The most notable decision came as the board approved a variance request submitted by Daniel Gable. Gable’s property faced zoning challenges after being administratively rezoned in 1993 from single-family medium density to a general use district, creating a hardship due to existing wetlands and dimensional limitations. The property, totaling approximately 0.35 acres, did not meet the minimum lot area or width required under the current zoning standards, which stipulate a minimum lot area of 3 acres and a width of 200 feet. Gable proposed a front yard setback of 30 feet instead of the required 50 feet, a north interior side yard setback of 15 feet where 25 feet is required, and a rear yard setback ranging from 10 feet to 25.2 feet where 50 feet is stipulated. Additionally, he sought to increase the maximum building coverage from 20% to approximately 25%.

The board’s decision to approve the variance was influenced by the unique constraints posed by the administrative zoning changes and existing wetlands on the property. The staff recommended approval, stating that these factors created a hardship, making it infeasible for Gable to develop the property in compliance with current dimensional standards. During the discussion, board members considered the character of the neighborhood and found that the proposed single-family home would align well with the existing environment. Gable expressed gratitude for the board’s decision, acknowledging the efforts he had made to address zoning compliance challenges.

In contrast, another variance request for a property on Bunker Hill Court faced denial. The applicant, Barry Halman, sought a variance to construct a 30-foot by 20-foot detached garage with a 10-foot side corner setback and a zero-foot interior sideyard setback. The staff report highlighted that the property, a corner lot measuring approximately 0.12 acres, did not present unique conditions warranting a variance. The staff recommended denial, asserting that granting the variance would not preserve the spirit of the ordinance.

Halman presented his case during the public hearing, emphasizing the need for adequate storage for his classic cars, which he uses for community outreach at local events. He described the limitations imposed by current zoning regulations and shared his difficulty in finding suitable rental storage due to fire hazard restrictions. Despite his efforts to align the proposed garage with neighborhood aesthetics and gaining neighborly support, the board struggled to identify a clear hardship justifying the requested variances. Concerns were raised regarding the potential encroachment on property setbacks and compliance with fire safety standards. The board ultimately decided not to approve the variance, citing the lack of special circumstances that would prevent compliance with existing regulations.

The meeting also addressed procedural details regarding how to handle complex variance requests, with suggestions to separate motions for clarity. The board members acknowledged the complexities of zoning regulations, particularly the challenges associated with a zero lot line and the implications of requesting a zero-foot setback on the north property line.