The variance request took center stage as the board scrutinized the applicant’s petition to build a pool enclosure in the side yard of the property located within an R-10 single-family zoning district. The enclosure, viewed as a separate accessory structure from the already approved pool, brought forth a detailed staff presentation by Community Development planner Malik Hall. The presentation revealed that two out of nine hardship criteria supported the applicant’s case.

Benjamin’s proposal was underscored by a petition bearing signatures from surrounding neighbors in favor of the enclosure and an assertion that the original hardship determination for the pool two years ago was believed to encompass the enclosure as well. The applicant presented evidence of the hardship, including the maintenance challenges posed by debris from nearby oak trees. However, board members probed into the reasons why the enclosure was not part of the initial variance request and the extent to which the hardship affected daily maintenance.

A notable point of contention was the difference in interpretation between the board’s understanding and the applicant’s regarding the scope of the initial approval. This discrepancy led the board to question the implications of sanctioning a non-conforming use and ponder any possible oversight in the original variance request.

Adding complexity to the discussion, a board member referenced the potential impact of new legislation requiring pool enclosures for safety reasons, which could influence the board’s decision. The applicant, in turn, highlighted the necessity for an enclosure through photographs illustrating the extent of debris accumulation in the pool.

After the public hearing segment, the debate continued among the board members, revealing a division in opinion. While some recognized the hardship caused by the debris and noted the inconsistency in allowing screen enclosures for other properties, others emphasized the importance of upholding existing ordinances and the difficulty in finding hardship against the land.

In deliberating over the variance, the board considered imposing conditions, such as height limitations and the requirement for a new boundary survey at the time of permitting. The applicant agreed to these stipulations. Despite the thorough debate, the board ultimately moved to approve the variance with specified conditions.

Parallel to the variance discussion, Mayor Ross proposed an ordinance change aimed at staggering the terms of board members to prevent simultaneous turnovers. He assured current members of their reappointment to varied term lengths. The proposed change, intended to facilitate smoother transitions, would likely only necessitate a one-time artificial adjustment to the ordinance. The board members inquired about term lengths and personal preferences for term assignments.