A motion to approve a property variance failed to secure the majority vote needed and was recorded as denied, meeting participants said.

Speaker 1, citing advice from the county attorney, told the chair that "when we're looking at variances, the burden is on the applicant to show they've got a practical difficulty." That legal guidance framed the board's discussion of the variance request.

Speaker 2 asked for "a motion to approve this variance as requested" and a motion was made and seconded. Members voiced both "aye" and "nay" during the roll call. Speaker 2 stated, "Because we do not have a majority vote to say yes to this variance or, it's a denied variance," and the board did not adopt the requested variance. The transcript does not provide a fully clear, attributable numerical tally tied to named members; the board recorded that the majority threshold necessary to grant the variance was not met.

After the vote, Speaker 2 advised the applicant to "work with land services on the next steps for your particular project on where you're at, what's next, what you have to do," and thanked attendees for their time. Speaker 1 said staff would "chat during business hours" to follow up.

The board also approved the minutes from the previous meeting after a separate motion and vocal assent from members. Speaker 2 then moved to adjourn; the meeting was declared adjourned at 08:09PM.

Next steps: the applicant was directed to coordinate with Land Services about options and any additional materials or applications needed; no further formal actions on the variance were recorded at this meeting.