At the heart of the meeting was the contentious variance request by Robert Carden, who applied to legitimize the placement of his newly constructed, pale blue shed. The shed, adorned with two windows and two doors, was built to match the house but did not comply with the standard 20-foot setback, instead resting 15 feet from the property line. The board engaged in a thorough discussion surrounding the particulars of the property’s dimensions, the shed’s location, and its overall impact on the surrounding neighborhood.

The staff had initially recommended against the variance, noting that if the shed were relocated to the east side of the property, it would conform to the existing setback regulations. However, during the public hearing, Robert Carden made his case, detailing the thought process behind the shed’s current location, which was decided during a period when sewer lines on the property were being replaced. Carden emphasized the effort put into ensuring the shed’s aesthetic complemented the main house and did not disrupt the neighborhood’s appearance.

Board members expressed mixed opinions on the matter. While some were concerned about setting a precedent that might lead to similar requests, others showed understanding towards the homeowner’s situation. The fence was cited as a mitigating factor that helped integrate the shed into the property without diminishing the neighborhood’s character.

In a turn of events, the board voted to approve the variance, attaching a condition that the existing fence be preserved to continue providing visual shielding of the accessory structure from the street.

Aside from the variance debate, the board briefly mentioned upcoming applications slated for discussion in the next meeting. A note was made concerning the anticipated absence of a board member at the subsequent gathering. However, no further elaboration on future agenda items or additional comments from the public or the staff were recorded.