Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Highland Park ZBA continues variance for pool, gazebo and buried equipment at 2021 Old Briar Road
Loading...
Summary
After hearing staff, the applicant’s representative and a nearby neighbor, the Highland Park Zoning Board of Appeals continued VAR 202500058 for 2021 Old Briar Road to a date uncertain. Board members cited large encroachments, missing engineering and landscape plans, and neighbor concerns about flooding, visual impacts and equipment exhaust.
The Highland Park Zoning Board of Appeals on Jan. 15, 2026 continued a requested variance for a new swimming pool, a gazebo and a buried pool-equipment vault at 2021 Old Briar Road after members said they lacked enough information to grant substantial relief.
Patrick, planning staff, described the application as VAR 202500058 for a corner lot at Old Briar Road and Red Oak Lane in the R-4 zoning district. Staff said the request would allow the pool to encroach into the north side-yard setback (a 19-foot standard) by about 6.5 feet; the gazebo and buried equipment vault would encroach into the east side-yard (a 12-foot standard) by about 9 feet and into the north side-yard by about 8.5 feet. Staff also said the property was newly constructed (permit filed in 2023, completed in 2024), that new renderings were submitted only recently and that no city building or engineering comments had been received for the packet.
Mike Salazar of Platinum Pools, sworn as the applicant’s representative, said the client (identified in the record as Beau) requested relief because the corner lot has two frontages and large front-yard requirements that reduce buildable area. Salazar said the applicant sought a 12-foot northern setback for the pool — rather than the 19-foot standard — to avoid easements and to keep the pool away from the house foundation. He said the buried equipment vault would sit under the proposed gazebo, with a hatch on top, and that full engineering and landscape plans are typically prepared for permits and could be provided if the board wanted them.
A nearby neighbor, Mark Siegel of 243 Red Oak, told the board he and other adjacent residents were concerned that adding impervious area could exacerbate existing flooding and grading problems in the shared rear-yard area and that the proposed solid fence, flat-roof gazebo and the vault’s exhaust could create visual and nuisance impacts adjacent to his kitchen. Siegel urged the board to see full engineering and landscaping plans before deciding.
Board members pressed both the applicant and staff on technical details. Members asked about pool depth (Salazar said about 6 feet), distance from pool to the house (about 17 feet), whether the vault could be relocated, and whether the gazebo could be removed or shifted to reduce the zoning request. Several members said the written hardship did not adequately explain why the gazebo or the buried vault must be located where proposed and suggested alternatives: move the pool closer to the home, remove the gazebo, or provide a landscaping plan and engineering drawings that address drainage, exhaust and visual screening.
After deliberation, the board voted to continue the case to a date certain so the applicant can supply additional information and re-notice neighbors. Staff noted the petitioner may provide either conceptual landscape plans (lower-cost) or full civil engineering sets for staff and neighbor review. The board’s motion to continue was moved by Member Forschancini and seconded; a roll call produced affirmative responses from members who answered during that call, and the chair declared the matter continued and to be re-noticed.
Next steps: the applicant was asked to consult with neighbors, consider removing or relocating the gazebo and equipment vault, and to provide either conceptual landscaping or engineering materials for the board’s review at a future meeting. The board said the applicant must re-notice adjacent neighbors for the continued hearing.
