Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Setback Pool topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Variance granted for corner‑lot pool in South Tampa; board conditions fence code compliance
Summary
The board granted a front‑yard setback variance to allow a residential pool 3 feet from North Woodrow on a corner lot at 517 W. Plaza Place, conditioned on the site plan showing the pool only and on the fence meeting city code requirements.
The Variance Review Board on Feb. 11 granted a setback variance to allow installation of a narrow pool and deck at 517 West Plaza Place, reducing the North Woodrow front-yard setback from the code-required 20 feet to 3 feet for the pool footprint.
Ryan (or Brian) Marsh, representing the homeowner, told the board the pool is only 11 feet wide and the yard functions as a second front yard because the house fronts both West Plaza and North Woodrow. Marsh said the proposed water line would be 14.1 feet from the curb at the nearest point and noted the existing fence currently sits roughly 9.1 feet from the curb.
Staff advised the board that mitigation plantings installed at the time the home was built may need relocation if impacted during construction and that impervious area and other permitting checks will be confirmed at the time of permitting. Staff also noted that 6‑foot fences are not permitted in front yards; a solid fence in the front yard would be limited to 3 feet, so the applicant should expect separate compliance or permitting for any nonconforming fence.
After public comment in support and discussion about visibility and neighborhood aesthetics, the board approved the variance for construction of the pool only. The approval was conditioned so the recorded approval cover only the pool and deck area shown on the site plan and that “the fence will meet all existing code requirements,” as a board member requested during the motion. The board emphasized that other departments’ code requirements and permitting processes remain in force for the property.
Board members noted the hardship criteria for corner lots with two front yards and accepted the applicant’s evidence that the proposed pool location is the only practical spot without creating additional nonconformities. The motion carried by voice vote.
