Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Spring Hill BZA approves rear-setback variance for sunroom at 2025 Morton Drive
Summary
The Spring Hill Board of Zoning Appeals approved a variance allowing an enclosed sunroom to reduce the rear setback from 25 feet to 15 feet at 2025 Morton Drive; staff had recommended denial and the motion passed 2-1.
The Spring Hill Board of Zoning Appeals on July 15 approved a variance that will allow homeowners at 2025 Morton Drive to enclose and extend an existing patio into a sunroom, reducing the required 25-foot rear setback to about 15 feet.
Senior Planner Gil Moran told the board the property is zoned R-2 and is roughly 0.319 acres, and that under UDC Article 4 the minimum rear setback for the zone is 25 feet. Moran said the proposed project would enclose an existing 10-by-10 concrete patio and extend it to approximately 12-by-16 feet, equating to a 10-foot reduction of the rear major building setback. "Staff recommends denial of the request," Moran said, but provided suggested findings the board could adopt if it found the statutory variance test met.
Avi Elfersi, the contractor for applicants Betsy and Marco Pangalos, told the board the proposed sunroom needs to sit off the kitchen and back door to serve its intended use and to provide accessible space for Betsy, who "recently" injured her back. Elfersi said the property is very private, surrounded on three sides by holly trees and with an empty lot behind, and that building materials will "match the house" (siding and roofing shingles), which he said were omitted from the application submittal in error.
During deliberations the board reviewed the three-part legal variance test staff supplied and discussed alternative locations such as placing a sunroom adjacent to the garage. Board members noted staff had not received calls of opposition from neighbors. One member emphasized the board's role to apply the legal test rather than substitute preferences on design.
A motion to "adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law and approve BZA18502025, subject to staff conditions of approval as set forth in the staff report" passed on a 2-1 vote. The transcript records the final tally (2–1) but does not record an individual roll-call showing which members voted yes or no.
The board’s formal approval is subject to the staff conditions listed in the staff report; staff also noted that a denial would not preclude the applicants from proposing a compliant sunroom elsewhere on the lot. The board did not reopen the public hearing after closing it and moved on to the next agenda item.
