At the forefront of the meeting, the Board tackled the issue of granting variances for the installation of artificial turf in two properties on Andrea Street. Despite staff analysis recommending denial based on the absence of hardship preventing natural landscaping, the applicant defended the use of permeable turf, providing detailed product information. Addressing the board’s queries about the properties and homeowners’ association’s role, the applicant urged a collective consideration for both properties. Subsequently, the board approved the variances contingent on the provision of the turf’s permeability specifications to the city.

In another significant matter, the Board approved a variance to reduce the rear setback for a room addition, as explained by the homeowner. This decision was based on alignment with the existing setback and neighboring properties’ setbacks.

The meeting also saw the approval of a variance request for a pool enclosure with a side yard setback less than the mandated 10 feet. Initially, an 8.8-foot setback was suggested, but further deliberation led to the elimination of the setback to fit the pool enclosure on the existing decking, with the condition that the pool deck’s encroachment onto the neighboring property be resolved.

Public comments were a part of the meeting, giving residents a platform to express their views on various variance requests. Concerns about the impact of proposed developments on the surroundings were common, including potential privacy issues, flooding, and environmental preservation. One resident, Evelyn Levy, highlighted a lack of information regarding the height of buildings, while others like Charles Bruny Jr. stressed protecting natural environments and wildlife habitats.

A more debate arose over a variance request to eliminate the required 20-foot landscape yard for a property in a high-density zoning district. The staff recommended denial, emphasizing that compliance with existing code requirements was feasible through low impact development practices. In contrast, the applicant’s representative expressed surprise at the city’s stance. Questions from the Board addressed existing stormwater facilities and the possibility of adding screening between the development and adjacent properties.

The Board’s approach to a variance application related to low-impact development practices mirrored this analytical and careful treatment. Residents, including Christopher Childs and Kim Fischer, voiced concerns about stormwater management and requested a deferment for additional information. The applicant’s representative and a developer mentioned the constraints of the airport height obstruction zone and landscape buffer requirements. After much discussion, the Board decided to table the decision until the next meeting, recognizing the discrepancies between the staff report and the applicant’s claims and the need for further clarity.