10/06/2025 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

S R` it could be reused or expanded. The director reiterated that the board's role was not to weigh hardship but to decide whether the building commissioner's order lacked factual basis or was arbitrary and capricious—defined as being made without reasonable grounds or consideration of circumstances. A question was raised about whether the gravel area would be compliant if paved; staff confirmed it exceeded the allowable 18-by-20-foot size limit and was therefore nonconforming. A resident added comments about street safety and neighborhood driveway conditions,though the board noted those concerns were outside the appeal's scope. Ms.Moran added that she maintained a dirt mound and could install barriers to control the gravel, arguing that the area was functional and safe for her family.After discussion concluded, the board prepared to vote on whether to uphold or reverse the building commissioner's decision. Mr.Mackey made a motion to uphold the building commissioners decision; seconded by Ms. Galateanu. Motion Passed:4-0 325-2025; Bronwen &Anthony Huron; 27475 Benwood Cir. The board reviewed a request from Bronwyn and Anthony Huron of 27475 Benwood Circle for two variances to allow placement of a 12 by 16 foot duck shelter closer to their home. The first variance sought a 105-foot reduction in required distance from an adjacent dwelling(from 200 feet to 95 feet), and the second a 26-foot reduction from the front lot line (from 200 feet to 174 feet). The applicants explained that their.88-acre property qualifies for farm animals under city code and that they wished to keep five Welsh Harlequin ducks as pets for eggs and family enjoyment. They argued that ducks are similar to chickens—already allowed under a 45-foot setback—and better suited to local weather. They described their planned coop location near the home to maintain safety, cleanliness, and accessibility, citing the wooded rear lot and drainage ditch as impractical for placement. A neighbor expressed concern about potential egg sales,property upkeep, and whether allowing ducks could set precedent for other animals.The applicants assured the board they had no commercial intent and that all eggs would be for personal use or shared with neighbors. The Building Department clarified that ducks are regulated under 505.19,not the chicken ordinance, and must meet the 200-foot standard unless a variance is granted. • Board members asked about proximity to power lines,predator protection, and containment.The applicants detailed plans for a secure fenced"run"using reinforced wire and coverings to protect the ducks from coyotes,foxes, and owls.Another resident, sworn in,voiced concerns about general property maintenance and neighborhood appearance. Staff confirmed there is no code limit on the number of ducks permitted and explained that females lay unfertilized eggs without a male present.After discussion,the board acknowledged 2 4