The most contentious application came from Ryder James Wharton and Kelsey Lee Shepard, who sought a variance for a detached building intended for hobby and storage purposes. The proposed structure, measuring approximately 2,600 square feet, sparked considerable opposition from neighbors. Residents expressed fears that the building would disrupt the neighborhood’s aesthetic and environmental balance. Anthony Russell, a nearby resident, criticized the size and height of the proposed structure. He raised concerns about potential environmental impacts and alleged that Wharton may be operating an unlicensed business from his residential properties. The president of the Evergreen Community Association, John Myers, echoed these sentiments, emphasizing potential flooding issues and the presence of local wildlife that could be affected by the construction.

Additional residents, including Sharon Kriger and Sylvia Balsam, voiced strong resistance, arguing that the structure could set a dangerous precedent for future developments and detract from the community’s character. They highlighted concerns about the building’s visibility and potential effects on property values. Travis Johnson, another neighbor, reiterated these apprehensions.

Despite the vocal opposition, some attendees spoke in favor of the application. Supporters defended Wharton’s character and intentions. They pointed out that other homes in the area already featured similar or larger standalone buildings, arguing that the proposed structure was not out of place. Wharton’s mother also spoke, describing his hobbies and insisting that the project was misunderstood by the community.

Throughout the discussion, the board members engaged in questioning to clarify details of the application, including the building’s height and purpose. In response to concerns about commercial activity, Wharton assured the board that the structure would be used solely for personal projects and hobbies.

A motion was made to deny the variance, citing its potential to conflict with existing homeowners association rules and the perceived oversized nature of the proposal. Additionally, drainage concerns were noted, given the area’s reliance on well water and the potential for increased flooding.

Turning to another variance request, Kenny and Evelyn Hernandez sought approval for a pool project at their residence. The board scrutinized the specifics of the requested variances, particularly the proposed setback for the pool screen enclosure. However, the board emphasized the necessity of securing homeowners association approval and ensuring compliance with fire safety regulations. Ultimately, the board decided to table the application for 60 days, allowing Mr. Hernandez to address outstanding issues with his contractors and association.

Other applications reviewed during the meeting included variances for docks, garages, and carports. In each case, the board assessed the applicants’ adherence to zoning criteria and the impact on surrounding properties. Notably, the board approved a variance for Robert Lawson’s dock, which extended one foot beyond permitted limits, after confirming that similar structures existed in the vicinity.