Board approves variance allowing pool to project in front of Oakland Shores home, conditions attached

At its October 2025 meeting the Seminole County Board of Adjustment approved a variance allowing a swimming pool at 601 Lakeshore Drive in the Oakland Shores neighborhood to be located in a front/side yard and to project 8 feet beyond the front of the house, subject to conditions requiring a locking mechanism on the pool enclosure and visual screening consistent with the Seminole County Land Development Code.

Cathy Hamill, Development Services staff, told the board that the residence — built in 1956 and oriented on the lot so that a rear yard pool is infeasible — was issued a building permit in error and construction was halted when the mistake was discovered. Hamill said the pool “meets the 25 foot front yard setbacks along Lakeshore Drive and Magnolia Drive, but extends 8 feet beyond the principal structure,” and that staff recommended approval because denying the variance would leave the applicants with a partially constructed, potentially hazardous hole on the property.

The applicants, Robbie Taylor (owner of 601 Lakeshore Drive and a pool contractor) and Melissa Taylor (co‑owner), said the lot’s topography and existing lanai prevented locating a pool in the backyard. Robbie Taylor told the board, “Basically, we’re here today, because obviously, our backyard is not suitable for a swimming pool.” He said the couple had procured permits and begun work before county staff flagged the error and stopped construction. Melissa Taylor said the partially built pool has left open excavation and exposed rebar close to the house and that the structure and yard were at risk from recent rains.

About a dozen neighbors spoke. Sarah Robinson, who said she lives at 544 Lake Faith Circle, said she and many neighbors support the project and expect the Taylors to install fencing and plantings to provide privacy. Commissioner John Horan, who identified himself to the record and spoke as a supporter, said the neighborhood is older and the Taylor investment in the property is substantial. Carl Hettinger, a nearby resident with construction experience, and Rick Anderson, also of Lakeshore Drive, told the board they backed the applicants and described the Taylors’ prior work in the neighborhood.

Opponents focused on visual impact, precedent and stormwater. Anthony Sabatini, attorney for neighbor Jason White, argued the pool would be visually apparent from the front of nearby homes and could create a qualitative precedent for other requests. Sabatini asked the board either to deny the variance or table it for more fact‑finding about alternatives, including modifying a rear porch. Jason White, who said his house sits downhill from the applicant, warned the proposed pool and deck would “add over 1,200 square feet of non pervious surfer surface, which will significantly increase storm water runoff towards our property,” and described prior county work on his driveway and drains designed to address flooding. Neighbor Nikki White expressed similar concerns about runoff and said she worried the pool would be built as a business showcase rather than a private amenity.

In rebuttal the Taylors offered to accept conditions: an opaque screen or fence and landscaping to block views from the street and neighbors, locking gates and pool alarms for safety, and drainage measures tied into existing swales and ditches. Robbie Taylor said they would sign an agreement to make screening a condition of approval.

Board member Evans moved to approve the variance, saying the lot is unusually configured and the owners would be deprived of an otherwise common residential amenity; he proposed making approval conditional on a locking mechanism for the outside fence and visual abatement (fencing/landscaping) that complies with the land‑development code. The motion was seconded and passed on a voice vote (aye/nay recorded). The board did not record a roll‑call tally.

The board’s approval was limited to the variance request before it; staff said any specific fence height or opaque screening that conflicts with setback provisions would require either a separate variance or explicit drafting into the development order. The board noted that county staff can assist neighbors with the 15‑day appeal process to the Board of County Commissioners.

Ending: The board approved the permit variance with conditions intended to reduce visual impact and safety risks while acknowledging neighbors’ drainage concerns. The development order will memorialize the conditions; neighbors and applicants will receive guidance from county staff about the appeals process and implementation steps.