Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variances topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies 2‑foot rear‑setback variance for pool at 612 SE Third Avenue
Summary
The Board of Adjustment denied a request to reduce the required rear setback for a private pool from 10 feet to 8 feet at 612 SE Third Avenue, finding the application did not secure the required affirmative votes on the variance findings; a subsequent motion to reconsider failed to pass.
The City of Delray Beach Board of Adjustment voted on March 6 to deny a request to reduce the rear setback for a private swimming pool at 612 SE Third Avenue from 10 feet to 8 feet.
Corey O'Gorman of Place Planning, representing owner Garrett Bender, told the board the lot is a legal nonconforming lot recorded as 50 by 130 (about 6,500 square feet) and that the pool and pool deck were designed to meet setbacks prior to the city’s requirement for a two‑foot alley dedication. “We’re requesting a 2 foot setback variance for the rear setback for [a] swimming pool at the property located at 612 SE Third Avenue,” O'Gorman said, explaining the dedication requirement reduced available rear yard depth during the permitting review.
Jennifer Bews, planner for Development Services, summarized the file before the board and noted the parcel is in the R‑1A district and was platted historically; she also showed aerial and plan graphics of the alley system and the proposed pool location. Staff and the applicant agreed the alley currently functions at roughly 16 feet and that the required dedications are intended to bring alley right‑of‑way widths to the current standard in the future.
Board members questioned whether the pool form, deck width and other layout choices had been considered when the house was permitted, whether two‑way alley circulation would be affected, and whether the proposed pool could be reduced or shifted to avoid a variance. The applicant responded that the pool was designed with a 5‑foot deck perimeter and that changing the pool would undermine intended deck and seating areas.
When the board considered the required variance findings under LDR section 2.411(a)(5), it did not achieve five affirmative votes on the initial element votes; after that result the board moved to deny the variance. A motion to deny passed in a recorded vote with the six members present voting yes (Jesse Schlosser; Tianna Morales; John Delacchio; Brenda Cullinan; Mark Ronald; Richard Casor). The board later considered and voted on a motion to reconsider the denial; that reconsideration motion produced a split, tied vote and did not pass, leaving the denial as the final action.
Why it matters: The board’s decision preserves the 10‑foot rear setback requirement for private pools in this instance and underscores that right‑of‑way dedications taken during permitting can create constraints that do not automatically translate into approval of equivalent setback relief.
What the file included: Staff reported the lot was platted in the Osceola Park subdivision (early plat), is legally nonconforming in size compared with modern R‑1A minima, and that the alley behind the property is paved and operates at roughly 16 feet currently. The applicant proposed a 30‑by‑12‑foot pool with a 5‑foot deck, and requested the two‑foot variance to preserve that layout after the required alley dedication.
