At the heart of the meeting was Dellinger’s request to construct a 435 square-foot screen enclosure with a solid roof, seeking a four-foot reduction in the required rear yard setback. The property, situated within the R-100 single-family residential zoning district, already meets the 30-foot setback requirement, thus necessitating the variance for the proposed construction. The applicant stressed the importance of a solid roof for providing adequate shade and accommodating outdoor entertainment, emphasizing that alternative designs suggested by city staff would restrict access to the rear yard and disrupt existing landscaping.

During the presentation, Dellinger detailed the property’s condition and his efforts to renovate it from its original 1980s state. He highlighted the necessity of replacing a deteriorated deck with a more durable structure, while maintaining the green space and visual character of the neighborhood. Dellinger expressed frustration with the lengthy process of securing financing and coordinating the project, compounded by recent hurricanes, and praised city staff for their responsiveness and assistance.

The discussion extended into the specifics of the proposed roof structure, which would utilize metal and foam panels rather than solid wood, resembling typical screened-in porch roofs. Board members sought clarification on the design details, including the foundation and materials, and the implications of these choices on zoning regulations. The conversation touched on the installation of exterior outlets and the placement of electronics, such as a television and refrigerator, which would be mounted on the house side wall.

A crucial aspect of the deliberation was the interpretation of zoning rules concerning solid versus open screen structures. City staff explained that a solid roof triggers the application of standard zoning district setbacks, unlike open screen enclosures that may qualify for reduced setbacks. This distinction was pivotal in evaluating the variance.

As the discussion progressed, the board examined setback requirements for structures like swimming pools, noting that pools must be positioned five feet from the rear property line, with different measurements applied to the sides. The staff emphasized that any solid roofing or covering is subject to the same regulations as other structures, unless existing footprints influence the decision. Despite extensive deliberation, no public objections or support were submitted regarding the project, and no public attendees were present.

Beyond the variance discussion, the meeting addressed future procedural matters, including the scheduling of the next meeting on December 18, where one application is already slated for consideration. The completion of the comprehensive plan, accepted by the state, was acknowledged as a milestone in local governance. The board expressed gratitude toward a departing member for their years of service, and appreciation was extended to staff for their diligent explanation of the variance and zoning regulations.