Clay County board approves variance allowing Prairiefield homeowner a closer rear-yard pool

The Clay County Board of Zoning Adjustment voted to approve variance case 25-139 on Dec. 16, 2025, permitting a homeowner in the Prairiefield subdivision to install an in-ground pool closer to the rear property line than the RSDM zoning district normally allows. The board recorded three yes votes and announced the motion carried.

Staff presented the case as a request to vary the 15-foot minimum rear setback for accessory structures in RSDM zoning. The staff report, entered into the record, included a site plan overlaid on GIS mapping, a summary of the four variance criteria, and public-notice actions: a published notice, an on-site sign and 68 mailed notices to properties within 1,000 feet. Staff said it had received questions but no written or telephone opposition.

Greg Brick, the applicant, described plans for a 14-by-30 fiberglass in-ground pool sited roughly 7 feet from the rear property line (he noted the pool's 6-inch lip would effectively make the distance about 8 feet). Brick said the lot is roughly a quarter-acre in the Prairiefield subdivision north of Liberty and showed photographs and mapping that, he said, indicate approximately 20 feet of green space between his lot and rear neighbors. ‘‘We bought the house intending to do this,’’ Brick said, adding the pool is for family use and that he had invested in landscaping to screen equipment.

Staff summarized the technical issue driving the request: accessory structures in the RSDM district are subject to a 15-foot rear setback even though RSDM is one of the denser unincorporated residential zones. Commissioner John Carpenter said he was surprised by that standard and indicated the disparity between lot sizes and the setback standard suggested the county's Land Development Code should be reviewed. ‘‘I was surprised because the RSDM zoning is one of our most dense zonings...it was 15 feet,’’ Carpenter said, and the board and staff discussed the prospect of proposing a code revision to address similar future cases.

During the meeting, staff reiterated that the burden of proof for the variance rests with the applicant and that staff had followed public-notice requirements. The board moved to approve the variance; an unidentified commissioner made the motion and it was seconded. In the roll call, John Carpenter, Joanne Lawson and Scott Wagner voted yes and the chair announced the motion carried.

The chair told the applicant to coordinate next steps with Mister Jones or county staff. The meeting closed after a brief reminder that the January meeting is scheduled for Jan. 28 and that the board must elect a chair and vice chair that month per the bylaws.

What happens next: With the variance granted, the applicant may proceed with permitting and final coordination with county staff; the transcript records that staff will take the approved matter forward with the applicant for implementation.