Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pool Variance Cypress Point topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board defers decision on Cypress Point pool variance after safety, easement and design concerns
Summary
A variance request to place a pool at the rear property line of 108 Cypress Point was deferred to allow the applicant and Sea Island representatives to study alternatives after discussion about a revocable license, safety and design changes. Staff had recommended conditional approval contingent on a landscape agreement with Sea Island Company.
The Glynn County Board of Appeals deferred action on a variance request to install a pool at 108 Cypress Point on St. Simons Island so the applicant can work with staff and Sea Island representatives on alternatives to reduce encroachment and address safety concerns.
Planning staff Niecy Carroll presented ZV25‑2 (parcel 04‑05963) and said staff recommended approval contingent upon a landscape agreement between the applicant and Sea Island Company. The application sought relief to allow the proposed pool to be sited at or adjacent to the property line; staff materials and site plans showed the proposed pool edge at or within one foot of the adjacent Sea Island‑owned land in places.
Applicant Wendy R. Byrd told the board the yard appeared large when the house was purchased, but a recent survey showed a portion of the rear area belongs to Sea Island. Byrd said Sea Island has been cooperative and had offered a license allowing the pool to be placed adjacent to Sea Island land. Landscape architect Rachel Strickland (Sea Island) confirmed that the arrangement being discussed is a revocable license rather than a deeded easement.
Board members and building‑department staff raised safety and precedent concerns. John Farnsworth said code‑compliant pool fences can be mounted on pool coping and noted an alternative: swapping the pool and the hardscape (putting the pool closer to the house and the hardscape nearer the property line) would typically avoid the need for a variance. Farnsworth and other members also suggested options such as elevating the pool deck, adding benches or planters as barriers, or slightly redesigning the pool arc to move the water line farther from the property line.
A board member asked whether the revocable license with Sea Island would be durable in the long term; Sea Island’s representative said the license is revocable, which the board noted reduces permanence and increases the risk of future changes to the usable yard. The applicant’s team estimated the total project (pool, landscape, fence, drainage) could cost roughly $150,000–$200,000.
Because an initial motion to approve as presented failed to secure a second, the board opened discussion and ultimately a motion was made and seconded to defer the application to the board’s next scheduled meeting on April 10 so the applicant could consult further with the building department, landscape architect and Sea Island representatives and explore design options. The motion to defer carried.
What to expect: staff advised the applicants they can revise the plans—examples discussed included rotating or shrinking the pool, swapping pool/hardscape locations, raising the pool to reduce the terrace‑to‑waterline drop, or adding a compliant pool fence and seating as protective elements. If the applicants return with a design that meets setbacks and code, building staff may be able to stamp and approve the permit without a variance.
Key facts in the record: staff recommended approval contingent on a landscape agreement with Sea Island Company; the proposed pool waterline was shown in staff materials at or within a foot of the property line in one corner; the area behind the property includes buffer space and Sea Island‑owned land beyond the property line; the license discussed with Sea Island was described as revocable.
