The Franklin City Board of Zoning Appeals voted May 1 to deny two variance requests for 1009 Fair Street: one to allow a swimming pool 1 foot from the rear property line (the ordinance requires 5 feet) and a second to allow a retaining wall at the lot line (the ordinance requires a 5‑foot setback for a 2‑foot retaining wall). The denial was 4–1.

Planning staff explained the existing house sits roughly 55 feet back from the front lot line, leaving about 15 feet between the rear facade and the rear property line. Staff said that under ordinance setbacks there would be only 10 feet of usable rear yard, which staff argued was insufficient for a reasonably sized pool and a required retaining wall and therefore concluded criteria were met for both variances; staff also noted historic preservation staff had previously approved a 7‑foot fence but not a retaining wall and that the applicant would need historic approval for a wall if the variance were granted. "Staff recommends that the Board of Zoning Appeals move to approve the variance request to allow a swimming pool to be located a minimum of 1 foot from the rear property line and approve the variance request to allow a retaining wall to be located a minimum of 0 inches from any lot line with the condition that request 1 is approved," staff said during the presentation.

The homeowner, Patrick Hogel, described extensive historic‑district work underway, the property’s deep front setback (which he documented back to the early 1900s) and significant stormwater issues that historically flowed through the backyard and eroded the carriage house; Hogel said the proposed retaining wall and drainage work are intended to capture and redirect stormwater to a front catch basin and alleviate erosion.

Multiple neighbors opposed the variances during public comment. Speakers said the rear yard is small, the proposed pool footprint (described by staff as 9 by 21 feet) would sit close to neighboring yards and that the site’s proposed hardscape and wall could worsen runoff. Neighbors also raised noise concerns and argued the variance would undermine the purpose of the setback ordinance and set an undesirable precedent.

After extended discussion — including two motions to defer and a board member proposal that the applicant install a higher‑end, low‑noise pool filtration system — the board voted 4–1 to deny both variance requests. Board member Flushauer voted no on the denial; Board members Beams, Scales, Langley and Smith voted to deny, effectively keeping the ordinance setbacks in force for this property. Staff reminded the board that a swimming pool permit will require a survey and engineering review of stormwater and that retaining walls under 4 feet total height typically do not require a separate building permit but would still be subject to historic‑overlay approvals if the wall is proposed.