During a recent government meeting, council members deliberated on a significant variance request concerning a property located at 16 Davis Boulevard. The discussion centered around the decision made by the Variance Review Board (VRB), which had previously approved the variance.

Council members were presented with four options regarding the VRB's decision: affirm the approval, affirm with additional conditions, remand the matter back to the VRB for further proceedings, or overturn the decision. The legal framework for these options was outlined, emphasizing the necessity for all five variance criteria to be met for approval.

Council member Hertz, drawing on her experience with the VRB, moved to overturn the approval, citing a lack of competent and substantial evidence of hardship as required by the code. She argued that the property owner had purchased the property knowing it lacked a garage and was situated in a FEMA flood zone, thus creating a self-imposed hardship. Hertz also raised concerns that granting the variance could potentially interfere with the health, safety, or welfare of neighboring properties.

The motion to overturn the VRB's approval was seconded by council member Miranda and ultimately passed unanimously, with one member absent. Following the vote, the council took a brief recess before continuing with the meeting. This decision underscores the council's commitment to adhering to established codes and ensuring that variances are granted only when justified by substantial evidence.