Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Glynn County approves spa setback variance at Sea Island property after divided hearing
Loading...
Summary
The Glynn County planning panel approved a variance allowing a spa to intrude 3.5 feet into a 7-foot rear setback at 106 Dunkel Lane, Sea Island, after hearing that the Ocean Forest POA and Sea Island Company had reviewed or approved the proposal; the vote was divided and opponents called the hardship self-imposed.
The Glynn County planning panel approved a variance to allow a proposed spa to extend 3.5 feet into a seven-foot rear setback at 106 Dunkel Lane on Sea Island for owners Walter B. McClellan Jr. and Christina McClellan.
Maurice Coastal, Glynn County planning staff, told the panel the request was for relief from the Forest Cottages Planned Development (PD) to allow the spa to intrude into the rear setback; staff displayed a survey, site photos and a previous pool location and noted the Ocean Forest property owners association (POA) design-review committee had reviewed and approved the Sea Island submission in March. Coastal said the applicant had also submitted a building-permit application for the pool (permit record shown as P0L2536).
Christina McClelland, one of the homeowners, said she and her contractor had obtained approved plans from Ocean Forest and Sea Island and brought those stamped plans to the hearing. “We have the actual approved plans,” McClelland said, adding she and the design team had explored alternatives and that the pool had already been demoed under the contractor’s direction before county setback issues were raised.
Design-team members told the panel they had examined multiple layouts. Blake Hotzower of Salt Design Group said the drawing’s scale may contain a typographic error and offered to resubmit a corrected, stamped overlay matched to the survey: “We can resubmit this drawing and confirm all scales,” Hotzower said. Beau Parker, also on the design team, said the firm had reviewed nearby parcels and permit records and believed past development in the PD showed similar intrusions on neighboring lots.
Several panel members questioned whether the situation represented a true hardship or a self-imposed design choice. One member summarized the concern as: the lot is about 12,000 square feet and the applicant’s need for the spa was a design choice rather than an unavoidable constraint. Staff and several board members proposed alternatives—shifting the pool toward the rear setback line, flipping the spa to the other side of the pool, or using a freestanding (mobile) hot tub—any of which could reduce or eliminate the need for a variance.
After extended discussion and competing proposals from staff, the design team and the homeowners, a board member moved to approve the variance “as stated,” citing that Ocean Forest and Sea Island had approved the proposal; the motion carried on a divided vote. County staff reminded the homeowners that a divided approval may be appealed, and that under county ordinances a failure to act would be a denial; staff also noted the homeowners could pursue property-line resolution with Sea Island if Sea Island were willing to cede land.
The record submitted to the panel included a stamped Ocean Forest approval uploaded by the applicant, prior aerials and permit records for neighboring lots, the project survey, site photos and contractor drawings. Panel members asked the applicant and design team to provide a stamped, survey-matched overlay of the proposed spa and pool if the case were appealed or if revised plans were required.
