The most discussion revolved around the request from Advanced Awning and Design LLC for a variance to install a shade canopy at the Mission House. The applicant, Martin Priny, sought permission to extend the canopy to the existing fence line. This proposal aimed to enhance the facility without obstructing visibility or pedestrian pathways. Concerns were raised by board members and local residents about the potential impact on sightlines for drivers and accessibility for pedestrians. Priny assured the Board that the new fence and canopy would not interfere with visibility, explaining that the fence would be replaced at its current location, with modifications to height and aesthetics. The canopy would be supported by square aluminum posts approximately 9 feet high, while the fence would remain 6 feet high.

During the public hearing, residents Christopher Brown and Alen Winner expressed concerns about the canopy’s potential to obstruct pedestrian pathways and create safety risks, especially if it extended over the sidewalk. They requested further clarification on the awning’s positioning. In response, Priny clarified that the canopy would not extend beyond the existing fence line and emphasized the Mission House’s operational protocols, which limit canopy use to business hours to prevent loitering or security issues after hours. The Board unanimously approved an amendment to restrict the awning’s extension to the current fence line, followed by a unanimous vote to approve the original motion.

The Board also considered a variance request for a property on South Street. The applicant sought to exceed the maximum lot coverage for constructing a single-family dwelling, proposing 48.2% coverage to include a new paper driveway, walkways, and a small sitting area. The existing structure already exceeded 80% coverage, not complying with current setback requirements. The applicant confirmed that the area around the pool would include turf. After discussing the variance’s alignment with local regulations, and with no opposition during the public hearing, the Board approved the request, noting it would bring the lot closer to compliance.

Another case focused on a front addition to a single-family dwelling on South 15th Avenue. The homeowners proposed extending their home by approximately 10 feet to accommodate family needs, stating the current garage was inadequate for parking. They assured the Board that the addition would not alter the roofline profile and secured letters of support from three neighbors. The Board, finding no opposition during the public hearing, unanimously approved the variance, considering the minimal impact and substandard nature of the lot.

The final major discussion involved a variance request for constructing a pool and patio on Quana Boulevard. The applicant plans for a modest pool on a nonconforming lot, maintaining adherence to existing setbacks. Clarifications were provided regarding the side yard setbacks, referring to the property line rather than the structure’s edge. With no public opposition, the Board approved the variance, acknowledging the lot’s size and the modest nature of the request.