The most notable topic of discussion centered on a variance request for a property on Harbor Drive. The applicant sought a variance to encroach an additional 3.5 feet into the rear yard setback, citing the need for an egress landing and elevated walkway due to elevation requirements above the base flood elevation. The city’s planner, Joe Petraglia, provided a detailed staff report recommending denial of the request. He explained that the property was already legally non-conforming and that the proposed variance would further perpetuate this non-conformity, contrary to the city’s land development regulations.

Petraglia emphasized that the variance did not meet the necessary criteria, such as the existence of special conditions unique to the property or the absence of self-created hardship. He pointed out that similar structures in the city complied with current zoning laws. The applicant argued that the existing structure necessitated the variance due to its pre-zoning law construction and that financial considerations justified the request. However, Petraglia countered, noting that financial hardship alone does not merit a variance and that the zoning laws aimed to maintain compliance across properties.

The applicant, Dave Hudson, presented his case with evidence, including a visual presentation and emails with city representatives. He expressed frustration over communication issues with the city, particularly regarding a new software system that had delayed his permit application. Hudson argued that raising his house was both a safety and financial necessity, stating that elevating the structure would cost less than rebuilding. However, the city’s attorney pointed out alternatives that could minimize the need for a variance, such as adjusting the width of the landing or moving the house forward.

The magistrate ultimately denied the variance request, emphasizing adherence to zoning regulations and the lack of demonstrated hardship.

Following the variance discussion, the meeting addressed code violations related to electrical work at properties owned by Aurora Investment Group LLC and RM Capital Group LLC. The violations involved unauthorized overhead electrical installations, contrary to city ordinances requiring utility facilities to be underground. The city documented the non-compliance with photographic evidence and issued a series of notices to the property owners. Despite these efforts, the properties remained non-compliant, prompting further action.

Mr. Ling, representing RM Capital Group, acknowledged the violations and requested more time to address them. He explained that financial constraints and delays in receiving insurance funds had stalled compliance efforts. Ling insisted that the violations were unintentional, attributing them to a lack of awareness of the city’s specific requirements. The magistrate granted an extension of 60 days for compliance, emphasizing the importance of adhering to electrical work regulations for safety reasons. Failure to comply within the timeframe would result in a daily fine.