The most notable item on the agenda was the case concerning a variance request for a property on East Seaside Drive. The applicants, Michael Rup and Amy Devito, sought permission to reduce the required accessory structure setback for a proposed pool from five feet to three feet from the property line. The applicants argued that the existing setback regulations, combined with the lot’s dimensions, made it difficult to install a pool of their desired size.

During the discussion, the chair pointed out that the applicants misunderstood the setback requirements, clarifying that the minimum setback was five feet from the rear fence. This clarification prompted further debate on the feasibility of constructing the pool within the existing regulations. The applicants noted that their neighbor’s pool was closer to the property line, influencing their decision to request a variance.

The board considered whether the applicant’s situation constituted a hardship that justified a variance, with concerns raised about whether the issue was self-imposed. The chair suggested deferring the request, allowing the applicants time to refine their proposal and consult city officials for accurate property measurements. The applicants agreed to the deferral, hoping it would clarify their options. The board unanimously voted to defer the case, instructing the applicants to engage with city representatives before the next meeting.

In another discussion, the board reviewed variance requests for a multi-family property at 214 and 218 North 7th Avenue. The applicant, represented by Matthew McCordon, sought variances for setbacks and parking due to historical non-conformities. The property owner faced challenges from previous developments predating current codes, leading to a request to reduce parking requirements from six to two spaces.

The board examined the parking situation, noting that while 214 had sufficient parking, the variance was specific to 218. The board deliberated on whether the request aligned with the city’s regulations, considering the properties’ historical context. Following their review, the board approved the variance request with conditions related to the existing structures, acknowledging the unique circumstances of the properties.

A similar theme of non-conformity continued with a case on North 5th Avenue, where the applicant sought variances for setbacks related to a renovation and addition. The property, built in 1988, lacked a garage, a zoning requirement. The applicant highlighted that the lot was undersized and the renovation aimed to update the home without demolition. The board considered the necessity of the variances. The board unanimously approved the request, agreeing that the variances were justified based on the property’s conditions.

Another topic addressed was a variance request on South 11th Avenue, Unit C, where Hunter Buchanan sought to reduce the front yard setback for a deck extension. Buchanan cited the need for more functional living space due to the substandard lot size. A neighbor expressed support, highlighting that the addition would benefit the family and the neighborhood. The board approved the variance with a condition ensuring the deck plans did not obstruct views, acknowledging the family’s needs and the lot’s constraints.

The meeting also included a variance request for a property on North 21st Street, where applicants sought relief for a side yard setback for a garage addition. The board recognized the unique placement of the home on the lot, which limited alternative options. The board approved the request, emphasizing the minimal impact on the neighborhood.