In a recent government meeting, the Board of Appeals addressed two significant applications concerning property variances, ultimately deciding to deny one and deliberate on the other.

The first application involved a request for a variance related to a property line setback. A board member expressed that strict adherence to the 10-foot setback requirement was not unreasonable, suggesting that alternatives could be explored to comply with the regulations. The board voted unanimously to deny the application, indicating a consensus on maintaining the existing zoning laws.

The second application was presented by Jake and Melanie Nelson, who sought a variance to install a deck at their home located at 99 East 34th Street. The couple requested permission to build their deck just one foot from the side property line, where a 3.5-foot setback is mandated. They argued that the narrowness of their property and the existing fence created an unnecessary gap that would render a portion of their deck unusable and pose safety hazards due to a significant drop-off.

During the discussion, the Nelsons explained that the house was built 13 feet from the property line, leaving limited space for the deck. They emphasized that extending the deck to the fence line would not negatively impact their neighbors, as the fence provided privacy and blocked any potential disputes. The couple also noted that the deck was constructed last year, and they had assumed their property line extended to the fence based on previous ownership.

Board members raised concerns about safety and access, particularly regarding fire hazards and the need for adequate space to maneuver in emergencies. The discussion highlighted the complexities of zoning regulations and the challenges homeowners face when navigating property lines and setbacks.

As the meeting concluded, the board acknowledged the unique circumstances surrounding the Nelsons' request but did not reach a decision on the variance, indicating that further deliberation would be necessary. The outcome of this application remains pending, reflecting the ongoing balancing act between individual property rights and community regulations.