The most pressing topic of the meeting revolved around the case labeled BOA 26-100031, concerning a property on South 6th Avenue. The applicant, Dakota Briggs, sought approval for a wooden deck constructed without a permit, positioned within half a foot of the rear property line, violating the regulatory requirement of a two-foot setback. Additionally, the deck’s construction resulted in a lot coverage of 47%, surpassing the 35% maximum allowed by city regulations. Briggs explained his unawareness of the permitting requirements, stating, “I didn’t realize that we needed a permit for a deck around the pool.”

Board members scrutinized the applicant on his familiarity with the provided documentation and staff recommendations, which advocated against the request on the grounds that it did not meet the minimum reasonable use of the property. The staff highlighted that even with existing variances, the property could accommodate necessary structures within the updated land development code guidelines. Briggs admitted to not having reviewed the documents and did not supplement his initial presentation with additional statements.

The board further examined the self-imposed nature of the nonconforming lot condition, attributed to the applicant’s decision to subdivide previously combined parcels. Briggs clarified, “We bought it as one re number. Yes, sir. There was no structure to tear down. It’s a vacant lot.” Despite constructing the house, the subsequent deck addition lacked proper permits due to a misunderstanding of the requirements.

In their deliberations, board members expressed concerns over the applicant’s claim of hardship, pointing out that the lot was not undersized, as it measured 5,000 square feet compared to the standard 6,000 square feet outlined in the code. This raised doubts about the legitimacy of the claimed hardship, with one board member emphasizing its self-imposed nature. The board ultimately denied the variance request following a unanimous roll call vote.

The meeting then shifted to case BOA 26-100032, concerning a property on South 6th Avenue. This case also involved a variance request for accessory structure setbacks and lot coverage percentages. However, the board suggested the applicant might want to defer their case to verify information with the city, given discrepancies in the existing variance that permitted 52% lot coverage in an area requiring only 35%.

The board discussed the required distance for a deck from the property line, clarifying that decks must be five feet away, while walkways could be as close as two feet. Briggs contended that the deck should be considered a walkway around the pool, but the board leaned towards interpreting it as a full deck rather than a mere path.

Although the public hearing was opened for this case, no speaker cards were submitted, leading to a brief discussion among board members. A motion was proposed to approve the variance based solely on the setback issue, excluding the lot coverage request. This amendment aimed to simplify matters for the applicant, given the already approved variance. Yet, the board unanimously voted against the amended motion, denying the request.