Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance Pools topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Boca Raton planning board rejects Walsh family request to reduce pool rear setback
Summary
The Planning and Zoning Board denied a variance request that would have allowed a new pool at 77 Southeast Olive Way to sit 7 feet from the rear property line instead of the required 10 feet. Staff recommended denial and the motion failed 1–6.
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance Pools topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Planning and Zoning Board of the City of Boca Raton on June 5 denied a variance request from John Walsh that would have allowed a 7-foot rear setback for a proposed pool at 77 Southeast Olive Way, instead of the 10 feet required by the city code.
City zoning officer Pam Kitchen told the board the applicant sought a 3-foot variance from section 28-15,791 of the Boca Raton Code of Ordinances, saying the trapezoid shape of the lot limited buildable space. “Staff recommends denial of this application,” Kitchen said. She noted similar lot shapes on adjacent parcels and said there was room on the property for a reasonable pool without the requested variance.
Petitioner John Walsh said his goal was to replace an outdated, bean-shaped pool with a more rectangular pool and described recent and planned home improvements, including a new balcony near the rear of the house. He told the board the builder of a neighboring lot had placed a retaining wall within an easement that tightened the usable area along his rear property line.
Board members questioned whether the house-to-pool separation had a code minimum (it does not under the Florida Building Code) and whether the pool could be moved closer to the house to avoid the variance; staff noted the home’s 25-foot rear yard setback leaves room to shift a new pool. No members of the public spoke on the item.
A motion to approve the variance failed on a roll call vote, 1–6, with only Commissioner Mitchell voting in favor. The record shows staff and the majority of board members concluded the applicant had not demonstrated the special circumstances required for relief under the code.
