The case presented by homeowner S Khan centered around a request to construct a pool on Brentwood Avenue, which led to a broader discussion about the city’s role in contributing to drainage problems on the property. The homeowner, faced with flooding due to city inaction, argued that the hardship imposed by the city’s drainage issues warranted a variance to build a larger pool. However, the board members exhibited reservations, questioning whether the situation indeed met the criteria for hardship and suggesting that the city council might offer a more appropriate avenue for addressing the drainage challenges.

They urged the Board to consider the family’s needs, including sufficient driveway space to accommodate multiple cars. In response to the concerns raised, the City Planner clarified that the standard practice was to present only one option at a time to avoid confusion, but the Board underscored the importance of flexibility and thorough consideration of the homeowner’s proposals.

The debate extended to the very definition of hardship, with some board members skeptical that the property owner’s situation qualified, while others contended that the city-created drainage problem constituted a legitimate hardship. The discussion oscillated between the feasibility of the homeowner’s options and the city’s responsibility to address the underlying issues that were impeding the property’s reasonable use.

A board member recused themselves from the case due to prior discussions with the homeowner. Despite these concessions, the proposal’s viability remained a point of contention, with the Board members requesting further clarification on the drainage issue and the practicality of the proposed pool size.

The City Attorney emphasized the necessity of due diligence, urging the Board to thoroughly research the implications of the variance request before making a decision. Questions arose over the legality of parking on the street and the city staff’s need to review the homeowner’s options, particularly in relation to resolving the drainage problem before pool construction could proceed.

As the Board weighed the various inputs, comparisons were drawn to the precision required in designing bridges, highlighting the need for careful consideration of the homeowner’s situation from multiple perspectives.

With terms of some board members nearing expiration and the need for reapplication, the meeting also touched upon administrative matters, such as scheduling the next meeting date. The meeting concluded with a motion to adjourn, punctuated by lighthearted objections.