and navigational space.

Board members raised questions about the implications of approving the variance, considering the potential for future conflicts and the precedent it might set for similar cases. Despite these concerns, a motion to approve the variance was made and seconded, with the board ultimately voting in favor of the Beoms’ request by a majority. One board member dissented, citing potential harm to the area and public welfare as their reason for opposing the variance.

The Beoms’ case was not the only matter of interest during the meeting. Another variance application by the Vieira Company sought to allow all motel units to contain kitchen facilities, exceeding the typical 25% limit. The board engaged with the applicant, Hassan Kamal, who represented BSE Consultants. Kamal presented a market analysis supporting the need for extended-stay accommodations in the area and emphasized the strategic location of the proposed Residence Inn on Town Center Drive. The board acknowledged the existing demand for such facilities and the potential benefits to the community.

The board also considered a variance request by William Simon, who faced challenges with existing property encroachments discovered during a permit application for a dock. Simon explained that the structures were present when he purchased the property and stressed the necessity of the shed for protecting his tools and equipment. The board, after reviewing Simon’s request and considering the lack of public opposition, approved the variance unanimously.