One notable issues addressed was the case involving a 917 square foot elevated accessory structure that had been constructed without permits on a property zoned as a resource corridor. The applicant sought five variances, including significant reductions in required setbacks, to bring the structure into compliance. The commission was presented with a complex history of the structure, with claims that it was a repair of a non-conforming fishing shack damaged by Hurricane Irma. The applicant’s representative argued for the variances by highlighting the historical use of the structure and the owner’s compliance efforts, but staff recommended denial due to failure to meet the necessary criteria for variance approval.

Another notable topic was the variance request for a solar array installed without permits. The applicants explained that they were misled by the solar company, assuming permits had been obtained. The commission reviewed the request for a reduction in the front yard setback, emphasizing the need for compliance with local codes. While some members expressed concern about the array’s visibility from the road, others appreciated the aesthetic placement and efforts to meet regulatory standards. Ultimately, the commission approved the variance, acknowledging the applicants’ steps toward compliance and the necessity of the solar installation for emergency power.

The meeting also involved discussions on a variance request for a kennel, where concerns about unpermitted structures overlapped with allegations of unauthorized dog breeding on the property. While the commission focused on the structural variances, the implications of potential breeding violations were acknowledged as a separate issue for code enforcement to address. The commission approved the variance related to the kennel structure, emphasizing that any breeding concerns would need to be handled through appropriate channels.

In addition to these cases, the commission touched upon the financial aspects of serving on the board. The topic of the stipend for commission members was revisited, with members debating whether adjustments were necessary to accommodate increased travel and site visit expenses. While some members were content with the current stipend, others highlighted the rising costs of fulfilling their roles. Consensus emerged to table any changes until further consultation with appointing commissioners and during the budget planning period.