Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board denies variance for screen enclosure at 119 Gaillardia Loop after neighbor opposition
Summary
The Planning & Zoning Board denied a request to reduce front and side yard setbacks so a homeowner could build a screened pool enclosure at 119 Gaillardia Loop after multiple neighbors and the board cited privacy, HOA noncompliance and avoidable hardship.
The Planning & Zoning Board on a unanimous roll call denied a variance request to reduce the front-yard setback along the alley from 15 feet to 5 feet and the side-yard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet at 119 Gaillardia Loop, which the applicant sought to allow construction of a screened enclosure over an existing pool.
Neighbors who live directly behind the property told the board the enclosure would block views and shrink otherwise small yards, and said the claimed tree-removal hardship was created when trees were removed from the lot. “A variance would place a large metal structure directly in our sight line,” Kelly Zadimund said during public comment, adding that cedar trees the applicant cited as a hardship had been removed and that a fence or plantings would provide better privacy than a screened enclosure.
The board’s staff report said the pool itself met city setback rules when measured from the water’s edge, and that the board may approve a variance under Section 28-29 of the land‑development code when specific standards are met. Multiple neighbors and a Pelican Reef homeowners‑association member told the board the pool had been built inside setback and asserted the owner did not follow recorded HOA restrictions. Staff noted 11 notices were mailed and that there were written comments; two neighbors appeared in opposition and several asked for mitigation such as a fence or plantings.
Board members questioned whether the owner had demonstrated an “unnecessary and undue hardship” required for a variance and noted alternative options — landscaping or a fence — that could provide privacy without a structure in the setback. One board member said the house had been shifted on the lot during a prior PZB hearing to save front trees and that cedars later removed on the rear lot were the subject of a separate code‑enforcement case.
Motion and vote: A motion to deny the variance was moved and seconded; roll call votes recorded: Matthew Schafer — yes; Charles Pappas — yes; Susan Johns — yes; Mike Davis — yes; Ashley Barnes — yes; Carl Blow — yes. The board clerk read the motion as a denial of application 2025‑0064. The board included in the motion findings that the application failed to meet the variance criteria, including that the owner had not shown they were unable to make reasonable use of the property and that the disadvantage was not created by conditions beyond the owner’s control.
The applicant’s representative told the board the homeowner had obtained HOA approval for an enclosure and planned to replant cedars to meet neighborhood requirements, and described the screen as a privacy screen intended to block sightlines. Neighbors disputed those claims and said they would prefer a fence or planting buffer if privacy were the issue. The board’s action does not change the pool’s status; staff advised that the pool met the city’s four‑inch‑to‑water‑edge setback rules but the enclosure would have been inside yard setbacks.
The denial closes the variance application; any further changes (for example a proposal for different mitigation or an appeal) would require either a revised application or other enforcement remedies by affected neighbors or the HOA.
