Text · page 5 of 6
Area Variance Balancing Test (5 factors): 1. Neighborhood character/detriment: No; enhances curb appeal; consistent with neighborhood features. 2. Feasible alternatives: Realistic alternatives limited due to existing porch footprint; covering it is practical. 3. Substantiality: Not substantial; minor setback reduction; roof over existing porch. 4. Adverse physical/environmental impacts: None; improves safety/usability; no drainage or sightline issues noted. 5. Self-created difficulty: Yes, but not determinative. 2026-034 — 304 East and West Road (Contractor: John Keem III for homeowner) — Pool Deck Separation Variance (Area) • Request: Reduce required 10-ft separation between existing deck/patio and above-ground pool deck to 0 ft, integrating a new ~350 sq ft pool deck between existing deck and pool for direct access. • Neighbor letters: 310 East and West, 300 East and West. • County referral: Letter dated 2026-07-07 — local concern, no recommendation. • Code Enforcement: Requires self-closing, self-latching gate at separation point; applicant confirmed compliance. • Town Attorney: No comment. • Public Comment: None. Motion: • Approve variance as requested. • Motion: Bedient • Second: Lang • Vote: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0 Area Variance Balancing Test (5 factors): 1. Neighborhood character/detriment: No; typical pool/deck configuration; minimal external impact. 2. Feasible alternatives: Alternatives (no deck or different side) reduce functionality; requested design streamlines safe access. 3. Substantiality: Numerically substantial (10 ft to 0 ft), but contextually not substantial due to design purpose, safety gate, and negligible neighborhood impact. 4. Adverse physical/environmental impacts: None unique; deck placement around above- ground pool comparable to customary layouts. 5. Self-created difficulty: Yes, but not determinative.