The most notable request came from a property in the A1 zoning district, where the applicant sought a setback reduction to construct a single-family dwelling. This construction would encroach 40 feet into the front yard setback and 25 feet into the rear yard setback. Furthermore, the conversion of an existing home on the property into an accessory dwelling unit led to a proposed 40% impervious surface coverage ratio, surpassing the maximum of 30%. The property’s adjacency to the Seminole Trail was a point of discussion, as the board considered the environmental impact and the need to maintain the area’s integrity.

During the meeting, the board also approved a side yard setback variance for a single-family dwelling in the R1 single-family dwelling district. Applicant Patricia Tanner highlighted her experience in developing homes with similar lot sizes in the area. Neighboring resident Terence Ingram raised concerns about the proposed building’s proximity and lot size, which led to a discussion about potential zoning requirement adjustments for the Midway subdivision.

Amanda Ban’s request for a side street West setback variance for a privacy fence in the R1A single-family dwelling district was also granted. Ban had purchased her home under the impression that fence installation was permissible, and she was seeking to rectify the situation. The board took into account the fence’s placement relative to neighboring properties and the support Ban received from surrounding neighbors.

Another request involving a privacy fence was from an applicant who needed a safe play area for their visiting nieces and nephews, as well as their dog. The board asked questions regarding the recommendation they had received and the specific distance from the sidewalk. Despite there already being a fence in place, albeit unpermitted, the board approved the request.

The meeting continued with the approval of a side yard setback variance for a boat dock. The agent representing the property owner intended to adjust the dock’s location to be compliant with the property line and meet code regulations. The board explored the possibility of moving the dock further east but acknowledged the challenges presented by the water depth and limestone shelf.

A request for a side street setback variance for a privacy fence was also approved. The applicant, expecting twins, needed the extra space to ensure the safety of their children and dog. The board was informed that the neighbor, who was the applicant’s brother-in-law, supported the project.

Another variance request for a front yard setback for an accessory structure received the board’s approval. The applicant clarified that the proposed building, facing the northern part of their front yard, was for personal use. The board inquired about a previous shed on the property and learned that the neighbor, also the applicant’s brother-in-law, was in support.

A variance request for a side street setback variance for a privacy fence was delayed due to the applicant’s absence. The board decided to move this item to the end of the agenda to revisit later.

The meeting also addressed three variance requests for a property in the Silven Lake subdivision. The board examined the specific setback reductions and impervious surface coverage increase without reaching a final decision.

The board deliberated on a variance request for 1461 Pelican Bay Trail, which aimed to reduce the East Side and rear yard setbacks for a 646 sq ft addition to an existing house. Eric Shonberg, the applicant, confirmed that the affected neighbor was supportive, leading to the board’s approval. Similarly, a variance request for 6625 be Lake Terrace for a front yard setback reduction for a privacy fence was approved. Charles Johnson, the applicant, stated the fence would provide security and a play area for his daughter.

A side street setback reduction for a privacy fence on Millstone Drive was also granted. The applicant’s proposal was similar to a previously approved variance across the street, which the board took into consideration to maintain consistency in their decisions.

Lastly, the board decided to continue the variance request for a property on Clover Lane to the next meeting. The applicant aimed to reduce the side street East setback to zero for a privacy fence. Board members expressed reservations about the zero setback, and further consideration was deemed necessary.