The most prominent issue at the Board of Adjustments meeting was the application for a variance to construct a new dock at 7.71 Chesapeake Drive. The homeowners sought approval to extend the dock length to 80 feet, which exceeded the code allowance by 32.5 feet, citing the necessity for adequate water depth to moor their watercraft. Despite staff recommendations to approve the length variance, concerns were raised about the dock’s extended length affecting neighboring properties and obstructing water access. The applicants also requested a width variance to include a second boat lift, which the staff recommended denying due to a lack of necessity. After a detailed examination and discussion, the board approved the length variance but denied the width variance, acknowledging the environmental considerations and the potential impact on neighbored docks.

The homeowner’s representative presented a letter from the homeowner, explaining the need for the variance to accommodate personal watercraft and a boat, taking into account the tidal conditions. The representative highlighted the environmentally friendly approach to the construction process, involving PVC sleeves to encase existing wood pilings. The board engaged in a debate over the potential impact on neighboring properties and navigational issues. Despite one board member’s inclination to assist homeowners in utilizing their waterfront properties, the board’s decision ultimately rested on the criteria for granting variances and the concerns about the second boat lift’s necessity and the proposed dock’s positioning.

Another issue discussed was a request for a variance to allow a six-foot fence in the front yard of a property. The current code permits only a four-foot tall fence, but the homeowner argued that the existing six-foot fence provided necessary privacy for the large windows of the home, which featured a unique design. The board considered letters of support and opposition from the community, acknowledging the homeowner’s desire for privacy and the fence’s aesthetic compatibility with the home’s design. After deliberation, the board approved the variance for the six-foot tall fence.

The issue of a visibility triangle on Chesapeake Drive was also addressed, with the homeowner seeking a variance for the installation of a fence. The homeowner stressed the need for privacy and security, given the property’s location on an active road and the presence of glass walls. The board heard public comments both in favor and against the application, which discussed the property’s historical significance, architectural integrity, and the potential impact on the character of the neighborhood.

Public input included a statement of support for the fence variance, emphasizing the protection it would offer against traffic. However, Tina Hinton, a member of the public, voiced strong opposition, citing concerns about compliance with the five requirements for variance approval, aesthetic impact, safety, and security issues. Hinton also brought to light a potential violation of city regulations concerning the rental of a second-floor garage apartment.

Board members considered whether the property met the conditions for variance approval, including the reasonable use of the property and the necessity of the fence for privacy and security. They also discussed the historical value and the need for the fence design to be consistent with existing structures. After a thorough debate, the board moved to approve the application with conditions recommended by the Town Planning Board. The vote concluded with unanimous approval of the application.