The meeting commenced without any staff announcements or audience comments, focusing directly on the variance requests. The first case brought forward by Alex and Kelsey Fjara was a request for a 10.75 ft variance from the 20 ft rear setback for a principal structure within an RU-1-9 single-family residential zoning classification. The Fjara’s representative, Kim Rosenka, addressed the board explaining that the structure in question was a sun shade that had been added to the property. The need for a variance surfaced after it was discovered through a survey that the sun shade extended into the setback area. It was mentioned that a permit for the structure had been issued, but the survey issue was not identified at that time. The representative highlighted the existence of a privacy fence and a substantial buffer separating the property from nearby commercial zones, emphasizing that the sun shade was not visible from neighboring properties and did not have walls.

A board member questioned the permit status for the structure, confirming that the permit had indeed been granted but the setback encroachment was only later revealed. The discussion culminated with a motion to approve the variance request, noting the minimal impact it would have on the surrounding area due to its limited visibility and lack of walls. The motion was seconded and the board voted in favor, granting the Fjara’s the necessary variance.

The second and third items on the agenda were variance requests submitted by MJ Coupe LLC concerning two separate lots. The requests sought a 25 ft variance from the 125 ft lot width requirement stipulated in an RR MH-1 rural residential mobile homes zoning classification. Michael Coupe, representing MJ Coupe LLC, explained to the board that the lots in question had been zoned before 1978, resulting in their non-conforming status under current regulations. The board proceeded with the approval process, mirroring the procedure and questions posed during the first request. Both variance requests by MJ Coupe LLC were approved, allowing the company to proceed with the use of the lots that did not meet the current width requirements.