The first item addressed at the meeting was a variance request for reducing the rear setback requirement on North Miami Avenue. The property involved was constructed without a building permit, which resulted in encroachments in the rear setback area. The applicant, a retired fireman, appealed to the board for understanding, citing financial difficulties and efforts to resolve the compliance issues. During the discussion, board members weighed the applicant’s financial constraints against the regulatory criteria for granting a variance, as well as the potential impact on neighborhood stability and appearance. The board engaged in a nuanced debate, considering both legal standards and the compassionate aspects of the applicant’s situation.

In the case of the six-foot high fence and gates within 10 feet of the driveway, the variance was sought for a property located in an R6 district, a zone where the current code allows a maximum of a 2.5-foot tall fence in the specified area. The board scrutinized the variance criteria and acknowledged that the applicant met five of the six required criteria. Throughout the discussion, the board examined the presence of similar structures in neighboring multifamily properties and the potential ramifications of the variance on the surrounding area. Questions regarding the layout and features of the property were addressed by the applicant’s consultant, leading to the board’s approval of the variance request. Some members raised concerns about the builder’s potential liability and highlighted the need for public education on building regulations.

The meeting also covered a similar variance request for a different property, which sought approval for a six-foot high fence and three gates within 10 feet of a driveway. The board members referred to the previously discussed case and considered the presence of similar structures in the neighborhood. After reviewing the variance criteria and assessing the unique circumstances of the property, the board granted the variance, noting the importance of weighing the impact on the community.

Another portion of the meeting focused on a request for the installation of a fence and gates, where the applicant emphasized the necessity of the structures for personal security. The property had been subject to unauthorized access, including loitering and drug-related activities. Other residents shared similar experiences of trespassing and theft, supporting the need for additional security measures. The board members approved the variance with conditions pertaining to the design and installation to ensure it is in harmony with the area’s appearance.

Finally, the board considered the scheduling of future meetings. They decided to cancel the meeting that was initially scheduled for June due to a holiday and the availability of board members. After concluding these discussions, the board moved to adjourn the meeting.