06:30The most notable item on the agenda was the application concerning John Daniel’s property on Terry A, where the board granted a bulk variance to construct a garage addition to the existing single-family home. The variance was necessary due to the unusual triangular shape of the lot, which is bordered by roads on three sides, leading to a proposed rear yard setback of 11 feet 3 inches, as opposed to the required 25 feet. The applicant’s architect, Mr. Gilbert, explained that the original garage had been converted into a laundry room and office due to its inadequate size, necessitating this new construction. During the discussion, Vice Chairman Gorman inquired about the previous garage, and Christine Paul, a co-owner, confirmed that it was too small for vehicle accommodation.

13:07She stated that the couple had been a positive influence in the neighborhood, and the project would not adversely affect the surrounding area. Although a letter of support from neighbors was submitted, the board emphasized the requirement for personal testimony to be considered. After closing the public comment section, the board unanimously approved the application, citing both the positive and negative criteria alongside the neighbor’s support.

13:53In contrast, the application for variances on Denver Boulevard, owned by Visa Gangula, encountered more scrutiny and was postponed for further discussion. The applicant sought variances to construct an addition and an upper level to the existing single-family home, necessitated by the narrow lot width and the positioning of the existing house. The proposed side yard setbacks of 5.42 feet, compared to the required 10 feet, and a combined side yard of 11.8 feet, instead of the required 25 feet, prompted concerns among board members.

Sam Shabba Gangula, who owns the property, explained that the existing house was too small for his family of four, lacking a garage and adequate space. He expressed his intention to build a garage and expand the living area by adding a second floor. Paul Fletcher, a professional planner, provided testimony supporting the variances, arguing that the unusual lot width created a hardship, and the proposed construction would aesthetically enhance the neighborhood by replacing a functionally obsolete home.

23:12Despite Fletcher’s assertions, board members raised concerns about the impact of a two-car garage on the side yard setbacks. One member suggested that a one-car garage might meet the setback requirements, potentially eliminating the need for variances. Additionally, concerns were raised about the practicality of maintaining the proposed structure, as the reduced setbacks could impede access for maintenance purposes, such as reaching the roof or siding.

30:14Reflecting on the necessity of the variances, some board members suggested exploring alternative design options, utilizing the depth of the lot to mitigate the impact on side yard setbacks. The board decided to reconvene on June 24, 2025, to further deliberate on the application, allowing for potential revisions to the proposal that may align better with zoning requirements.